what do you mean northen agggression

[SHOOTALL]

I know Dee . Its funny how some consider slavery the only reason . If they took time to look at why would anyome want slaves ? With the exception of a few who used slaves for pleasure for themselves surely not the slaves the rest used them for enomic gain plain and simple. From that it appears that the war was about enomic reasons. Then there are those that state the South was in a rual  farming economy while the north was in city industrial economy . well that's true and both decribe another economic reason for the war.
 Just look at the debate up north with school teachers it about money and they seem ready to start a war 

[Dee]

SHOOTALL less than 5% of the south owned slaves. That being a documented historical fact, would make it seem that Lincoln would have been better served to arrest the 5%, and be done with it, rather than institute a war that killed thousands of innocents, and soldiers alike.
This false delusional illusion of Lincoln as a great humanitarian is also perplexing. His speeches laced with racism, and bigotry are on record for the world to read, yet like some here are ignored. He is much like another FALSE HERO, named Martin Luther King. The documented facts are his "UNCHANGED" legal name was Michael King, whom falsified, and plagiarized his doctoral thesis, and was caught later, but due to politics the University backed down from stripping him of his doctorate degree. His I have a Dream speech was actually a sermon from the 50s, that a black preacher had preached, and his penchant for white whores, that after he was finished with them, he beat senseless while on the road to freedom. All documented by his personal helpers, and the FBI also. Instead of identifying Lincoln for what he actually was, he has been glorified for a lie, and a world renowned monument has been placed in his honor, and as many folks here, the world refuses to look at the blatant truth, and choose to believe the lie, because it's (the lie) more noble. Much like Martin Luther Kings holiday.

[SouthernByGrace]

The scorched earth policy was not as scorched earth except for South Carolina.

wl, Sherman's own estimates of the destruction he caused in Georgia alone is in excess of $80,000,000, and that's in 1860's dollars. Try telling my ancestors, who lost an estimated $6,500,000 in property (today's value) that was burned to the ground or made useless by his men, that it wasn't as scorched earth until SC...  Just the houses alone were worth a fortune in that day. Their value today would be exponential. Then there's barns, silos, stores, and yes, the slaves' living quarters. Farm implements were destroyed so they couldn't even produce their own food.

In a review of a new book about Robert E. Lee's letters and correspondence, the author made the claim that "the path of destruction in Sherman's 'March to the Sea' was not supported by archeological evidence." She went on to say that "many of the Antebellum houses still stand directly in the path Sherman took through Georgia." I wrote her a letter, asking if she had ever lived in the South. My assertion was that she had never even BEEN to the South before. I told her that ashes and cinder didn't tend to keep too well down here in this heat and humidity, especially for 150 years. I also asked her just Where did she think Sherman slept on his 'March', certainly not in a tent like a commoner. Of course not, he slept in those Antebellum mansions! The one's that were 'directly in his path'! 

To my shock, she actually replied to my letter! She admitted she had never been to the South, and that I had made some valid points that she had never considered. But she didn't amend her book.

SBG

[SHOOTALL]

I can only report what I have seen or better dug thru. in Richmond Va. . If you dig in the area that was city during the war you go thru. a layer if burt stuff . It often contains articles from the war period or before . In the case of Richmond the South burned it but its easy to see. Of course it would not have been burned except for the norths attack 

[yellowtail3]

...another FALSE HERO, named Martin Luther King. The documented facts are his "UNCHANGED" legal name was Michael King, whom falsified, and plagiarized his doctoral thesis, and was caught later, but due to politics the University backed down from stripping him of his doctorate degree. His I have a Dream speech was actually a sermon from the 50s, that a black preacher had preached, and his penchant for white whores, that after he was finished with them, he beat senseless while on the road to freedom. All documented by his personal helpers, and the FBI also. Instead of identifying Lincoln for what he actually was, he has been glorified for a lie, and a world renowned monument has been placed in his honor, and as many folks here, the world refuses to look at the blatant truth, and choose to believe the lie, because it's (the lie) more noble. Much like Martin Luther Kings holiday.

I've heard of that stuff, and letter's the FBI sent to King:

One anonymous letter sent to King just before he received the Nobel Peace Prize read, in part, "The American public, the church organizations that have been helping—Protestants, Catholics and Jews will know you for what you are—an evil beast. So will others who have backed you. You are done. King, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days in which to do (this exact number has been selected for a specific reason, it has definite practical significant [sic]). You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy fraudulent self is bared to the nation."

Gee, Dee... makes you wonder if maybe the FBi was involved in killing King. Maybe if his name was Michael, and he wasn't named after his Dad Martin Luther King Sr - well, maybe then it's okay.

[Dee]

Martin Luther King "SR"s name was also Michael, but he went by Martin Luther. He also never legally changed his name. Another issue of deception for the purpose of appearance. No research, just lightly skimming constantly promotes lies.

[SHOOTALL]

There was a program about J. E. Hoover that said when M.L.King made statements about the F.B.I. he was brough in and let listen to a few tapes of him and his women having an affair and ask to refrain from talking about the F.B.I. . true or not who knows ? but saint he wasn't it seems . But them many hero's have a side they might not want known

[yellowtail3]

Martin Luther King "SR"s name was also Michael, but he went by Martin Luther. He also never legally changed his name. Another issue of deception for the purpose of appearance. No research, just lightly skimming constantly promotes lies.

what do you think the purpose of this purported 'deception' might have been - appeal to the Minnesota Lutherans? Could be.

But them many hero's have a side they might not want known

True enough.

I've noted a common thread - folks who say slavery had nuthin' to do with the Civil War, are often hostile to King and the civil rights movement of the sixties. Just an observation. Most of them deny the connection, when asked.

[Dee]

I doubt you were even born in that era. I actually lived it and went thru it. Your so busy defending them, you haven't taken the time to do a little research and get the facts.

[yellowtail3]

I doubt you were even born in that era. I actually lived it and went thru it. Your so busy defending them, you haven't taken the time to do a little research and get the facts.

I was born during the Eisenhower administration, and so was a kid during the sixties. If I were say, ten years older... do you think I'd likely be hostile to the civil rights movement? Do I seem busy defending them?

I'm not a researcher. I majored in history, though, and I did read And the Walls Came Tumbling Down - and I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express recently! So far as having some facts go... I understand that King led a non-violent movement which helped remedy some pretty nasty things. Is that the truth, or have I missed something?

Have you noted, Dee, the connection between denial of slavery as a cause of the Civil War, and antipathy towards the civil rights movement which... resulting in millions obtaining their civil rights? What do you think accounts for that connection?

[williamlayton]

It sounded as if you were blaming Sheridans actions on Sherman.
Of course the North took the war to the South and attempted to stop the fight assoon as possible.
Now you are mad at the North but you don't understand the North being mad.
Are you saying that the South paid taxes or import fees. Still doesn't add up if 70% of imports came thru the North.
There was not a tax on Exports---none--nada--zip---"0".
Imports yes and in that I can assume the South imported more for their use than they bought from the North and they considered that supporting the payment of debt--course it was fought mainly in the South, but that makes no difference----still I don't understand how 70% of imports came thru the North and how the South claims to pay 70% of the import tariffs.
If any destruction of property and/or crops hastened the end of the war, I think this was a service to all participants. I ought to get a screech and holler out of that thought. 
Blessings 

[Cabin4]

But have you been to Disney World?

So lets assume for a moment there is a connection.

How about the connection of those that supported King and refuse to accept his negative facts and those that beleive Lincoln was hero and the civil war was all about slavery? Any connection?

[Dee]

Truman was president when I was born. I was a teenager, and young adult in the 60s and 70s.
This slavery, and poor ole black man thing has been linked together since the beginning. Instead of stating theory, or hearsay opinion, why don't you do the work, and actually look at what really happened. Prove some of us wrong with facts, disputing the facts we have supplied.
I can give an opinion on why you car gets bad gas mileage but until it's checked into, it's only an opinion. You are denying facts and opting for hearsay. You are yourself of the opinion that the link of the civil rights movement and slavery by us southerners is a by product of prejudice, by implying that, when in fact, I am American Indian, i.e. a card carrying Cherokee. My entire family can tell you a thing or two about prejudice. The the arcatect of the "War Between the States", and the Leader of the "Civil Rights Movement" were both frauds. Lincoln, a northern industrialist sympathizer, and King a pig pretending to be something, and someone he wasn't. Both came along at the right time in history and were able to manipulate a large portion of America that were easily manipulated.
The discussion was originally about the "war of northern aggression" and it's cause, real or imagined. This discussion too, is a by product, with additional ignorance of, or simply ignoring of the actual facts.
You made the statement that Martin Luther King Jr. was named after Martin Luther King Sr his father, when the FACT is, Sr's name was also Michael. You sought to discredit me, but instead caused me to check yet another fact you missed.
I don't get in the first car offering a ride. I check whose driving and the other passengers FIRST. That is the difference between us. When folks offer me proof of my error, I accept it that I was wrong.

[yellowtail3]

But have you been to Disney World?

So lets assume for a moment there is a connection.

How about the connection of those that supported King and refuse to accept his negative facts and those that beleive Lincoln was hero and the civil war was all about slavery? Any connection?

what about it?

[yellowtail3]

Truman was president when I was born. I was a teenager, and young adult in the 60s and 70s.
This slavery, and poor ole black man thing has been linked together since the beginning.

don't quite follow this link you refer

Instead of stating theory, or hearsay opinion, why don't you do the work, and actually look at what really happened.

you mean during the civil rights movement? (shrug) hasn't been an area of great interest to me.

Prove some of us wrong with facts, disputing the facts we have supplied.

you mean like the fact you supplied, that MLK was a pig pretending to be something he wasn't?

You are yourself of the opinion that the link of the civil rights movement and slavery by us southerners is a by product of prejudice,

I'm a southerner, and I didn't say that... but I asked you what you thought might account for my observation that many who say that slavery wasn't a cause of the war, also seem to dislike the civil rights movement. You've not offered an opinion there. I'd be interested to hear it.

The the arcatect of the "War Between the States", and the Leader of the "Civil Rights Movement" were both frauds.

Well, Lincoln was Prez & CinC, and King did have a big role in the civil rights movement. I'd call that something more than fraud.

You made the statement that Martin Luther King Jr. was named after Martin Luther King Sr his father, when the FACT is, Sr's name was also Michael.

I'm not a King Scholar, make no claim to be one. I'd never heard the man referred to as Michael. What is the significance, there?

[Dee]

 

[Cabin4]

But have you been to Disney World?

So lets assume for a moment there is a connection.

How about the connection of those that supported King and refuse to accept his negative facts and those that beleive Lincoln was hero and the civil war was all about slavery? Any connection?

what about it?

First, The reference to Disney World was a joke. You said you had been to Holiday Inn Express….

On the other point: I responding to your assertion that there is an apparent connection between those of us that think King & Lincoln are frauds and our beliefs that the war was about states’ rights and not slavery. I can draw the same assertion in reverse: Those that believe Lincoln & King are hero's also believe the war was all about slavery.

Perhaps there is a connection for both assertions. Seems reasonable. More interesting point would be, what conclusion came first in each assertion scenario? The hero or the fraud or the war was or was not about slavery….

[SHOOTALL]

William the 70% was what the South was paying 70% of the bill . I understand the norts madness they were losing the golden goose !
And I said nothing to confuse only that other parts of the South got burned you said nothing else did .

[williamlayton]

OK--I'll bite. Explain how the South was paying 70% of the bills.
Blessings

[SHOOTALL]

The South was more inclined to import goods it needed . The North were insisting on raising tarrifs . Consider that high tarrifs made Northern good more competive . Norther people made goods so they were more export than import in pratice. The South by paying tarrifs were supporting the Fed Govt . All tarrifs went to the Fed Govt. thus the Souths share amounted to 70% . Add that the west ward expansion could alter the blance in power in congress if certian laws not favorable to Souther enomics were not allowed . The influx of people from other countries comming to the North seeking jobs also increasing Northern repsentation (VOTES).
One could say the South was being made a slave to the rest of the country and then it could be said slavery was a major reason for the war. 

[williamlayton]

That does not explain the fact that 70% on imports came thru Northern ports.
I wonder, but cannot find the proof, just the shadow of it, if England, who was the major exporter to the South, subsidized these exports.
Another thing that is a puzzle is who was influencing the South to refuse to collect the tariffs and what was their aim. I contend, that England, was the source of much of the dissatisfaction in the South to the North. There were still English loyalist in the South and they tended to be wealthy.
Blessings

[SHOOTALL]

I never said what port goods came thru. But you and I are smart enough that the end user pays all. Englan would just add cost to product , subsidized by England I doubt. Collecting the tarrif in effect was to lose income. We also know that the name used to label money taken from citizens by the Govt. is unimportant its the money transfeer that counts.
England wasn't the problem it was the Norths drive to become more politicaly powerful than the South that was the problem .

[Gary G]

The tariff not only raised the cost of imported industrial goods, it lessened the competition against of northern manufactured goods. Thus their prices were artificially much higher, a price that southerners had to pay. The government loved it because the tariff kept their coffers full and the northern industrialist loved it because their profit margins were exploding. All of this was at the expense of the south. It was a way of transferring wealth from one region to the other. The south was poorer because things not manufactured in the south cost more than they otherwise should have. Also, anytime you have a tariff expect a retaliatory tariff. The south was an exporter of raw materials and the retaliatory tariff hurt them while they received none of the benefits of our own tariff.

The overall economy of the US would have been worse because of the lack of free trade, but the south was paying that price.
Any time you have to pay more for something because of something the government caused, you have less to spend on other things. That means fewer jobs and less production. The wealth of a nation is based on it's production.

[williamlayton]

I don't understand this political power thought.
I do understand the sef-sufficent thought.
One of the things that killed the South in the war---and Hitler in the 20th century---was dependence on foreign imports---almost got England also.
What would have benefited the South more than anything would have been to set up a good manufacturing base before the war. they had the money to do it.
Now, the killer, because of slavery and education they had no work force.
Yes--YEASYESYES--the tariff was tacked onto the cost, when it was collected, but, still 70% of imprts came thru the North and cost of shipping to the South was greater, shipping cost.
Blessings

[Gary G]

I don't understand this political power thought.
I do understand the sef-sufficent thought.
One of the things that killed the South in the war---and Hitler in the 20th century---was dependence on foreign imports---almost got England also.
What would have benefited the South more than anything would have been to set up a good manufacturing base before the war. they had the money to do it.
Now, the killer, because of slavery and education they had no work force.
Yes--YEASYESYES--the tariff was tacked onto the cost, when it was collected, but, still 70% of imprts came thru the North and cost of shipping to the South was greater, shipping cost.
Blessings

OK, let me try with more detail:
The process is today called corporatism or corporate welfare. And Lincoln was the father of such although he was not the first to think of it.

Let's say I am a northern manufacturer of hoes, scythes and plows. My strongest competitor is England. I am forced to get lean and mean, spending some of my capital on capital improvements to be able to produce these widgets at a more competitive price, or loose out to my competitor. But there is another way. Capture government. If I could support (with money) a president and congress that would raise the tariff on these imports from England, then I could also raise my prices and greatly increase my profit margins. A 47% tariff would allow me to raise prices by 45% and still undercut their prices. Now the buyers of my hoes, scythes and plows would have to spend more for them causing them to have to spend less on other things locally. This would cause the makers of those other things to have less profit and would hurt the overall economy of the area. Now who bought the most hoes, scythes and plows. Well, it was the south. Northern industrialist did very well and were able to spread some of the wealth to employees. The industrial supplies that manufacturers in the north bought also profited.

Hamilton had the idea that corporate welfare would insure strong support for government from a large base. The whig, Henry Clay, adopted Hamilton's views. Lincoln was a long time organizer in the whig party and Henry Clay was his idol. The Jeffersonian Democrats were able to keep this unconstitutional ideology at bay until Lincoln. Today corporatism is done more through regulation than tariff. 

In this I have said nothing of retaliatory tariffs that would lessen southern profits and the south was the main exporter.

There is an economic law of comparative advantage. The south was better at farming so that was the most advantageous thing for them to do. They could produce and export those products while importing their needs. It is like a lawyer whose house needs painting. Would he be economically better off taking a week off work and painting it himself or hiring a painter.
Well, he could give up the $50/hr that he would make to save the $20/hr he would have to pay a painter.

At the time, if the markets had been free, the south was better off doing what they did best, even though slavery was overall economically inefficient.

[SHOOTALL]

Willian the power thing is still going on today .

[Brewster]

So is the train of thought here that the south was saddled with a 70% share of the duties?  Is that because 70% of these imports went to the south?

[SHOOTALL]

The train of thought is the North voted in  tarriffs on goods the South needed .The fact the South had to buy them was how they had to pay 70% .There was no law that said the South had to pay 70% . The North also was working to dilute the effectiveness of the South in Congress . We see much the same today in Govt. did ya'll think it was invented in the last 20 years ? George Washington got planters and farmers drunk so they would vote to support laws he wanted , check the books of his plantation as it is clearly listed .

[Gary G]

It is interesting that when the government went beyond the implied powers amendment, which many think to be unconstitutional (why have the implied powers if it is not meant to be a limit), they have used the general welfare clause. That is their excuse for corporate welfare provisions. You will notice that the Confederate Constitution corrects this and that speaks much about the reason for succession. I will make a new thread showing the differences.

[Brewster]

So what goods, shootall, did the southerners need at a 70-30 ratio to the north?  Shoes?  Ya always hear about the poor barefooted reb soldiers.