re: Statues in NOLA are coming down.

quote:

---

You people are getting craftier with the revisions, I'll give you that.

frick the Confederacy. They shouldn't have attempted to secede. It was dumb.

---

See, that's the funny thing. Its not a revisionist view of history. It's just not the mother goose fairy tale version you've been spoon fed. It's what actually happened, and because it deviates from the knight in shinning armor approach to the war you immediately reject it as having no validity.

King Cotton WAS the chief domestic product of the day, and the national economy and our federal funding was tied at the hip to it through high tariffs placed on it to fund the government. It constituted a very large portion of our national economy, was integral to northern factories, and as such was a hit when the south seceded. That's just a matter of fact.

Also a matter of fact was Lincoln's promise to not use force against the South or shed any blood as if the North would have invaded, had he had the force necessary to do so, which he did not, he would have been seen as the aggressor by the North and by European powers, He instead waited for the inevitable which came four months after secession by South Carolina. It paid off, as the South attacked, and Lincoln got his chance to muster troops in defense of what he characterized as an attack upon the Union.


Regardless, we can go tit for tat through this all day and it still will not do anything to nullify the fact that this very country was birthed in rebellion in pursuit of the right to self government, and that the very same rebellion and desire to govern themselves was done by the various Southern states who did not invade the north to start a war with them, but were invaded by northern states. You asked, "Instead of taking arms against the US, why not just get the frick out and pick a fight with somebody else?" I ask you. why didnt they just allow the South to pursue it's right to self government, seeing it was the very same argument used to pursue self government in the revolutionary war?


I'm not really a Southern revisionist or champion of southern independence, and I'm certainly not even sure the new confederacy would have worked long term, and glad it didnt, but I am a true believer in people's right to self government, the same ideals that spawned the war for independence from Britain, without which we would not be a nation today. What Ive never understood, when discussing this war with people however, is how they can completely ignore the fact that this very country is a country birthed in rebellion, and a desire to choose it's own government instead of it being forced upon them. How can those very same people feel so differently when others decide to follow in their footsteps in attaining their own self government?

quote:

---

King Cotton WAS the chief domestic product of the day, and the national economy and our federal funding was tied at the hip to it through high tariffs placed on it to fund the government. It constituted a very large portion of our national economy, was integral to northern factories, and as such was a hit when the south seceded. That's just a matter of fact.

---

That is fricking nonsense is what it is. The Constitution prohibits any export tariff on American goods.

"The Constitution gives Congress the power to collect duties and imposts (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1), but prohibits the imposition of export duties (Article I, Section 9, Clause 5)."

LINK

Figure out what the lost cause actually was, then spout your crap.

quote:

---

"The Constitution gives Congress the power to collect duties and imposts (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1), but prohibits the imposition of export duties (Article I, Section 9, Clause 5)."

---

The tariff of 1828 affected European goods, made from Southern cotton, so that tariff to fund the government indirectly affected southern cotton and the southern economy.

I'm for removing the statues of the Confederate figures. I think it's a total insult to venerate people who were fighting for a treasonous white supremacist regime in this day and age.

As for Andrew Jackson's statue, I seriously doubt it will be removed. He wasn't part of the Confederate traitors who attacked the federal government and tried to dismantle the Union, a big difference. Personally, I think Jackson was a piece of shite for what he did to the Cherokee in Georgia (and his support of slavery), and I wouldn't mind to see his statue removed as well, but that's not happening anytime soon.

quote:

---

"The Constitution gives Congress the power to collect duties and imposts (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1), but prohibits the imposition of export duties (Article I, Section 9, Clause 5)."

The tariff of 1828 affected European goods, made from Southern cotton, so that tariff to fund the government indirectly affected southern cotton and the southern economy.

---

Can you source that US cotton went overseas and came back as finished goods? That sounds wrong.

You said that the federal government was funded by tariffs on southern cotton. That is over the top ridiculous.

quote:

---

Personally, I think Jackson was a piece of shite for what he did to the Cherokee in Georgia (and his support of slavery), and I wouldn't mind to see his statue removed as well, but that's not happening anytime soon.

---

That is a good point. But the reason for the Lee and Beauregard statues is to be an in your face "frick you" to American blacks. That is why some people like them so much.

Jackson as you probably know was a strong proponent of Union, at least.

LINK

quote:

---

In 1860, for example, New England had 52 percent of the manufacturing establishments and 75 percent of the 5.14 million spindles in operation,” he explains. The same goes for looms. In fact, Massachusetts “alone had 30 percent of all spindles, and Rhode Island another 18 percent.” Most impressively of all, “New England mills consumed 283.7 million pounds of cotton, or 67 percent of the 422.6 million pounds of cotton used by U.S. mills in 1860.” In other words, on the eve of the Civil War, New England’s economy, so fundamentally dependent upon the textile industry, was inextricably intertwined, as Bailey puts it, “to the labor of black people working as slaves in the U.S. South.”

---

Southern grown cotton accounted for 2/3rds of the world's cotton in 1860, and was not only integral to Northern manufacturing, but critical to England's as well. You severely discount the importance of cotton to economies in that time period.

quote:

---

Southern grown cotton accounted for 2/3rds of the world's cotton in 1860

---

So what?

The world went along without it.

In "12 Years A Slave" the author relates that the two slaves who picked the least cotton every day were whipped. Every day.

quote:

---

In "12 Years A Slave" the author relates that the two slaves who picked the least cotton every day were whipped. Every day.

---

And?

What does that have to do with anything being discussed here?