What Was the Result of the War for Southern Independence?

[Ezra]

People proved that if motivated they would find the means to leave their country to get to America. They could easily do the same to do the same to get back. They were free to do so.

[Jason]

It is comforting!

Another example proving my hypothesis that modern libertarians will either divorce their beliefs of every man is a law unto himself....or separate themselves from the Lord, King, & Savior's kingdom and government.

The philosophies...while appearing to overlap at some points of doctrine....are contradictory.

There are only two sides...and no neutral ground. Either choose to love and serve the one...or lose your agency and be a slave to the other.

I agree on there being only 2 sides. Gods or not.

How does Lincoln actions (unconstitutional) war rate on your scale? And then the consiquenses? Were his chosen philosophies he used good or evil? Gods or not?

Can a government be gods but not use gods methods?

How do Nephi's actions against Laban rate on your scale?

[Ezra]

It is comforting!

Another example proving my hypothesis that modern libertarians will either divorce their beliefs of every man is a law unto himself....or separate themselves from the Lord, King, & Savior's kingdom and government.

The philosophies...while appearing to overlap at some points of doctrine....are contradictory.

There are only two sides...and no neutral ground. Either choose to love and serve the one...or lose your agency and be a slave to the other.

I agree on there being only 2 sides. Gods or not.

How does Lincoln actions (unconstitutional) war rate on your scale? And then the consiquenses? Were his chosen philosophies he used good or evil? Gods or not?

Can a government be gods but not use gods methods?

How do Nephi's actions against Laban rate on your scale?

A commandment from God by an angelic visitation 1 death vs no commandment from God death of 600,000 plus people. More then there even were slaves. Please that's not even a close comparison.
How many have you killed to promote a better way of life?

My number is 0. And have positively effected 1000s

Not a very good

[gclayjr]

Ezra,

I keep hoping that you give up on this thread. I see no reason to waste my time responding to ridiculous beliefs and theories, but you insist upon stating and restating easily provable false facts. As I have quoted before. You are welcome to your beliefs, no matter how ridiculous, but not your own facts.

A commandment from God by an angelic visitation 1 death vs no commandment from God death of 600,000 plus people. More then there even were slaves. Please that's not even a close comparison.
How many have you killed to promote a better way of life?

My number is 0. And have positively effected 1000s

according to the National Park Service The population of the South was 9 million of which 3.5 million were enslaved. I assume that your problem is with fact checking, not simple understanding of numbers. 3.5 Million is 2.9 million LARGER than 600,000, not smaller!

Also, another ridiculous assertion that you previously made, that I previously chose not to respond to was that the Union had more slaves than the south. Again according the the U.S. National Parks Website, the border states that remained with the north had 500,000 slaves. Again 3.5 Million is not only much larger than 600,000, it is even more larger than 500,000.

https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/facts.htm

Just a question. If your facts are always so false and screwed up, shouldn't that give pause to consider that maybe your ideas and assumptions are also?


P.S.

I'm glad that you haven't killed anybody. I am also gratified at your humility at being so sure that you have positively effected 1000s of peoples lives.

Regards,

George Clay

[ajax]

Also, another ridiculous assertion that you previously made, that I previously chose not to respond to was that the Union had more slaves than the south. Again according the the U.S. National Parks Website, the border states that remained with the north had 500,000 slaves. Again 3.5 Million is not only much larger than 600,000, it is even more larger than 500,000.

https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/facts.htm

Be nice to Ezra George. This was actually my boo boo. I was actually trying to compare the initial seven seceded deep south states vs all other states as of 4/15/1861, the date Lincoln called up 75,000. Got the data points wrong. It was 2.3 million vs 1.6 million.

[Jason]

It is comforting!

Another example proving my hypothesis that modern libertarians will either divorce their beliefs of every man is a law unto himself....or separate themselves from the Lord, King, & Savior's kingdom and government.

The philosophies...while appearing to overlap at some points of doctrine....are contradictory.

There are only two sides...and no neutral ground. Either choose to love and serve the one...or lose your agency and be a slave to the other.

I agree on there being only 2 sides. Gods or not.

How does Lincoln actions (unconstitutional) war rate on your scale? And then the consiquenses? Were his chosen philosophies he used good or evil? Gods or not?

Can a government be gods but not use gods methods?

How do Nephi's actions against Laban rate on your scale?

A commandment from God by an angelic visitation 1 death vs no commandment from God death of 600,000 plus people. More then there even were slaves. Please that's not even a close comparison.
How many have you killed to promote a better way of life?

My number is 0. And have positively effected 1000s

Not a very good

Assumptions...

Do a search on LDS.org of Lincoln.....

[gclayjr]

ajax,

I appreciate that you step up and take responsibility for an error. This however, is part of the problem. You have a corrected statistic that supports no conclusion. What is the significance of how many slaves were still in the Union, when only part of the southern states had yet seceded? This relatively meaningless statistic, is then used to make the spurious point that the Union was hypocritical in condemning slavery, because there were actually more slaves in the North than in the South. Again, I appreciate your stepping up and admitting an error in your data.

However, we do live in the times of the Internet. While we need to be careful about the validity of sources of information, because there is a lot of lying deceit on the internet. I do think that all of us, including Ezra, has the obligation to do at least a small bit of due diligence, before we start throwing around ridiculous numbers. I knew in my mind that the number of slaves in the South was nearer 3 million, than less than 600,000. But before, I responded, I checked out my memory by checking the number with the official statistics (I am gratified that my memory for this statistic was so accurate).

A point that I have been trying to make, is that we will have a better discussion, and actually be better able to present ourselves as a reasonable advocate of whatever ideas we are trying to present, if we at least do a minimal amount of due diligence to make sure the statistics we are citing, if not agreed upon, are at least reasonably accurate, and from reliable sources.

Regards,

George Clay

[ajax]

ajax,

I appreciate that you step up and take responsibility for an error. This however, is part of the problem. You have a corrected statistic that supports no conclusion. What is the significance of how many slaves were still in the Union, when only part of the southern states had yet seceded? This relatively meaningless statistic, is then used to make the spurious point that the Union was hypocritical in condemning slavery, because there were actually more slaves in the North than in the South. Again, I appreciate your stepping up and admitting an error in your data.

I have no problem admitting error, even on an admittedly meaningless stat. I had asked you the difference between seceding slave holding states in 1776 vs seceding slave holding states in 1861. You said because slavery was legal in 1776. I pointed out it was also legal in 1861 and then threw out an admittedly insignificant statistic for fun (it would have been more fun if true - you know like, "Lincoln went to war for slavery even though more slaves were in the US than out as of 4/15/1861" type fun, but 1.6 million is not slouching number either). But Lincoln was fine letting slavery exist. Abolitionists wanted to let the South go, so they could stop enforcing the Fugitive Slave act, which would have accelerated its demise, along with increased social pressure and industrialization.

However, we do live in the times of the Internet. While we need to be careful about the validity of sources of information, because there is a lot of lying deceit on the internet. I do think that all of us, including Ezra, has the obligation to do at least a small bit of due diligence, before we start throwing around ridiculous numbers. I knew in my mind that the number of slaves in the South was nearer 3 million, than less than 600,000. But before, I responded, I checked out my memory by checking the number with the official statistics (I am gratified that my memory for this statistic was so accurate).

Best to give the benefit of the doubt, especially on forums like these. Could be an honest mistake, maybe he didn't explain himself as he wished, maybe in a rush etc.

A point that I have been trying to make, is that we will have a better discussion, and actually be better able to present ourselves as a reasonable advocate of whatever ideas we are trying to present, if we at least do a minimal amount of due diligence to make sure the statistics we are citing, if not agreed upon, are at least reasonably accurate, and from reliable sources.

Regards,

George Clay

[ajax]

Do a search on LDS.org of Lincoln.....

Is this the same LDS.org that has struggled being honest with it's own history with its own members?

And you're suggesting LDS.org is the repository of truth regarding Lincoln and the civil war?

:))

[Ezra]

It is comforting!

Another example proving my hypothesis that modern libertarians will either divorce their beliefs of every man is a law unto himself....or separate themselves from the Lord, King, & Savior's kingdom and government.

The philosophies...while appearing to overlap at some points of doctrine....are contradictory.

There are only two sides...and no neutral ground. Either choose to love and serve the one...or lose your agency and be a slave to the other.

I agree on there being only 2 sides. Gods or not.

How does Lincoln actions (unconstitutional) war rate on your scale? And then the consiquenses? Were his chosen philosophies he used good or evil? Gods or not?

Can a government be gods but not use gods methods?

How do Nephi's actions against Laban rate on your scale?

A commandment from God by an angelic visitation 1 death vs no commandment from God death of 600,000 plus people. More then there even were slaves. Please that's not even a close comparison.
How many have you killed to promote a better way of life?

My number is 0. And have positively effected 1000s

Not a very good

Assumptions...

Do a search on LDS.org of Lincoln.....

Could find no commandment given to the prophet of the time to go to war. Gods mouthpiece.

Why is that Jason?
Do a search of D&c 98 for war. The conditions that need to be met for it to be justified. What happens when its unjustified.
What happens when the constitutional laws of the land are not followed.

And you have your answer about Lincoln.

[Serragon]

The Civil War was about one question. Did the States have the ability to secede from the Union?

If both sides had agreed in the affirmative then there would have been no war. If in the negative, then no secession. They disagreed on this fundamental point, hence the civil war.

Slavery was the greatest motivating factor for secession, but was not the reason for the war.

[ajax]

The Morrill tariff and the Confederate's Constitution of a free trade zone was a no small issue and radicalized many northern business interests in March of 1861.

From John Denson's A Century of War:

New-Haven Daily Register, which editorialized on February 11, 1861, that:

There never was a more ill-timed, injudicious and destructive
measure proposed, (so far as northern interests are concerned)
than the Morrill tariff bill, now pending before Congress. It proposes
to greatly increase the duties on all imported goods, and
in many articles to carry up the increase to the prohibitory
point . . . so that while Congress is raising the duties for the
Northern ports, the Southern Convention is doing away with
all import duties for the Southern ports. . . . More than three
fourths of the seafront of the Atlantic States—extending from
the Chesapeake inclusive, to the furtherest boundary of Texas,
would be beyond the reach of our Congress tariff. Their ports
would invite the free trade of the world! And what would the
high tariff be worth to us then, with only a one-fourth fragment
of our former seacoast left?

Tax historian Charles Adams analyzes this Northern realization of what the comparative tariffs of the North and South would do to their industries:

The war started, not because of the high Morrill Tariff, but just
the opposite: it was the low southern tariff, which created a free
trade zone. That tariff and its economic consequences for the
North—disastrous consequences—were what aroused the
anger of northern commercial interests and turned their apathy
toward the seceding states into militant anger. It united the
money interests in the North, and they were willing to back the
president with the capital needed to carry on the war. Here is
the scenario:

1. On March 11, 1861, the Confederate Constitution was
adopted. It created what was essentially a free trade zone in the
Confederacy, in contrast to the new high-tax, protective zone
in the North.

2. Within less than two weeks, northern newspapers grasped
the significance of this and switched from a moderate, conciliatory
policy to a militant demand for immediate action.

The New York Evening Post, a Republican newspaper, published an editorial on March 12 as follows:

There are some difficulties attending the collection of the revenue
in the seceding states which it will be well to look at attentively.
That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the
ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations
from abroad, it is generally admitted. If neither of these
things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the
sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall
have no money to carry on the government; the nation will
become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. . . . Allow
railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten
percent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of
laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be
imported at New York; the railways would be supplied from the
southern ports.

What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding
states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this
manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign
commerce destined for these ports where we have no custom-
houses and no collectors, as contraband, and stop it,
when offering to enter the collection districts from which our
authorities have been expelled? Or will the president call a
special session of Congress to do what the last unwisely failed
to do—to abolish all ports of entry in the seceding states?

The Philadelphia Press, on March 18, 1861, demanded a war by calling for a blockade of all Southern ports. The paper pointed out that the vast border from the Atlantic Ocean to West Texas would have no protective tariff and European goods would underprice Northern goods in Southern markets, and that this would ruin Northern business.72 Previously, on January 15, 1861, the same paper had been against any military action, arguing that the South should be allowed to go peacefully, but this was before the Morrill Tariff passed with its call for a high protective tariff and the Southern Confederacy passed its Constitutional prohibition against protective tariffs.73 The New York Times also changed its position over the tariff issue, and on March 22 and 23, stated, “At once shut up every Southern port, destroy its commerce, and bring utter ruin on the Confederate states. . . . A state of war would almost be preferable to the passive action the government had been following.”

The most explicit article on this issue which now faced the Lincoln administration appeared in the Boston Transcript for March 18, 1861:

It does not require extraordinary sagacity to perceive that trade
is perhaps the controlling motive operating to prevent the
return of the seceding states to the Union which they have
abandoned. Alleged grievances in regard to slavery were originally
the causes for separation of the cotton states; but the
mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of
the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence.
They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed
from Northern to Southern ports. The merchants of New
Orleans, Charleston and Savannah are possessed with the idea
that New York, Boston, and Philadelphia may be shorn, in the
future, of their mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging
on free trade. If the Southern Confederation is allowed to
carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon
imports, no doubt the business of the chief Northern cities will
be seriously injured thereby.

The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union
and that of the Confederate States that the entire Northwest
must find it to their advantage to purchase their imported
goods at New Orleans rather than New York. In addition to
this, the manufacturing interests of the country will suffer from
the increased importation resulting from low duties. . . . The
[government] would be false to its obligations if this state of
things were not provided against.

A wise institute teacher once taught us, most, if not all wars are economic in nature.

Lincoln stated, “I am in favor of the internal improvement system and a high protective tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles." He was in the pockets of northern business interests from the get go.

[gclayjr]

Ajax,

Your problem is that you don't read and think logically. And you are stubborn and wont let me leave you alone.


You Said

I guess this means you were for the Brits against the slavery owning colonies

And I said

You mean the Slave Holding Brits. In 1776, Slavery was still legal and common in Britain

And you responded several times with variations on this idiocy

have no problem admitting error, even on an admittedly meaningless stat. I had asked you the difference between seceding slave holding states in 1776 vs seceding slave holding states in 1861. You said because slavery was legal in 1776.

However, you don't seem to follow my simple point. We weren't fighting the Brits in 1861, we fought them in 1776, and both nations had slavery. I was willing to just let it go, but you want to smugly pound your non-sequitur as if it added something to your argument.

On one side I don't feel like pointing out every illogical, statement you make, or every false assertion you make based upon so well known facts, but you don't let it be, you keep pounding it, even though it is either irrational or false.

Regards,

George Clay

[ajax]

Ajax,

And you are stubborn and wont let me leave you alone.

Spoken like a true northerner. ;)

btw - you posted first today. I just jumped in to correct my error.

[jbalm]

You can leave ajax, but you can't leave him alone.

[ajax]

You can leave ajax, but you can't leave him alone.

:)) :ymblushing:

That must mean I'm true.

[jbalm]

I can't prove otherwise, so yes!

[ajax]

I've never been true before. Does that mean I need to start producing essays explaining past bad behavior and contradictions?

[jbalm]

As long as you don't sign anything. True-ness is best maintained by plausible deniability.

[ajax]

#:-s I was about to not want to be true anymore.

[JohnnyL]

Ajax,

Thanks for the link to Abbeville Institute--one of the best websites on these topics I've seen (but hadn't found).