Discussion in 'Campfire Chat - General Discussions' started by CMWinkler, Feb 21, 2013.
Does that Confederate supporter have a name?
They were on other forums.
I'm curious, Keyser, why carry over arguments from another forum here?
As noted, the responsibility is one you have to yourself.
The limits the Confederate government placed on taxation by constraining lawmakers to rates on the lower end of the Laffer relationship, leads one to believe the threat of higher tariffs had more to do with secession than many realize.
I doubt anyone can access this but it's an essay by economists McGuire and Van Cott. They examined the Confederate tariff laws and other data to support their conclusion.
CMWinkler, I believe you're being unfairly singled out. I don't remember Glorybound being asked to defend the Op-Eds he posted.
hey DV, I can't access that article you linked...can you post any more of it, or summarize it or something?
Mr. Williams has reason to be familiar with Lincoln (or we should think so): back in 2002, he wrote the foreword to The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War by Thomas J.DiLorenzo. You can find this foreword as a page called "DiLorenzo is Right about Lincoln" by Walter E. Williams on Rockwell's web-site.
Another article by Mr. Williams you can find among his many at the Rockwell site: "Want To Understand Lincoln? Read Tom DiLorenzo, says Walter Williams". He is apparently a regular at the web-site, with a great many articles/columns in the archives there.
Actually, no, they were not 75% of US Exports. They were 57% of US exports in 1860, the highest they had ever been.
Like Exports being Exports and Imports being Imports? Or like 57% not being 75%
"Skimmed? As in actually buying and maintaining the ships needed to transfer the goods, paying the crews, covering the insurance and risking the money?
How so? Nothing above would lead to any such conclusion.
Posters -- may I please offer these suggestions in regard to posting in this thread...
1. Not all of the members on CWT are in full knowledge of 'economics' and how it is coupled with 'politics.' So, it would be extremely helpful to those who don't easily follow to simplify without being 'uppity' /'talk down' as to help those reading and who might read in the future the postings.
2. Please be patient with one another. Again, not all are able to follow those who are extremely talented in their grasping of knowledge, especially when there are many spokes leading into a hub --that hub being any topic really but in this thread 'tariffs.'
3. It is not a violation of posting rules to express something 'skewed' especially when it is not the poster's 'expertise`' -- I often find there are times when posters have difficulty in pulling the words out and post them to express their desire for polling opinions and or observations. Not all have the gifts of delivery and it iwould be greatly appreciated by me personally, if all take the opportunity to 'educate' without being condescending or dividing individuals forcing them to take sides, e.g. North/South; Union/Confederacy--etc.
4. CMWinkler, is a "Host" for CWT and has taken it upon himself to attempt to make CWT a bit more 'active' and 'informative.' By posting topics of interests as to be bantered back and forth by the membership is an admirable effort. In other forums, CMWinkler has been very much 'neutral' in his posting things of interests in a historical nature in the "Events" forum. By CMWinker's efforts to post the 'latest' Internet mentions of anything American Civil War, it would be pleasing to recognize the 'intent' to be informative, educational and provoke thought, a chance to inquire and learn from our learned members and to share what we (in a general sense) learn as a whole so all can come to their knowledge. It is most important to weed out the junk on the Internet from the quality pieces posted on the Internet. CWT is gaining interest from the classroom teachers because all the members have been amazing in the 'digging' for the truth and being passionate about aiming for the truth. All of you here are to be commended and with it, my personal appreciation for your continued efforts.
Just some personal thoughts and suggestions.
M. E. Wolf
Yes we should think so, since Williams sees the need to comment so much on Lincoln and his policies. But the fact is that Williams knows little about Lincoln and less about the rebellion or the causes for it.
I'll give you the chance to revise your figures before answering. You're using the percent of cotton only and ignoring rice, tobacco and naval stores, maybe some other products but those four were the big ones.
I'm lucky I have access due to my employer subscribing. The bad thing is I don't have access at home, which is where I'll be in a little over an hour. I can't post from that site and I don't have time to type any more of it.
I can give a brief summary. The authors examined the rates of the 1857 Tariff and compared them to the Confederate tariff, which they found it closely resembled. They used letters and notes of Thomas R. R. Cobb, where he mentioned the Confederate debates on the tariff. They also looked at the Confederate constitutional constraints on taxation for revenue purposes only. In the end they conclude that previous tariff issues while in the Union were issues the Confederacy didn't want in the future.
Sorry for not being more help.
Strange that Williams reduced the 80% figure that DiLorenzo often used in his misquote of Taussig.
There is a section of the Texas secession document that goes more into detail in regards to the complaints of the state.
The document states "The Federal Government.........has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement......."
The state of Texas in this paragraph is complaining about the lack of protection the Federal Government has provided in order to protect its citizens on the exposed frontier from marauders. Furthermore, the Federal Government would not even help cover the costs the state incurred to protect its citizens. The state government had been complaining about this problem for years and this matter was actually unrelated to the issue of slavery.
Right. And they say the reason for the insufficient funding of smiting "ruthless savages" occurs "for the sole reason that she (Texas) is a slave-holding State. " The Texans have explicitly related this issue to slavery in their Declarations of Causes.
OK, I'll bite:
Q: Suppose the Morrill Tarriff had failed in Congress before the 1860 election; but Lincoln had been elected. Would the slave states have remained in the Union?
A: No, they would have seceded anyway.
Q: Suppose the Morrill Tarriff had become law; but Southern Democrat John Breckenridge (who carried 11 slave states) had been elected President over Lincoln. Would the slave states had remained in the Union?
A: Yes, they would have remained in the Union.
Perhaps it's analogous to Twains story about the camel eating his jacket:
In Syria, at the headwaters of the Jordan, a camel took charge of my overcoat while the tents were being pitched, and examined it with a critical eye, all over, with as much interest as if he had an idea of getting one made like it; and then, after he was done figuring on it as an article of apparel, he began to contemplate it as an article of diet.
He put his foot on it, and lifted one of the sleeves out with his teeth, and chewed and chewed at it, gradually taking it in, and all the while opening and closing his eyes in a kind of religious ecstasy, as if he had never tasted anything as good as an overcoat before, in his life.
Then my newspaper correspondence dropped out, and he took a chance in that... But he was treading on dangerous ground now. He began to come across solid wisdom in those documents that was rather weighty on his stomach; and occasionally he would take a joke that would shake him up till it loosened his teeth; it was getting to be perilous times with him, but he held his grip with good courage..., till at last he began to stumble on statements that not even a camel would swallow with impunity.
He began to gag and gasp, and his eyes to stand out, and his forelegs to spread, and in about a quarter of a minute he fell over as stiff as a carpenter’s workbench, and died a death of indescribable agony. I went and pulled the manuscript out of his mouth, and found that the sensitive creature had choked to death on one of the mildest and gentlest statements of fact I ever laid before a trusting public.
Pretty good! I like my Bull, T-bone and Butcher quote better.