Partial history lesson for Mitch and the progressives

Posted on 5/23/17 at 12:13 pm

Posted by pecanridge

South

Member since Apr 2009

1255 posts

Posted on 5/23/17 at 12:13 pm

LINK

quote:
Federal taxation was a very serious point of conflict leading to the bitterness of the southern states. The Tariff of 1828, known in the South as the “Tariff of Abominations,” raised a tariff on imported goods (sometimes as high as 50%) on products that the South did not produce. The natural, and obvious, result of this was that the South was forced to buy northern products, and northern distributors could charge more for their goods because of the tariffs. South Carolina actually threatened to secede in 1832 over these and other tariffs, but “changed its mind when [Vice President John C.] Calhoun suggested nullification.” The federal government, however, “viewed nullification as treasonous and responded with a ‘force bill’ that allowed the president to use the Navy and Army power to enforce Congressional Acts.” A compromise was reached which allowed for gradual reductions to the tariffs, but a lesson was learned, according to the book Causes of the Civil War. That is, “[n]o state can stand alone against the federal government… Thus, the south in 1860 would respond very differently to the question of state’s rights and secession than it had in 1833.”

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by WHS

walker LA.

Member since Feb 2006

3112 posts

Posted on 5/23/17 at 12:30 pm to pecanridge

quote:
Federal taxation is an very serious point of conflict leading to the bitterness of the southern states. The Tariff of 1828, known in the South as the “Tariff of Abominations,” raised a tariff on imported goods (sometimes as high as 50%) on products that the South did not produce. The natural, and obvious, result of this was that the South was forced to buy northern products, and northern distributors could charge more for their goods because of the tariffs. South Carolina actually threatened to secede in 1832 over these and other tariffs, but “changed its mind when [Vice President John C.] Calhoun suggested nullification.” The federal government, however, “viewed nullification as treasonous and responded with a ‘force bill’ that allowed the president to use the Navy and Army power to enforce Congressional Acts.” A compromise was reached which allowed for gradual reductions to the tariffs, but a lesson was learned, according to the book Causes of the Civil War. That is, “[n]o state can stand alone against the federal government… Thus, the south in 1860 would respond very differently to the question of state’s rights and secession than it had in 1833.”

in b4 a stupid liberal says it was all about slavery because it wasn't.

My military history professor in college taught as West Point for 13 years. He was an expert on the Civil War and wrote most of all the books we used in his class and he never mentioned that the war was over slavery. In fact, he said that it was Lincoln who made it about slavery so that the Northern states would continue to fight. It is known that the South wanted to fight long enough to get the north to say "hey we are tired of fighting, lets just give them what they want" much like the Japanese in WWII. The North was on the verge of doing so when the Emaciation Proclamation speech was given.

My professor's reason for the Civil war had everything to do with the OP's statement and he is much more of an expert then all of the liberal history buffs on tigerdroppings.

This post was edited on 5/23/17 at 12:31 pm

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by cito

Member since Nov 2015

805 posts

Posted on 5/23/17 at 1:13 pm to pecanridge

What do you guys make of the sates Declaration of causes? They all mention slavery as a reason for secession.

Mississippi might have the most damming piece of evidence: