what do you mean northen agggression

[greenmtnboy]

No Name calling?  My teachers and education board were Liars ,
our President was a Liar, a scoundrel, Bigot, Racist, Social
Marxis  and am I a Union Member ?   Those are the names YOU thru out not me.
  I served time for this country with many great Men and Women from the South and the North and Im proud to say I did.  I hope you can say the same.  My ancestors served with Fellow Americans in WWI, WWII, Korea, Iraq and who knows where else, They werent divided at all .  They just got the job done and did it shoulder to shoulder.  Now it seems you want to divide this country.
   Your coming North to settle a score, well so be it.  Bring your Couple hundred.  Just be sure its between April and September. Im not sure you could handle the winter here.
   Now theres a little more fuel for you to chew on, But have at it and Im sure you will because what I say Is arguement.  Why?  Because it disagrees with your view on things....  and it was all about the Name. Now Ill stop Trolling as YOU say.     
You have a great day and I wont Intrude on your discussion again.  Just DON'T TREAD ON ME.
                                              Greenmtnboy
     

[SHOOTALL]

GMB , 

[SHOOTALL]

Today I will travel thru. Bedford co Va. where the D-Day mem. is located . Its there because more men died on D-Day from Bedford county than any where else in America North or South.
So the idea that those from the South have not given enough is pure BS.
 It appears that in fact some books and teachers in both North and South were liars . As for the President lets let his actions speak for him not us. As for cold I can take it and enjoy it to a point , love snow hate ice. I could care less about union membership really . I'm not in one by choice , can all union members say they are in by choice or is it the only way to get a job in the CLOSED SHOP STATES ?
Thanks for your service , I mean that !

[williamlayton]

I seem to recall tha SC refused to collect tariff's on goods from Europe.
Correct me where I am wrong.
Blessings

[Empty Quiver]

The south lost the war. The winners write the history books, read your history books.

Buncha sore losers

[williamlayton]

The point I was trying to make was a seeming misunderstanding of the tariffs.
There were no tariffs or taxes on good sold abroad---unless they were collected by the country of entry.
70% of the Population was in the North and at least 75% of shipping entered thru the N/E (northern) ports and consumed there. These ports of entry collected these Tariffs.
I have heard it bantered about here that the South contributed 70% of the Tariffs to US coffers and that these funds were used primarily to benefit the North.
I disagree with the 70% number in contribution amounts but would be willing to discuss this.
The tafiff were a ploy to protect American maufacturing and to also contribute to self sufficency and manufacturing growth in America.
I would also be willing to discuss this.
Blesssings

[Cabin4]

William, you may have partially answered your own question. If 70% of the inbound goods entered through a northern port, then some portion of that would have shifted to a new inbound port in the Confederacy. The Confederacy would have applied the import tax/duty therefore diverting 100% of that portion away from the Union. From an export perspective, the Confederacy would have established it own trade policy and trade lane partners therefore competing with the Union in those foreign markets. This would also have removed volume leverage and Southern unique commodities from the Unions trading leverage with its current foreign trading markets.

[williamlayton]

Cabin
The thoughts and statements I have read here indicated that the South contributed 70% to the US coffers thru tariffs collected in the Sout while they were in the Union--preconflict.
That would be impossible--in my estimation--if these ports only handeled 30% of the imports.
There were no taxes collected for the vast exports the South was making in cotton.
I am not sure about slave imports and how this was handled, but I don't think there was a tariff on flesh--at least none that I remember studying.
I stand to be corrected.
Blessings

[SHOOTALL]

I don't think it was imports but exports that concerned the South.

[williamlayton]

There were no taxes or duties on raw goods leaving the Union.
They were strictly on goods coming in.
Blessings

[SHOOTALL]

better look back to post 1860 .

[williamlayton]

I am. What are you looking at?
Blessings

[SHOOTALL]

Southern raw materials shipped out of country.

[williamlayton]

There were no export duties on raw materials going out.
If I am incorrect show the the statute--I can be wrong.
The Tariff of abmonation was a 38% tariff of goods imported, remebering My constitutional calsses I took it was against the constitution to tax exports.
Blessings

[Cabin4]

Cabin
The thoughts and statements I have read here indicated that the South contributed 70% to the US coffers thru tariffs collected in the Sout while they were in the Union--preconflict.
That would be impossible--in my estimation--if these ports only handeled 30% of the imports.
There were no taxes collected for the vast exports the South was making in cotton.
I am not sure about slave imports and how this was handled, but I don't think there was a tariff on flesh--at least none that I remember studying.
I stand to be corrected.
Blessings

Could it be the import duty/tax rate on the specific goods? As you know, Import duty/tax is applied to the type of commodity. I guess its possible the value of the goods and their duty rate was just higher and therefor more tax revenue even know the overall percentage was lower in volume.

[Gary G]

There were no taxes or duties on raw goods leaving the Union.
They were strictly on goods coming in.
Blessings

The south was the exporter of raw materials. Because of the high tariff protecting nothern industry the south faced retaliatory tariffs in Europe. The south was in effect subsidizing the north by collecting the tariff on industrial goods coming into their ports and sending the money to Washington while having their own profits cut on exports. Also farm equipment was purchased from northern industry and cost forty percent more than it would normally cost because of the protectionism. One side was getting wealthy at the expense of the other. It was a form of redistribution of income which only government can cause.

[williamlayton]

Well, these tariffs were the thorn.
If I were decidedly pro-free trade I would make hay out of the tariffs destruction of free trade.
The bigger picture is a topic we still struggle with today.
We--excluding large oil--would be decidedly better off with less dependence on foreign oil or car imports.
The tariffs got wild and Northern influence was decidedly unrealistic about profits, I agree.
There are two areas of this discussion which need to be reconciled. Tariffs were necesssary--it was the only way the government had to cover overhead. Tariffs which produced a level playing field for American goods was a patriotic goal.
Now, i am going to say this as calmly as can be said. The landed and the rich in the South wanted their cake and to eat it also. It made not a whit to the average guy. Much of the goods that were imported were specialty items from Europe that made life nicer for the rich--and they were getting them less expensively from europe---Wal-Mart must have studied this  .
Blessings

[SHOOTALL]

There were no taxes or duties on raw goods leaving the Union.
They were strictly on goods coming in.
Blessings

The south was the exporter of raw materials. Because of the high tariff protecting nothern industry the south faced retaliatory tariffs in Europe. The south was in effect subsidizing the north by collecting the tariff on industrial goods coming into their ports and sending the money to Washington while having their own profits cut on exports. Also farm equipment was purchased from northern industry and cost forty percent more than it would normally cost because of the protectionism. One side was getting wealthy at the expense of the other. It was a form of redistribution of income which only government can cause.

Thanks !

[williamlayton]

Much of what Gary said is true.
There was the Corn act enacted by GB---a wild tariff, aimed at Corn imported from the US.
There were attempts at compromise. Yes they could get goods from Europe cheaper than they were getting them from the North. That inexpensively is one of the things that can't be answered but is probably as a results of subsidizing exports from GB.
What was needed was for us (America) to be free from any need to dependant on GB.
The Tariffs eventually realized this goal. If the South had invested in manufacturing--free enterprise--this would have been resolved much quicker.
Now we are getting to the heart of much of the concerns.
Transportation was a great problem in the South. yes, there were the N/S rivers--but there was a need for E/W Transportation between these rivers and from the North as well.
There was/were some great mountain ranges that hampered this movement. This was further complicated by un cooperation in the South on standardization of rail gages. Some of this was due to existing RR's and some because of a seeming need for the South to isolate and control.
There was great clamore about the Transcontinal RR to the Pacific---its location and rumors about graft.
What the South failed to understand or comprehend WAs that the RR was going to SF or the Northern part of California. It was most logical for the RR to take Northen route because of logistics. Abe had nothing at stake in the location--and nothing has ever shown that he profited from the routing.
Eventually it was shown that routing's this way were more beneficial for the South also as the RR's branched off and could more easily penetrate the South.

Still misunderstood is that the North was collecting more tariff revenue than the South and their imports.
Blessings

[necred]

lincoln was the first presidential tyrannt this country has had, just like our present wanting to shut down first amendment, lincoln closed newspapers, locked up & retained judges/politicians and restricted almost anyone against his decision to force the South to stay & pay. Yes, we officially lost the war of northern aggression and history about this war continues to change. In the mid-last century the folks new the South was right, however, out of fear of lincoln being know as a tyrannt they have circled the wagons to change/hide the facts about this war. The first lie is to call it a civil war, when Southerners didnt want any part of yankee regime and there in lies our problem today, many of us still dont want any part of this yankee regime, we just wanna be left alone.. There are many Notherners i like & admire but i despise yankees.

[williamlayton]

Necred
Right about what?
Blessings

[Cabin4]

lincoln was the first presidential tyrannt this country has had, just like our present wanting to shut down first amendment, lincoln closed newspapers, locked up & retained judges/politicians and restricted almost anyone against his decision to force the South to stay & pay. Yes, we officially lost the war of northern aggression and history about this war continues to change. In the mid-last century the folks new the South was right, however, out of fear of lincoln being know as a tyrannt they have circled the wagons to change/hide the facts about this war. The first lie is to call it a civil war, when Southerners didnt want any part of yankee regime and there in lies our problem today, many of us still dont want any part of this yankee regime, we just wanna be left alone.. There are many Notherners i like & admire but i despise yankees.

100% correct. Lincoln was a criminal against the People and the Constitution. 10-4

[Spanky]

Every bad thing Lincoln ever did can be swept aside by two words.
EMANCIPATION PROCLOMATION.
He will always be looked upon as a hero.



Spanky

[Buckskin]

Every bad thing Lincoln ever did can be swept aside by two words.
EMANCIPATION PROCLOMATION.
He will always be looked upon as a hero.



Spanky

+1

[williamlayton]

I doubt that any I have read so far have studied what was actually happening during this time period---just what some one has told them to believe.
Study it for yourownself---come too your own conclusions. Sources are not the answer, studying and being able to communicate what you see is more important.
Blessings

[SouthernByGrace]

I doubt that any I have read so far have studied what was actually happening during this time period---just what some one has told them to believe.
Study it for yourownself---come too your own conclusions. Sources are not the answer, studying and being able to communicate what you see is more important.
Blessings

wl, if I am one of the ones you "have read so far" I assure you my friend that NOBODY has told me what to believe. You are completely delusional to think that someone's sources are not the most important part of these discussions. How do you think they found those sources, if not through studying it themselves? Sources are the very heart of these discussions. As I have stated many times, your beliefs are just that. If you make a statement on this forum and you can't (or won't) back it up with where you get your information, then your statement is worthless, as it is strictly your opinion. If you have studied this half as much as you claim, sources wouldn't (or at the very least, Shouldn't) be a problem for you. You remain the only person in this forum that refuses to give them.

As for "what was happening during this time," I assure you I have studied and continue to study with great fervor the events and their causes surrounding this War. My conclusions thus far are Completely and Unequivocally MY OWN. I have no problem whatsoever giving my sources to show where I get my Information and how I came to MY OWN conclusions that NOBODY told me to believe. 

With that being said, I can  now turn my attention to answering Buckskin's question of "what do you mean northern aggression?"
First of all, welcome to the forum, Buckskin. What is popularly known (erroneously so) as the American Civil War is occasionally referred to as the War of Northern Aggression because about 99% of the War was fought in the South. The South legally and peacefully seceded from the Union. There was never any attempt to take over the US government or take one inch of ground from the US from any state that remained in the Union. This is where I'm going to invoke wl's philosophy and say that you need to read true history to understand the events surrounding what happened at Ft. Sumter. From the outside looking in, it surely looks as if S.C. was the first aggressor. But the big question is, Why? If you dig a good bit deeper into the events that happened there, you will find that Lincoln knew if he provoked the South into "firing first" then he would have his "reason" to wage war on the South. I assure you that Lincoln was fully aware, and in fact ordered some of those events to take place by Union Naval forces.
Do some research and you will see why this is called the War of Northern Aggression.

SBG

[Buckskin]

SBG,

I don't think it was my question, but very interesting read and explanation.

[SouthernByGrace]

LOL, I see what you mean.
People sometimes just simply don't know anything more than what was taught to them in the history books. At face value it would seem pretty straight forward. That's what the government wants you to think.

Anyway, welcome. And thanks for your post. Hope you can stick around awhile.

SBG

[williamlayton]

SBG
I doubt you were the one I was pinpointing but it is impossible not to recognize those that have not.
I suggest that you study what a rebellion is, what the normal results are when it is a lose cause---and some intersting facts about how those that lose handle the lost.
Some good books came out of Germany after WWII denouncing the agression shown towards Germany.
Now I will tell you as I told another. I discuss many angles and I give my opinion, I also defend my thoughts. Now if you want to take this to the same level you may do so.
Blessings

[Dee]

Well I have researched over the years much of what I have said, as I found it interestingly in conflict with what is being taught today. For instance: out going tariffs of outgoing textiles i.e. COTTON to Europe. The southern growers were being TAXED 10% for selling cotton to Europe instead of the "industrialized north" whom wanted to buy it at a cheaper price. The government in trying to force the southern growers into reducing their prices and selling it to the "industrialized north" imposed this "export tax". Lincoln promised, if elected, that he would increase the "export tax" to 20%, further "twisting the arm of the south" to comply with the "industrialized north's" wishes.
THEN AS NOW, THE NORTHERN BUSINESSES WERE RUNNING THE GOVERNMENT.

AS FOR THE HUMANITARIN LINCOLN. READ HIS SPEECHES CONCERNING THE BLACK MAN. YES, HE IS REGARDED AS A HERO FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, BUT HE WAS IN FACT A RACIST-BIGOT, THAT INTENDED TO EXPELL ALL BLACK FOR AMERICA, TO A WONDERFUL LAND CALLED LIBERIA.
ANDREW JACKSON WAS ALSO CONSIDERED AN AMERICAN HERO, BUT HIS ANSWER AS PRESIDENT TO THE INDIAN PROBLEM WAS TOTAL EXTINCTION OF THAT GROUP OF FOLKS.

With this said, AGAIN. I really have nothing else to add. One can accept the DOCUMENTED TRUTH, or may choose to continue to bump around in the darkness of ignorance on this particular subject. It is all available in WRITTEN PROVEN DOCUMENTS if one prefers the truth, or one may prefer to give THEIR OWN OPINONS of distorted rumors instead, and attempt to pass them off as the "real truth". The "REAL TRUTH" HAS NO AGENDA. IT IS SIMPLY THE TRUTH!