Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Spoken like a man. But, don't forget that in the case of the North and South the man (North) received the house, kids, car, dog, savings account....
Rose
Only because they won. Shocking that.
Like I said an anology that is mostly contrived and can be made to have any conclusion wanted.
I can't help to recall that Lady Liberty is a lady...
If one side wnated to start a war to keep millions in bondage; forgive me if I hold those politicos who started it in contempt.
I can't say that I know of any divorces where the couple are fast friends. Of coarse a divorce today is quite easy to accomplish and viewed w/ considerably less distaste than in the 19th Century.
If you wish to persue the Divorce analogy I suppose I would see it as this. The woman (CS) opted on a divorce. Instead of filing w/ the court and serving her husband w/ papers and then waiting the 18 mos (I believe that the is SC modern "cooling off" period) she went and grabbed everything she could lay her hands upon that was joint ownership and whie he politely held his tounge she went one step further and took a shot at him. She missed... the husband retaliated by retrieving his portion of the property and not feeling inclined to be civil to such a woman anymore broke a whole lot of stuff in the process.
Now the husband had always been a little put off by is wife keeping the children chained up in the backyard so he let the kids loose in the process... He still isn't sure what made the wife madder: fighting back or letting those children loose.
At least the neighbors agreed w/ him about the children because they refused to help as long as those kids were still chained up.
Pretty foolish analogy eh... as I said the anology can be twisted to prove whatever you liked.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
The scenario about a husband and wife getting a divorce can be compared to the problems and causes of the Civil War much in the same light as 9/11 can be compared to an angry child tearing down his erector set. It does not convey the horror, the destruction, nor the reasoning behind those who committed such an act. It belittles the conflict and those who were forced to participate in it and those who had to pay the ultimate price, both North and South. Each side knew this conflict was nothing so contrived or as simple as a divorce between a man and a woman.
As for your assumption concerning the tariff being carried by those who exported items, burdened, I believe you described them, you are of course aware of course the US did not have tariffs on exports, only imports. Only the Confederate 'government,' during its short life-span, charged tariffs on both imports and exports.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
The problem with the $1.94 theory is that each man woman and child didn't pay it. The burden fell more heavily on the shoulders of the country's exporters. Since the South exported about 75% of their cotton production they were highly susceptible to the heavier burden.
This position has yet to be demonstrated,
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Ole; All of the Tariff threads have pretty conclusivly proven to me that the Tarriff excuse is little more than a smoke screen. Neil has succeeded in convincing me that Slavery was the primary cause of Secession. Thus there is no doubt whatsoever who started the conflict or why. Their motives... before during and after were despicable.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Shane:
I was hoping someone could prove that there were causes that didn't spring directly from southern paranoia over abolitionist babble and resentment of northern industry. In that way at least, there would be a rational reason.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Pretty foolish analogy eh... as I said the anology can be twisted to prove whatever you liked.
Apparently so. I don't think I can top the one about chaining the kids in the backyard.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
The scenario about a husband and wife getting a divorce can be compared to the problems and causes of the Civil War much in the same light as 9/11 can be compared to an angry child tearing down his erector set. It does not convey the horror, the destruction, nor the reasoning behind those who committed such an act. It belittles the conflict and those who were forced to participate in it and those who had to pay the ultimate price, both North and South.
The analogy wasn't meant to convey the horror.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
Each side knew this conflict was nothing so contrived or as simple as a divorce between a man and a woman.
Yes, I do realize this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
As for your assumption concerning the tariff being carried by those who exported items, burdened, I believe you described them, you are of course aware of course the US did not have tariffs on exports, only imports. Only the Confederate 'government,' during its short life-span, charged tariffs on both imports and exports.
I'm aware that both governments took extraordinary measures in order to finance the war. The CSA knew, at least, whose pocket the tax was going into.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
True. I don't think it ever will be, not on this board, anyway.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
True. I don't think it ever will be, not on this board, anyway.
The statement is made based on exhange of commodities. If this was, in fact, a regular practice, a case can be made for the cotton exporters' overburden. If such a case were made, I'd wonder why there wasn't a lot more screaming from them.
As it is, most of the complaining was about old tariffs and protectionism.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The husband and wife scenario does not convey any point of reality when concerning the Civil War. It is a contrived scenario meant solely to belittle the overall conflict and present one side in a very simple, favorable light, while depicting the other as a wife-beater. While each sides lawyer wished to present to the jury their own clients in the best possible light (an abused wife, a battered husband, etc.), we hope the jury has the sense to view all of the evidence and come to a resoned conclusion based on that evidence.
I am glad to see that you have said that the war could not be reduced to such a simplistic analogy.
I find your other statement puzzling, as you say the South now knew which pockets the tariff and taxes was going in. It is my contention that all knew 'which pockets' it was being placed in before the war and had no problem with it, as aptly shown in the two tariff threads on this board.
While this may have not been demonstrated to your satisfaction, I am sure what Ole meant, it had been demonstrated to his, as I am sure you understood.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
But, don't forget that in the case of the North and South the man (North) received the house, kids, car, dog, savings account....
Shocking that.
Linear Mode
