Confederate flag: Washington and Lee University removing display (Lee's Chapel)

[Larry]

Ummm....yeah. I said that technology would've eventually phased out Southern slavery on it's own. I also said that the Civil War could've been prevented if the Federal Government funded the development of agricultural technology to speed up the process instead of funding a war. What's so hard to understand about that?

When, exactly, do you believe this completely fictional scenario you've completely made up, would have happened?

For example, should this federal investment in agricultural technology, the one that would have prevented the war from even happening, have been done before the southern states seceded? Or after?

[JMS]

Neo-confederate revisionism is only common sense if you want it to be.

I think there were many reasons for fighting the civil war on both sides, and those reasons changed throughout the conflict. If you don't possess a nuanced brain and need to find a single blanket answer for why the war was fought slavery is more accurate than some other answers..

Lincoln was the first President of the republican party. A party founded to abolish slavery. But Lincoln did not invade the south or fight the civil war to abolish slavery. In his own words he did so to preserve the union and would have allowed slavery to continue if he could have avoided war. So the North which Invaded the South didn't do so for Slavery...

Slavery was not in jeopardy of being outlawed when the southern states seceded. Slavery was however at the basis of the cultural differences which formed the two distinct cultures who fought the war.

Also of coarse the abolition of slavery was probable the greatest and most lasting result of the war.

 

You could say there would have been no civil war without Slavery... yet slavery is not the reason why the average Southerner fought.   The average southerner didn't own slavers.   Just like abolition of slavery was not the reason the average Northerner fought.    The reasons given they actually did fight were likely equally as meaningful to both sides.. Preserve the Union and State's Rights.

 

Abolishon of Slavery was just the result.    It was a prize Lincoln wrangled out of his strong position even then he had to sell it with a dozen different reasons the least important of which was long time freedom of African Americans.

[War Paint]

The federal government didn't fund anything like that back then.  The idea would never have occurred to anyone, even anyone understood that this would "speed up the process of the ending of slavery."  No one would have understood that idea either.  These are all concepts that require late 20th century understandings of government and economics.  

 

Moreover, a huge part of the wealth in the south was in the slaves themselves.   The south had absolutely no interest in devaluing their own capital stock.

Well, if that's the case, what was the Federal Government doing with all that tariff money?

[Predicto]

 

 

What you are suggesting isn't a case where one person had to see things slightly differently.  You really are requiring essentially the whole US to have a different perspective.

 

 

That's how revisionist history works.  

 

Even though the Southern leaders openly said in all of their official speeches and official succession statements that the war fundamentally was about protecting the institution of slavery, an institution required by nature and ordained by God himself in the Bible.....

 

decades after the war was over and the South had lost it became more and more clear that this was a repulsive justification and it made the Confederacy look horrible.  Therefore, defending slavery was no longer what you want to talk about.   The open justification of slavery make in the past must be abandoned (otherwise you will have to admit that "your side" was in the wrong).  

 

So the argument gets changed.  So you start to claim that the conflict was about abstract "states rights."  That makes your side look better, for a while.  Unfortunately, when the civil rights movement comes along and it becomes obvious "states rights" is just a veneer for justifying racism and discrimination, that terminology is not longer useful and it must be abandoned again (otherwise you will have to admit that "your side" was in the wrong).  

 

So the argument gets changed.  You start to claim that "slavery would have died a natural death if not for those bloodthirsty Northerners" or "it was really about tariffs."

 

It wasn't about tariffs.  It wasn't about bloodthirsty Abraham Lincoln.  It was about slavery.  Most immediately, it was about whether slavery would be expanded to all of the new western states that were joining the union.  Fundamentally, it laways went back to slavery.  

 

The only reason to deny it is because you don't want "your side" to be in the wrong.

[War Paint]

When, exactly, do you believe this completely fictional scenario you've completely made up, would have happened?

For example, should this federal investment in agricultural technology, the one that would have prevented the war from even happening, have been done before the southern states seceded? Or after?

Before.  Obviously it was a fictional scenario because it never happened.  Duh.....

That's how revisionist history works.  

 

Even though the Southern leaders openly said in all of their official speeches and official succession statements that the war fundamentally was about protecting the institution of slavery, an institution required by nature and ordained by God himself in the Bible.....

 

decades after the war was over and the South had lost it became more and more clear that this was a repulsive justification and it made the Confederacy look horrible.  Therefore, defending slavery was no longer what you want to talk about.   The open justification of slavery make in the past must be abandoned (otherwise you will have to admit that "your side" was in the wrong).  

 

So the argument gets changed.  So you start to claim that the conflict was about abstract "states rights."  That makes your side look better, for a while.  Unfortunately, when the civil rights movement comes along and it becomes obvious "states rights" is just a veneer for justifying racism and discrimination, that terminology is not longer useful and it must be abandoned again (otherwise you will have to admit that "your side" was in the wrong).  

 

So the argument gets changed.  You start to claim that "slavery would have died a natural death if not for those bloodthirsty Northerners" or "it was really about tariffs."

 

It wasn't about tariffs.  It wasn't about bloodthirsty Abraham Lincoln.  It was about slavery.  Most immediately, it was about whether slavery would be expanded to all of the new western states that were joining the union.  Fundamentally, it laways went back to slavery.  

 

The only reason to deny it is because you don't want "your side" to be in the wrong.

Well, you can choose to believe that all you want to.  I prefer non-carpetbagging history books.

[Larry]

The only reason to deny it is because you don't want "your side" to be in the wrong.

What really annoys me, is the huge numbers of people, 150 years afterwards, who consider the anti-American, pro-slavery, losing side, to be THEIR side.

Dudes, pick a different football team to cheer for. The one you're picking played their last game more than 100 years before you were born. (And they were morally wrong. And they lost.)

[Predicto]

Well, if that's the case, what was the Federal Government doing with all that tariff money?

 

 

Paying for the army and navy mostly.   We didn't have an income tax or property tax or corporate tax.  Tariffs on imported goods paid for almost everything.  

[mcsluggo]

Well, if that's the case, what was the Federal Government doing with all that tariff money?

there were no income taxes.  Tariff revenue was the country's largest  stream of revenue (I think -- i know it was earlier than the civil war).  A tariff boiled down to a targeted consumption tax, but it is relatively easy to  implement-- you only have to have tariff officers in ports, rather than having a whole bureaucracy set up to collect more diffuse streams of income.

[Larry]

Before. Obviously it was a fictional scenario because it never happened. Duh.....

Well, you can choose to believe that all you want to. I prefer non-carpetbagging history books.

You prefer desperately inventing FICTIONAL history books.

But feel free to keep pretending that you're doing it because reality is discriminating against you.

[mcsluggo]

Paying for the army and navy mostly.   We didn't have an income tax or property tax or corporate tax.  Tariffs on imported goods paid for almost everything.  

yeah...  what HE said... ^^^^

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Before.  Obviously it was a fictional scenario because it never happened.  Duh.....

 

Okay. So during the Van Buren adminstration, someone gets the idea that the federal government needs to fund advancements in farming technology.....What happens next?

 

Today, you would send money to, like, Georgia Tech or something. Georgia Tech was 50 years away from existing. I guess you could form a partnership with a land-grant college, but that idea did not exist until the late 1840s and the schools themselves did not exist until the 1860s.

 

So, who gets the government money to build the technology?

[Larry]

there were no income taxes. Tariff revenue was the country's largest stream of revenue (I think -- i know it was earlier than the civil war). A tariff boiled down to a targeted consumption tax, but it is relatively easy to implement-- you only have to have tariff officers in ports, rather than having a whole bureaucracy set up to collect more diffuse streams of income.

And it encourages the development of domestic goods. Something which was certainly in the national interest.

[mcsluggo]

 

Well, you can choose to believe that all you want to.  I prefer non-carpetbagging history books.

 

this should be your signature here... 

[Larry]

Okay. So during the Van Buren adminstration, someone gets the idea that the federal government needs to fund advancements in farming technology.....What happens next?

Today, you would send money to, like, Georgia Tech or something. Georgia Tech was 50 years away from existing. I guess you could form a partnership with a land-grant college, but that idea did not exist until the late 1840s and the schools themselves did not exist until the 1860s.

So, who gets the government money to build the technology?

And don't forget. This fictional person who came up with this idea? His selling point is "I think that, if we commit this nation to the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a robot in a cotton field, and returning it safely to the barn, and doing it cheaper than the person who's doing it right now (for free), then we can FREE THE SLAVES".

His odds of selling this idea, are . . . ?

[War Paint]

Paying for the army and navy mostly.   We didn't have an income tax or property tax or corporate tax.  Tariffs on imported goods paid for almost everything.  

No, it was mostly used to fund the construction and industrial growth of the North.

[Predicto]

 

Well, you can choose to believe that all you want to.  I prefer non-carpetbagging history books.

 

LOL.   Carpetbagging.  

 

Which are your favorite "history books?"  The recent neo-confederate libertarian ones by Thomas Dilorenzo and Charles Adams?

 

The decades of articles in Southern Partisan?

 

Or maybe the old "Lost Cause" mythologies from the turn of the century?   

[PeterMP]

Well, if that's the case, what was the Federal Government doing with all that tariff money?

 

The federal budget in 1850:

 

Research: $0

 

Same with agriculture.

 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_1850USmn_15ms2n_80868U3031#usgs302

 

1860 same thing:

 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_1860USmn_15ms2n_80868U303183#usgs302

 

The military and post office seem to have been the big expenses.

 

I suspect practically the money was going to settling the west (i.e. suppressing Native Americans) and things like the mission to Japan.

 

No, it was mostly used to fund the construction and industrial growth of the North.

 

I'd like to see a link for that.

[War Paint]

You prefer desperately inventing FICTIONAL history books.

But feel free to keep pretending that you're doing it because reality is discriminating against you

Larry, I don't understand where you're coming from.  You don't make any sense.  I was obviously bringing up hypothetical scenarios and what ifs.  I never said it was historical fact or "inventing" history books.    

[Rocky21]

Oh my God the self-righteous posts in this thread are far more nauseating than the Southern apologists. 

 

I guess we’ve gotten a little far from the OP.  If there were ever an appropriate place to fly the Battle flag of Northern Virginia it would be in Lee Chapel on the Washington and Lee campus.    

[War Paint]

 

LOL.   Carpetbagging.  

 

Which are your favorite "history books?"  The recent neo-confederate libertarian ones by Thomas Dilorenzo and Charles Adams?

 

The decades of articles in Southern Partisan?

 

Or maybe the old "Lost Cause" mythologies from the turn of the century?   

No, but I might check those out.  Thanks for the recommendation.

[Larry]

No, it was mostly used to fund the construction and industrial growth of the North.

You of course have support for this claim, right?

[Predicto]

Oh my God the self-righteous posts in this thread are far more nauseating than the Southern apologists. 

 

 

 

 

You are surprised that people on a message board don't just sit quietly when someone throws out Lost Cause mythology to justify the Confederacy?  

[War Paint]

I'd like to see a link for that.

Just research "Protective Tariffs".  For starters, the Tariff of 1828.

 

The Tariff of 1828, was a protective tariff passed by the Congress of the United States on May 19, 1828 designed to protect industry in the northern United States. It was labeled the Tariff of Abominations by its southern detractors because of the effects it had on the antebellum Southern economy.

The goal of the tariff was to protect industries in the northern United States which were being driven out of business by low-priced imported goods by putting a tax on them. The South, however, was harmed firstly by having to pay higher prices on goods the region did not produce, and secondly because reducing the importation of British goods made it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they imported from the South.^[1] The reaction in the South, particularly in South Carolina, would lead to the Nullification Crisis that began in late 1832.^[2]

The Tariff marked the high point of US tariffs, being approached but not exceeded by the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.^[3]

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Tariff_of_1828.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_Abominations

[PeterMP]

Just research "Protective Tariffs".  For starters, the Tariff of 1828.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Tariff_of_1828.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_Abominations

 

But the money the federal government was getting wasn't going to building northern industry.

 

And it didn't favor the north particularly over the south.  For various other reasons that happened primarily in north, but the tarrifs would have favored US protections of everything.  It would have protected southern farmers from cotton produced else where.

 

The end result was to build US industry.

 

But it isn't like the US federal government was spending money to build ANY industry.

 

As other have already stated, it was protectionism as tariffs almost always are.

 

That favored the building of industry in the US.

 

Your question was:

 

"Well, if that's the case, what was the Federal Government doing with all that tariff money?"

 

The money the federal government was collecting was going mostly to the post office and the military, not to building industry any where.

 

I'll also point out that your link states that the high point was in 1828.  30+ years before the Civil War.

[Larry]

Just research "Protective Tariffs".  For starters, the Tariff of 1828.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Tariff_of_1828.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_Abominations

1) Tariffs are not spending. (Remember? The question was "what was the government doing with the money?")

2) Said tariffs encouraged the development of Northern industries? Or domestic industries?