[2011-Dec-28] Tomatoes ARE a fruit!

[Quintushalls]

Forbes magazine has terrible taste! http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisbarth/ ... nt-stupid/

[don't buy into the lies]

I don't even have to say anything, this post does it all.

With the controversy arising out of Virginia's Gov. Bob McDonnell's proclamation of April being Confederate History Month, I've seen a lot of evidence that many have been hoodwinked by revisionist history. So I'd like to set the record straight on the true cause of the Civil War.

But first, let me say that, as a libertarian, I believe that slavery in any form is an extreme abomination. Its abolishment was the only good thing to come out of the Civil War. However, history shows that the abolishment of slavery can and has been achieved peacefully. So what is my motivation for compiling this piece? I can sum it up in one word - TRUTH. If we ignore history, we are bound to repeat it. If we have a false understanding of history, we are bound to head in directions that can be disastrous.

As our current, bloated, out-of-control, omnipotent federal government has abandoned any semblance of Constitutional compliance, the People have begun to call for the States to reign in the agent which they created. In response, Statists have launched an attack on the concept of State Sovereignty and those who favor state intervention. That attack has included the attempt to paint the pro-States' Rights Movement as being "racist" and "treasonous". It is my objective to let true history prove that such nefarious assertions are false and based on revisionist history.

The true cause of the Civil War was NOT about slavery. It was predominately about economic factors linked directly to trade tariffs that greatly favored the industrializing Northern states and were very detrimental to the agrarian Southern states. To prove this, I've first posted an article written by Dr. Walter Williams, Professor of Economics at George Mason University. http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/vita.html The article gives a brief but accurate overview of the true causes of the Civil War. Additionally, I have compiled a time line of events that clearly show that both slavery wasn't the cause and that biased economic tariffs were.
_____________________________________________

The Civil War Wasn't About Slavery

Walter Williams
December 2, 1998


THE PROBLEMS THAT LED TO THE CIVIL WAR are the same problems today-big, intrusive government. The reason we don't face the specter of another Civil War is because today's Americans don't have yesteryear's spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply.

Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called "The War Between the States" or the "War for Southern Independence." The more bitter southerner might call it the "War of Northern Aggression."

History books have misled today's Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves.

Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore's Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations." A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.

Shortly after Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.

That's when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.

The only good coming from the War Between the States was the abolition of slavery. The great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" was overturned by force of arms. By destroying the states' right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined.

States should again challenge Washington's unconstitutional acts through nullification. But you tell me where we can find leaders with the love, courage and respect for our Constitution like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun.
_____________________________________________


Time line of events

1832: South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations" which created a deep rift between the agrarian South and the industrializing North.

1833: A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war.

May 10, 1860: The Morrill Tariff Act passed the United States House of Representatives by a strictly sectional vote. Virtually all of the northern representatives supported it and southern representatives opposed it because it economically oppressed the Southern states and was beneficial to the Northern states.

November, 1860: Lincoln wins the election on a pro-tariff platform that specifically excluded the abolition of slavery. The true abolition candidate, Gerrit Smith of New York, drew few votes.

Dec. 1860: The Senate begins to move toward the passage of the Morrill Tariff Act.

Dec. 20, 1860: South Carolina secedes. Six more lower South states and later four upper South states follow.

The Morrill Tariff finally came up for full debate on February 27 and was approved on March 2 on a strictly sectional vote.

March 2, 1861: Morrill Tariff was signed into law by President Buchanan.

March 4, 1861: Abraham Lincoln is inaugurated as President of the United States. In his inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

Apr 12, 1861: Fort Sumter is attacked - the beginning of the Civil War.

Sept. 22, 1862: Lincoln issues the first Emancipation Proclamation, to be effective January 1, 1863... almost two years after the secession of the South. It declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863.

Jan. 1, 1863: The second order of emancipation was issued naming ten specific states where it would apply. The proclamation did not name the slave-holding border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession, and so it did not free any slaves there. The state of Tennessee had already mostly returned to Union control, so it also was not named and was exempted.
_____________________________________________

I don't believe anyone can honestly refute that these facts and their chronology conclude that slavery was not a significant cause of the Civil War. Emancipation was clearly a political tool and a tactic of war, not the cause of it.

Beyond the hundreds of thousands of American lives lost was the cost of our Republic as was envisioned by its founders. The Union of States was replaced with a Federalized system that began the inversion of the proper hierarchy of power which was 1) the People followed by 2) the States followed by 3) the National Government. Before the Civil War, the States were the vanguards of freedom... the shield between the People and a centralized government which innately tends to grow and oppress. The results of the Civil War was a dramatic shift of power from the States to what can only be described as a "federal" government. The next major nail in the coffin of States rights came in 1913 with the passage of the 17th Amendment... but that is a topic of a blog yet to be written.

Revisionist history paints Abraham Lincoln as a hero who set out to free the slaves. True history shows that such a myth is akin to that of George Washington cutting down the cherry tree. Lincoln was a proponent of a big, centralized FEDERAL government (contrary to the limited national government as defined by the Constitution). We are now suffering from that legacy. Slavery could and should have been abolished without the war that claimed more American lives than any other war in our nation's history.

Will the People rise up in numbers sufficient to save our Republic by placing once more the chains of the Constitution upon the national government? Will the States use their inherent powers to do their part in this crucial endeavor? Will they use their sovereign powers to sever the fuel line to Washington and therefore stop the totalitarian Leviathan? http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/a ... -to-save-o... The answers to those questions are in the hands of We the People.
+36

[DonRetrasado]

I just feel like it doesn't have anything to do with tomatoes.

[Pitch Hitter]

Constitutionalism is even stupider than creationism, because at least creationists think their dogma was written by an all-powerful all-knowing all-loving God. The US constitution was written by men and was their best attempt at making the best country they could imagine. It doesn't make sense when deciding on a course of action to think of what is closest to their original vision instead of what would make a better country.

I also don't understand state rights. If federal government is so awful, what makes state government better?

[guešt]

Constitutionalism is even stupider than creationism, because at least creationists think their dogma was written by an all-powerful all-knowing all-loving God. The US constitution was written by men and was their best attempt at making the best country they could imagine. It doesn't make sense when deciding on a course of action to think of what is closest to their original vision instead of what would make a better country.

I also don't understand state rights. If federal government is so awful, what makes state government better?

are you sure you shouldn't change your name to pinch Hitler ?

I'm just saying.

[Oldrac the Chitinous]

All those words, and none of them were "sheeple"!

If you call yourself "don't buy into the lies," it sets up certain expectations.
You've let me down. You've let us all down.

[Pitch Hitter]

Pinch hitler doesn't sound like pit shitter

[smiley_cow]

"copy pasted and poorly supported essay"

See what this essay completely fails to address is the fact that southern states seceded over slavery. Yes, most historians I've read on the subject didn't think that Lincoln was going to abolish slavery if circumstances had been different, but either the Southern states didn't believe him, or they thought if a man sympathetic to slaves could be elected, it was only a matter of time.

The war was about the economy, yes but more specifically it was about the affect abolishing slavery would have on an economy that's driven by an industry (see: plantations) that require slaves to survive. And all the rhetoric from this time period supports this. Here's part of Texas' declaration of secession:

in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states...."

They specifically say that the issue is the affect that ending slavery will have on their economy. I repeat "...the destruction of existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring ineveitable calamities...upon the fifteeen slave-holding states..." That's a direct reference to the issues ending slavery would bring to their state.

On top of that the Confederate constitution was based specifically off the issue of slavery. From the vice president of the Confederacy:

"The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth..."

TL;DR paraphrased: The American constitution saying all races are equal is "fundamentally wrong". Our new government is founded on exactly the opposite idea, and that slavery is the natural state of "the negro".

How can their constitution be based off the principle of slavery without it being about slavery?

Also those tariffs you mention? Yes, of course they were a factor. Because they supported non-slave industries like manufacturing and that in the North. If anything, it was more proof to southern states that Washington was likely to move to abolish slavery. But while it came up a few times, and it was talked about, it's hardly the same thing as basing your new constitution on this single issue In fact, Virginia, who had fledgling industries that those tariffs would have helped was promised new protective tariffs to replace the Morrill Tariffs.

[Yoo-jin]

Every time I visit the forum, I get really disappointed, because it's just a bunch of people saying they hate the comic. But I had to this time, because this one... really sucks? Is it just a semantics joke? I'm under the impression Amazons were said to remove a breast. So it's just the fact that some dumb guy said historically instead of... traditionally? Mythologically? (Word filter don't like that last one.) And, I mean, the Civil War one is just hyperbole, not even really that wrong. Or is the comic really telling me I'm a dumb sack of shit?

In what world is the difference between History, Tradition, and Mythology one of semantics?

Our world. Let me clarify.

I'm always rather chuffed when people imply that a point being about "semantics" means it's fiddly and pointless. Semantics is, in linguistics, philosophy, and general purpose Standard English, related to meaning. If, for example, I am disagree with someone over a "purely semantic point," we have something of a major issue: we disagree on what an idea, word or symbol means. If we can't agree on what each person in the conversation means to a reasonable approximation we can't really have an honest conversation.

Now, I know that what people usually mean when they say "that's semantic" is that it is "pointlessly semantic." So rather than quibble with them about the importance of semantics I just try to demonstrate why, semantic or not, my point is important. But it still makes me sad to hear the word so abused. Semantics are pretty darn important--especially when discussing linguistics of all things! The differences between the meanings of History, Tradition and Mythology fall very much under the purview of semantics. But your implication that the differences are in no way trivial is, to my mind, also right on the money.

The problem is that Amazons are said to have removed their breasts. They have not been proven to actually have done so. So, historically, they probably did not (depictions of the Amazons do not lack their right breasts even in Ancient Greek art.)

But when I hear the word "semantics" I do not think that most people mean it is fiddly and pointless. But, rather, that when it's "just semantics", they're trying to say that you're making a mountain out of a linguistic molehill. Now, the thing is, I would hardly call the difference between traditionally, historically, and mythologically one of semantics. Unless, of course, you want to argue about the semantics of semantics.

[PapaSloth]

depictions of the Amazons do not lack their right breasts even in Ancient Greek art.

Tits or GTFO.

Unless, of course, you want to argue about the semantics of semantics.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[GUTCHUCKER]

That's inconceivable

[Pitch Hitter]

Tits or GTFO.

hooray

someone decided to post this

[Gangler]

All in favor of anointing Papasloth the new king of the internets say aye!

[Yoo-jin]

depictions of the Amazons do not lack their right breasts even in Ancient Greek art.

Tits or GTFO.

Unless, of course, you want to argue about the semantics of semantics.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Did you really have to say that?

And what does it mean in contrary to how I used it?

[GUTCHUCKER]

It means he has watched the princess bride and you have not