When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Point well taken. There is a difference between a mob and a legislative body. That said....
Essentially the Civil War was a second war of independence. If the south would have won they would have been a new country. In my understanding Jefferson et al. saw the issue of American independence as a matter of kind. That is, American Democracy was something completely different from any other government at the time. It was certainly a bold departure from Britain's monarchy.
On the other hand, the secession of the south seemed to be based on a matter of degree. It was not fundamentally a new system of government but rather a reformulation of an existing one. That is, taking some of the power from the federal government and giving it to the states.
My take on the founders was that matters of kind were justification for revolution, but not matters of degree. Of course we will never know.
My take on the founders was that matters of kind were justification for revolution, but not matters of degree. Of course we will never know.
Whistler
I find it hard to believe that the Founders would agree that a State with a freely elected legislature could not seceed from a Union it had freely joined and then form a Union that was more suitable to the needs of its people. That is precisely what the Founders did "in order to form a more perfect Union". There is a vast difference between revolution and secession.-Jack
Originally posted by billsco They were the only game in town. Cotton was king. How could tarriffs be choking southern interests then?
Because when tarriffs as high as 40% are placed on your product it naturally limits your profits. If you just pass along those costs to your consumer the price becomes to high so the consumer begins to look elsewhere. The southern US was not the sole source of cotton in the world. Therefore Southern producers absorbed some of the cost which reduced profits. Economics 101--Jack
Originally posted by bigjack I find it hard to believe that the Founders would agree that a State with a freely elected legislature could not seceed from a Union it had freely joined and then form a Union that was more suitable to the needs of its people. That is precisely what the Founders did "in order to form a more perfect Union". There is a vast difference between revolution and secession.-Jack
If people can pick up their ball and go home whenever something doesn't go their way, what is the point of starting the game?
Originally posted by bigjack The southern US was not the sole source of cotton in the world.
Yes it was, if I'm not mistaken. The South made a huge gamble in believing they could draw England to their side because they were THE only supplier of cotton. During the war, England successfully grew cotton in some of its wide-flung possessions.
Originally posted by whistler If people can pick up their ball and go home whenever something doesn't go their way, what is the point of starting the game?
Whistler
The economic repression of the South took place over 30 or 40 yrs. Secession wasn't a spur of the moment thing. Thomas Jefferson wrote that he thought that a new Revolution would have to take place about every 25yrs because power would tend to accumulate in the Federal gov't and become represive. They started the game to be free of England they also said that men not only had the right but the obligation to throw off a gov't that did not meet the needs of its people. I don't think the Founders ever envisioned the US as it was formed lasting forever or even 230 yrs for that matter. They called it the "great experiment".--Jack
Originally posted by billsco Yes it was, if I'm not mistaken. The South made a huge gamble in believing they could draw England to their side because they were THE only supplier of cotton. During the war, England successfully grew cotton in some of its wide-flung possessions.
There is no doubt that the South was the major supplier of cotton to England due to its proximity and traditional trading status. However it was not the sole source of cotton in the world. (QUOTE) During the war, England successfully grew cotton in some of its wide-flung possessions. (END QUOTE). If cotton producers simply passed on the cost of excessive tarrifs to England how long do you think it would take the English, who were astute businessmen, to look for other sources just as they did during the war?--Jack
Last edited by bigjack; Jan 28, 2004 at 11:18 AM.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Originally posted by bigjack If cotton producers simply passed on the cost of excessive tarrifs to England how long do you think it would take the English, who were astute businessmen, to look for other sources just as they did during the war?--Jack
But they HADN'T looked prior. The South was a reliable source, which is my point.
This thread asked a simple question - why the offense at displaying the Confederate flag? From reading and contributing I see a real wound that breaks open again every time a Rebel flag flutters. That would seem like a good enough reason right there for some not to want to fly it.
Originally posted by billsco But they HADN'T looked prior. The South was a reliable source, which is my point.
This thread asked a simple question - why the offense at displaying the Confederate flag? From reading and contributing I see a real wound that breaks open again every time a Rebel flag flutters. That would seem like a good enough reason right there for some not to want to fly it.
Some take offense at those who drive "gas guzzling and polluting" pick ups and suvs. Does that mean I have to keep mine in the garage? I live my life intending no offense to anyone. If some insist on taking offense never the less, that is their problem. They need to get over it. As long as I don't wave my flag in anyones face it is no concern of theirs what I hang off my front porch or hang off the bumper of my truck. Live and Let Live. Thats my motto.--Jack
billsco, it has been a pleasure debating you.--Jack
The Suoth suceeded from the union to form a CONFEDERATION. This was different than the union of the time. The southern states took a look at what had happened with the USA when they were a confederation and thought that they could solve the old problems. Personally I don't think that the confederate states of America would still be around now as it was formed in 1861. I don't think that a confederation is a viable gov't these days.
Why do I have a confederate flag, simply because it pisses off the NAACP. I am a South Carolinian and the NAACP is "boycotting" the state until they take the flag off of the statehouse's property. I am not a racist, if black people are offended by the flag, tough ****, I am offended by the way the NAACP has a say in every little thing our local or state legislation does. I may sound a little harsh, but it is dead true, legislation is constantly kissing the NAACP's *** so they don't bring even more bad publicity to our state. I am the supervisor at a local newspaper's circulation dept., the people I hire make minimum wage and is no way a glory job, obviously I have a high turn over rate, and yet every time a black person quits or I fire them, I get a call from the NAACP and am interrogated as to why that person left or was fired. They believe that as me a white male, I am not allowed to fire a black person, that I am the racist even though I fire white and hispanic employees also. It just happens to be that most of my employees are black, and when you don't show up to work, or come drunk, you get fired, no matter what color you are. These are my reasons for flying a confederate flag. I don't have a problem with black people, a lot of my best friends are black and we all joke about it. I am not trying to offend any black people, but special interest groups such as the NAACP are racists and need to be dealt with, instead of kissing up to them.
Last edited by offroadbronco; Jan 29, 2004 at 02:14 PM.
Originally posted by offroadbronco Why do I have a confederate flag, simply because it pisses off the NAACP. I am a South Carolinian and the NAACP is "boycotting" the state until they take the flag off of the statehouse's property. I am not a racist, if black people are offended by the flag, tough ****, I am offended by the way the NAACP has a say in every little thing our local or state legislation does. I may sound a little harsh, but it is dead true, legislation is constantly kissing the NAACP's *** so they don't bring even more bad publicity to our state. I am the supervisor at a local newspaper's circulation dept., the people I hire make minimum wage and is no way a glory job, obviously I have a high turn over rate, and yet every time a black person quits or I fire them, I get a call from the NAACP and am interrogated as to why that person left or was fired. They believe that as me a white male, I am not allowed to fire a black person, that I am the racist even though I fire white and hispanic employees also. It just happens to be that most of my employees are black, and when you don't show up to work, or come drunk, you get fired, no matter what color you are. These are my reasons for flying a confederate flag. I don't have a problem with black people, a lot of my best friends are black and we all joke about it. I am not trying to offend any black people, but special interest groups such as the NAACP are racists and need to be dealt with, instead of kissing up to them.
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.