|
Posts:
9,305
From:
Shenandoah Valley
Registered:
1/6/04
|
|
|
Posts:
3,540
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(2 of 9)
Re: The Civil war started over Power and money.
Nov 2, 2009 8:30 PM
|
No kidding.
The taxes in question, were purely unconstitutional violations of the General Welfare agreements between the states, and therefore grounds for secession and refusal.
General welfare means GENERAL WELFARE, not transfer and redistrbution of wealth from one group to another via underhanded special-interest legislation-schemes, like the Republicans were plotting.
THIS was the reason for Lincoln's stirring up agitation regarding slavery, i..e. to pander to the abolition-groups in order to gain their support in gaining hegemony, PRETENDING that he cared about the slaves.
They didn't care about the slaves, they were just USING them as poster-children to pull of their federal coup d'etat against the southern states, and rob them of their rightul property through political hegemony, and rob them at the point of the federal sword.
Naturally, the South was having none of it. and seceded; in response, Lincoln's only legal objection was that "no expressly written limits in the Constitution have been violated--" as if the Consttution had to say "FEDERAL TAXES SHALL NOT BE SPENT ON ANYTHING BUT THE GENERAL WELFARE AMONG THE STATES."
In other words, if a limitation was IMPLIED, then it didn't exist.
Likewise, Lincoln would say "What is the general welfare? The Consttution doesn't expressly say. Into these categories are divided majorties and minoirities..." blah blah blah.
Lincoln could find ANYTHING that "the Consttution didn't expressly say" about an issue, and use that to grant congressional majority-power over the issue.
Like the First Amendment: "what is freedom of the press? The Constitution doesn't expressly say." etc. etc. etc.
In other words, the Constitution meant to Lincoln, whatever Lincoln WANTED it to mean.
Here, the Republicans were taxing the South and giving it to the North under the authority granted in the "General Welfare" clause.
Now obviously, this is an ABUSE of that clause, and thereore unconstitutional; but according to Linocln the General Welfare clause "didn't expressly say" what it meant, and so it was PERFECTLY all right for the congress to do whatever the majority wanted!
Of courses, the states had NO CHOICE but to secede, since the north had violated the Constitution, and would not respect it.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,902
Registered:
11/14/07
|
|
(3 of 9)
Re: The Civil war started over Power and money.
Nov 2, 2009 10:08 PM
|
Vareb,
Thanks for the link.
Made for an interesting read.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
--
Belief does not make truth.
Evidence makes truth.
And belief does not make evidence.
|
|
|
Posts:
10,794
Registered:
1/18/06
|
|
(4 of 9)
Re: The Civil war started over Power and money.
Nov 3, 2009 5:34 AM
|
In one of the great Civil War ironies, European demand for American plantation goods drove cotton to record prices, while at the same time driving slave prices upward. Southerners had more to lose.... and more to protect in terms of real value.
Globally, England had virtually stopped the Trans-Atlantic slave trade on the open ocean and persuaded other countries to do the same. Great Britain was actually in business of capturing slave ships on the open water by 1850 - and indeed captured almost one-fifth of the illegal trade of slave ships by that time (most traveling to Cuba and Brazil) .
At the same time, England was consuming a great deal of U.S. cotton as well as sugar and coffee coming from slave societies in the Caribbean and Brazil. They were actually working against themselves economically with their abolitionist activism.
England struggled with this moral-economic dilemma for decades prior to the American Civil War. When a morality issue is pitted against money, it's usually a safe to gamble on the money issue winning. However, in this case, England's abolitionist pressure over time eventually won out over many years.
England simultaneously contributed to the American Civil War both by increasing demand for plantation produce and by declaring war on the Atlantic slave trade - two things seemingly at odds with each other - with both things making it more difficult for the South to give in to northern demands.
--
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge - Charles Darwin
|
|
|
Posts:
9,305
From:
Shenandoah Valley
Registered:
1/6/04
|
|
(5 of 9)
Re: The Civil war started over Power and money.
Nov 3, 2009 5:44 AM
|
> In one of the great Civil War ironies, European
> demand for American plantation goods drove cotton to
> record prices, while at the same time driving slave
> prices upward. Southerners had more to lose.... and
> more to protect in terms of real value.
>
> Globally, England had virtually stopped the
> Trans-Atlantic slave trade on the open ocean and
> persuaded other countries to do the same. Great
> Britain was actually in business of capturing slave
> ships on the open water by 1850 - and indeed captured
> almost one-fifth of the illegal trade of slave ships
> by that time (most traveling to Cuba and Brazil) .
>
> At the same time, England was consuming a great deal
> of U.S. cotton as well as sugar and coffee coming
> from slave societies in the Caribbean and Brazil.
> They were actually working against themselves
> economically with their abolitionist activism.
>
> England struggled with this moral-economic dilemma
> for decades prior to the American Civil War. When a
> morality issue is pitted against money, it's usually
> a safe to gamble on the money issue winning. However,
> in this case, England's abolitionist pressure over
> time eventually won out over many years.
>
> England simultaneously contributed to the American
> Civil War both by increasing demand for plantation
> produce and by declaring war on the Atlantic slave
> trade - two things seemingly at odds with each other
> - with both things making it more difficult for the
> South to give in to northern demands.
>
> --
> Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does
> knowledge - Charles Darwin
There you are. Power and money!
|
|
|
Posts:
10,794
Registered:
1/18/06
|
|
(6 of 9)
Re: The Civil war started over Power and money.
Nov 3, 2009 6:24 AM
|
Saying war is about power and money is sort of like saying trade is about exchanging goods.
--
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge - Charles Darwin
|
|
|
Posts:
7,583
From:
MD
Registered:
4/25/00
|
|
(7 of 9)
Re: The Civil war started over Power and money.
Nov 3, 2009 9:33 AM
|
> Saying war is about power and money is sort of like
> saying trade is about exchanging goods.
>
True. Winston Churchill stated that war is ever thus, even the wars that the common man thought was about God and religion was really about land grabs and wealth. Churchill wrote that, in his opinion, the American Civil War was the purist in idealism for both sides.
--
Brgds,
Pat
|
|
|
Posts:
1,902
Registered:
11/14/07
|
|
(8 of 9)
Re: The Civil war started over Power and money.
Nov 3, 2009 7:22 PM
|
Actually,
The article Vareb provided a link for is not called, "The Civil war started over Power and money."
The article is entitled, "Abraham Lincoln and Cotton."
It is still an interesting read.
Unionblue
--
Belief does not make truth.
Evidence makes truth.
And belief does not make evidence.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,902
Registered:
11/14/07
|
|
(9 of 9)
Re: The Civil war started over Power and money.
Nov 3, 2009 11:12 PM
|
Did the Civil War start over Power and money?
Four million slaves valued at four billions of dollars plus the amount in dollars value rendered at extremely low cost for maintence, clothing, food and shelter minus the money that was not paid them for such labor.
By 1860, the dollar value of slave property is greater than the dollar value of ALL of the American railroads, ALL of America's banks, ALL of America's manufacturing put together.
This also does not take into account the millions earned by the products produced by this valuable enslaved labor force, which accounted for the most valuable cash crop produced during the pre Civil War days, cotton.
Did you realize that the American South by 1860 produced seven eighths of the world's cotton? That is the equivalent of OPEC today and oil production.
But again, this does not take into account other cash crops produced by this valuable, enslaved, labor force, such as sugar, rice, hemp, tobacco, etc.
The following website might also show how important this labor force was to the South overall.
http://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/selected_statistics_on_slavery_i.htm
Money may have something to do with the Civil War, but we should consider the source of that money, in order to come to a fully informed conclusion about it.
Unionblue
--
Belief does not make truth.
Evidence makes truth.
And belief does not make evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
