The Southern States funded more than 80% of the federal government’s budget through the payment of federal tariffs on goods. They received virtually nothing in return for this contribution. 95% of the funds were used to support Investment in northern industrialization (steel mills, metals fabrication, beginning of intercontinental railroad). The South was held in bondage (slavery) to a tyrannical federal government. After years of threatening secession, and realizing the system was not going to change, the South broke the chains of bondage and seceded. Upon South Carolina leaving, Lincoln’s first response was, “Where am I going to get my tariff money from now”. His first concern was the federal government’s ability to get money from its citizens, not I must preserve the union, or free slaves. It took two years for Lincoln to finally issue the Emancipation Proclamation, so freeing slaves was not his first thought. He was more preoccupied with putting the first income tax in place, and getting a national banking system (precursor to the Fed) going. Things haven’t changed much, except we are all slaves now.
Abbeville is a congregation of the Lost Cause Religion, and Donald Livingston is its priest. Best to stay clear from such horseshit.
While it is true that 95% of the federal government's revenue was generated from tariffs, at the time it was the only way that the federal government could constitutionally raise revenue. Remember, there was no income tax until 1913. All tariffs passed into law, were uniform throughout the entire county. The problem was that southerners decided to import goods from Europe, when they could have A.) bought from US manufacturers and/or B.) developed their own manufacturing. Heaven forbid shithead plantation slaveowners would give up their lazy system of exploiting slave labor, and reinvest their money into manufacturing, or worse, actually educate their slaves and develop their trade skills... can't teach them to read or write, let alone learn advanced skills and pose a threat to their ability to control them. Also, Southerners could have produced staple crops instead of cash crops, and not have relied so heavily on food production coming from the Western and Northern states. Contrary to popular myth, free states actually produced roughly 80% of all staple crops in the country. The "North" (free states... the "north vs. south" narrative is a red herring) was actually just as agrarian as the "South", in fact even moreso. Again, the real issue was the plantation system of cash crops, and refusal of the slavers to keep up with progress. They had only themselves to blame... Thomas Jefferson's prediction was correct: slavery made Southern white [aristocrats] lazy.
Perhaps you forget your history. Southerners and the slave powers dominated US federal politics even during the strongest years of Whig influence. Southerners (Democrats) consistently held the presidency and at least one house of Congress, if not both, as well as majorities of judges in the courts, for much of the antebellum 19th Century prior to the Rebellion of 1860.
Lincoln never utter any such words. It now appears that you're just making shit up for giggles, or have truly been grossly deceived by Lost Cause propaganda.
Here are a few good videos that can ease you into a more accurate understanding of antebellum 19th Century US sectional politics, which were dominated by one common denominator issue: slavery.
tldr; the Rebellion of 1860 was started in the defense of evil. No amount of Lost Cause fake news will change that reality. Sadly, many non-slaveholding Southern whites were duped into supporting the rebellion. Don't be like them.
Good comment. But you forgot to mention one of the biggest flash points that led to the civil war- Democrat election rigging via the Three-Fifths Compromise.
Not only were the lazy [slave owning] fat cat democrats (1% of the population of the south) exploiting slave labor for profit, but they were also leveraging slave ownership for the purpose of rigging federal elections by gerrymandering the population counts of congressional voting districts!
They counted slaves as population in democrat stronghold regions to add congressional house seats (new democrat aligned districts) that otherwise would not have existed. They have been rigging elections for over a hundred years, it's in the DNA of the democrat party.
Actually, the 3/5 comprise was an anti-slavery measure that sped up the inevitable end of slavery. Had the slavers had their way at the Constitutional Convention, they'd have gotten 100% of slave population count towards representation. The anti-slavery voices argued that if slavers could count slaves, then they can count cattle and livestock. Without getting it down to 3/5, it would have taken at least 50 more years for the free states to take Congress and the Presidency. Because of the 3/5 and ban on importation of slaves, slave reproduction rate couldn't outpace reproduction rate of free people and the influx of European immigrants to the north/west. Basically, the "compromise" was a poison pill towards abolition.
Had the slavers had their way at the Constitutional Convention, they'd have gotten 100% of slave population count towards representation.
Correct. Had the democrats got what they wanted they could have continued to buy all the slaves they could afford, count all of them as population, and created dozens, if not hundreds of newly fabricated congressional house seats- all for the purpose of packing the US congress with more democrat congressmen. Their purpose was never to act as representatives of the public, but to seize power by any means necessary- just like today.
Election rigging, and exploiting the population for their personal power and wealth. Old democrats, same as the new democrats. That party needed to be outlawed in 1861, and their ashes scattered into the wind.
The Southern States funded more than 80% of the federal government’s budget through the payment of federal tariffs on goods. They received virtually nothing in return for this contribution. 95% of the funds were used to support Investment in northern industrialization (steel mills, metals fabrication, beginning of intercontinental railroad). The South was held in bondage (slavery) to a tyrannical federal government. After years of threatening secession, and realizing the system was not going to change, the South broke the chains of bondage and seceded. Upon South Carolina leaving, Lincoln’s first response was, “Where am I going to get my tariff money from now”. His first concern was the federal government’s ability to get money from its citizens, not I must preserve the union, or free slaves. It took two years for Lincoln to finally issue the Emancipation Proclamation, so freeing slaves was not his first thought. He was more preoccupied with putting the first income tax in place, and getting a national banking system (precursor to the Fed) going. Things haven’t changed much, except we are all slaves now.
Here’s an enlightening video for history buffs.
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/the-real-reason-the-south-seceded/
Abbeville is a congregation of the Lost Cause Religion, and Donald Livingston is its priest. Best to stay clear from such horseshit.
While it is true that 95% of the federal government's revenue was generated from tariffs, at the time it was the only way that the federal government could constitutionally raise revenue. Remember, there was no income tax until 1913. All tariffs passed into law, were uniform throughout the entire county. The problem was that southerners decided to import goods from Europe, when they could have A.) bought from US manufacturers and/or B.) developed their own manufacturing. Heaven forbid shithead plantation slaveowners would give up their lazy system of exploiting slave labor, and reinvest their money into manufacturing, or worse, actually educate their slaves and develop their trade skills... can't teach them to read or write, let alone learn advanced skills and pose a threat to their ability to control them. Also, Southerners could have produced staple crops instead of cash crops, and not have relied so heavily on food production coming from the Western and Northern states. Contrary to popular myth, free states actually produced roughly 80% of all staple crops in the country. The "North" (free states... the "north vs. south" narrative is a red herring) was actually just as agrarian as the "South", in fact even moreso. Again, the real issue was the plantation system of cash crops, and refusal of the slavers to keep up with progress. They had only themselves to blame... Thomas Jefferson's prediction was correct: slavery made Southern white [aristocrats] lazy.
Perhaps you forget your history. Southerners and the slave powers dominated US federal politics even during the strongest years of Whig influence. Southerners (Democrats) consistently held the presidency and at least one house of Congress, if not both, as well as majorities of judges in the courts, for much of the antebellum 19th Century prior to the Rebellion of 1860.
Lincoln never utter any such words. It now appears that you're just making shit up for giggles, or have truly been grossly deceived by Lost Cause propaganda.
Here are a few good videos that can ease you into a more accurate understanding of antebellum 19th Century US sectional politics, which were dominated by one common denominator issue: slavery.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0
tldr; the Rebellion of 1860 was started in the defense of evil. No amount of Lost Cause fake news will change that reality. Sadly, many non-slaveholding Southern whites were duped into supporting the rebellion. Don't be like them.
Good comment. But you forgot to mention one of the biggest flash points that led to the civil war- Democrat election rigging via the Three-Fifths Compromise.
Not only were the lazy [slave owning] fat cat democrats (1% of the population of the south) exploiting slave labor for profit, but they were also leveraging slave ownership for the purpose of rigging federal elections by gerrymandering the population counts of congressional voting districts!
They counted slaves as population in democrat stronghold regions to add congressional house seats (new democrat aligned districts) that otherwise would not have existed. They have been rigging elections for over a hundred years, it's in the DNA of the democrat party.
Actually, the 3/5 comprise was an anti-slavery measure that sped up the inevitable end of slavery. Had the slavers had their way at the Constitutional Convention, they'd have gotten 100% of slave population count towards representation. The anti-slavery voices argued that if slavers could count slaves, then they can count cattle and livestock. Without getting it down to 3/5, it would have taken at least 50 more years for the free states to take Congress and the Presidency. Because of the 3/5 and ban on importation of slaves, slave reproduction rate couldn't outpace reproduction rate of free people and the influx of European immigrants to the north/west. Basically, the "compromise" was a poison pill towards abolition.
Correct. Had the democrats got what they wanted they could have continued to buy all the slaves they could afford, count all of them as population, and created dozens, if not hundreds of newly fabricated congressional house seats- all for the purpose of packing the US congress with more democrat congressmen. Their purpose was never to act as representatives of the public, but to seize power by any means necessary- just like today.
Election rigging, and exploiting the population for their personal power and wealth. Old democrats, same as the new democrats. That party needed to be outlawed in 1861, and their ashes scattered into the wind.