Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (14079)	12/6/1997 11:12:00 AM
From: James R. Barrett	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

>>"........, and Confederates seceeded from the Union over their right to own other human beings,..........."<< You obviously know very little about the Civil War. It is very funny how you pick and choose your "facts". Jim

To: Grainne who wrote (14079)	12/6/1997 11:07:00 PM
From: JF Quinnelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

>>I did not say you are for holding slaves Then what is this?: >>since you are proudly a Confederate American and thus apparently still support the concept of holding slaves As for: >>Confederates seceeded from the Union over their right to own other human beings Glad to see that you subscribe to the simplified version of American history. Of course, it was still legal to own slaves in the North until after Lincoln was dead, and in the border states and the District of Columbia many did. Lincoln himself wrote that he was fighting the War over the issue of keeping the Union intact, and would have done nothing against slavery if it meant preserving the Union; but what could he know, right? His Emancipation Proclamation was mocked by the British Prime Minister, who said that Lincoln freed the slaves where he held no sway, and left slavery intact where he ruled uncontested; the Emancipation Proclamation, of course, declared the slaves free only in "the States in Rebellion", leaving slavery intact in the North. Tariffs and fighting over political dominance had much to do with the Civil War, but since those issues don't interest modern Americans they go completely unnoticed. Besides, any reasoning other than slavery might deprive moderns of one of our favorite habits, that of arrogating moral superiority. Tariffs fell especially hard on the agrarian South and were greatly resented. Andrew Jackson signed "the Tariff of Abominations" in 1828, and aroused great bitterness in the South. Calhoun sent around a paper advocating a State's right to nullify federal law within its boundaries whenever a State determined that the federal government had exceeded its powers. Calhoun was using reasoning developed by Jefferson and Madison, who had declared the right of such "nullification" in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. South Carolina tried, but failed, to get other States to join in nullifying the tariff. But in 1833 they decided to put the theory to the test and passed a bill prohibiting anyone to collect the tariff within South Carolina. President Jackson responded by issuing a proclamation declaring that "disunion by armed force is treason", and got Congress to pass a Force Bill in 1833 authorizing him to send in the military in to collect the tariff. The issue became moot when South Carolina quickly rescinded its Ordinance of Nullification. The crisis passed, but it left a lasting impression in the South that they were threatened by political dominance from the industrial North. When Lincoln was elected, he got no votes from below the Mason-Dixon Line and he imposed some of the highest tariffs in American history. South Carolina seceded. Lincoln responded by sending a resupply ship to a federal tariff collection site inside a southern port, Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor. This time South Carolina didn't back down in putting nullification to the test.