Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That article should put it into perspective that the reasons are still hotly debated even today.
If slavery were the main reason why did Lincoln not address it for a year ?
Why was Lincoln willing to let the Southerns keep their slaves after the war ended ?
And Blacks were not treated equally in the North. They were not owned slaves but they were not equal to Whites.
And that is why I find the Civil War a fascinating topic. There are so many contradictions to what we were generally taught in school.
And FYI..I posted that I would live in the South (because I don't like the cold) but I would help slaves escape to freedom.
Humans should not be "owned" by any other human.
You'd choose the south, but risk your life and everything you own by helping BLACKS to escape to freedom? LMAO...really?
I will state again that many scholars admit that the cause of the Civil War is still hotly debated today.
The recurring themes are "state's rights" and "slavery". And the debates center around those two issues.
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State
So you are backing off of your comment that "If slavery were the main reason why did Lincoln not address it for a year"?
Lincoln opposed the Crittenden Compromise, which had a real chance of passing.
Lincoln made countless anti-slavery speeches, which is why the south threatened to secede if he were elected.
His 1st State of the Union Address he asked congress to consider using federal tax money to free slaves through compensation in the loyal slave states.
9 days in to his 2nd year Lincoln signed in to law that Union officers can not return fugitive slaves to their owners.
In his 14th month in office Lincoln signed in to law the emancipation of slaves in DC via compensation.
Etc...
Lincoln did in fact address slavery before his 1st year.....Lincoln in fact realized the complexity of the issue like keeping the loyal slaves states loyal.
You do realize that the president has no role in the Amendment process. Enough Republicans voted for the Corwin amendment BEFORE Lincoln was elected president. He was a bit forced in to support of it, which amounted to vaguely referencing it in his inaugural address and then writing southern governors right before blood was getting spilled. After blood was spilled he completely abandoned it.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6039
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf
There was an import tariff on slaves allowed (U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1), but when Congress made the importation of slaves illegal in 1807, then the federal government obviously no longer collected any slave import tax. The protection of the importation of slaves was a constitutional concession made to southern states, but the concession was balanced by the import tax.
There was never any tax on exports of cotton to Europe. It was another concession made to southern states during the drafting of the U.S. Constitution that all exports from the U.S. would never be taxed (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5).
I'm curious, where did you hear that cotton exports and that the internal slave trade were both federally taxed?
Never said federal taxes. the tariffs defined property, states taxed it.
So you are backing off of your comment that "If slavery were the main reason why did Lincoln not address it for a year"?
What ? I was addressing your comments.
Lincoln did not address slavery in 1861.
He addressed slavery in 1862.
How is what I posted backing off ?
Lincoln was concerned about preserving the union, not freeing the slaves.
He was for the amendment and even spoke about letting the south keep their slaves after the war.
Slavery was not the issue with the South. They where fighting for the right not to have the North dictate to them how they where going to live. .
If that view makes you feel better, you can continue to believe it. Isn't it something else, it seems the South continues to fight the same war. Time to put the confederate flag in a museum. There is only one USA.
If that view makes you feel better, you can continue to believe it. Isn't it something else, it seems the South continues to fight the same war. Time to put the confederate flag in a museum. There is only one USA.
None of that makes me feel one way or the other. I am an "Import" and my Family is from Europe, so we had no dogs in that hunt, nor is it any of my business to say who was right or who was wrong. As I see it, each side thought they where right, as in any War. There where no "winners" in that War, same as in any War. All that remains are the facts and History. Each assembles them to fit their own picture.
It seems its Americans who are still some what divided, like yourself, for instance. The Confederate flag is just as much a part of America as the Union Flag. Its part of your History, and is an Honorable Flag. No one should be offended by it, in my opinion. when you get to the point where you see it as a Part of your heritage, and not a symbol of opposition, then you will be on the way to "One" USA.
My family fought for the South, but left the South after the war. My great great grandpa rode in Lee's cavalry but is buried in Seattle. I grew up in California and my dad had no idea of our history. He wasn't even sure when our ancestors came to America (turns out it was early 1700s to settle the Carolinas). So I grew up with no southern sympathies, but I probably would have fought for the South still. Not because they were right - they weren't - but I would have been living in North Carolina and would likely have considered the Union Army's entry into the state an invasion.
Never said federal taxes. the tariffs defined property, states taxed it.
By definition, a tariff is a tax on international trade. As the states were constitutionally precluded from taxing trade between two states or between a state and a foreign nation, only the federal government could levy and collect tariffs, and then only on goods imported into the United States.
I have no idea what you mean by the phrase 'the tariffs defined property, the states taxed it'.
The linked PDF is a paper that attempts to estimate the optimal export tax on cotton in the antebellum South, using current economic theory.
"The US produced about 80% of the world’s cotton in the decades prior to the Civil War.
How much monopoly power did the US possess in the world cotton market and what would
have been the effect of an optimal export tax? This paper estimates the elasticity of foreign
demand for US cotton exports and uses the elasticity in a simple partial equilibrium model
to calculate the optimal export tax and its effect on prices, trade, and welfare. The results
indicate that the export demand elasticity for US cotton was about 2 1.7 and that the
optimal export tax of about 50% would have raised US welfare by about $10 million, about
0.3% of US GDP or about 1% of the South’s GDP." Douglas A Irwin, The optimal tax on antebellum U.S. cotton exports.
The important thing to note is that the document describes a theoretical exercise by an economist, not an historical event.
There has never been an export tariff in history of the United States, cotton, slaves or otherwise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd have to have a good cover though.
