A quote from the civil war, before it ended. You all should read this.

page: 21
100
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

The CSA sold cotton backed bonds on European markets, and despite what fantasy land you live in, the Europeans bought the bonds.
Apparently a lot of folks in Europe really wanted them. They were called Erlanger Bonds.

Look it up.


Not to mention the Enfield rifles sold to the Confederacy by England. He's going to have a real tough time explaining that one considering it gave an advantage to the confederate forces over the position they held prior to its issue.




posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall


Not to mention the Enfield rifles sold to the Confederacy by England. He's going to have a real tough time explaining that one considering it gave an advantage to the confederate forces over the position they held prior to its issue.


And the Alabama claims as well.

The CSA contracted with British shipyards to build warships disguised as merchant ships and the best of the class, The Alabama, captured 58 Northern merchant ships before it was sunk in June 1864 by a U.S. warship off the coast of France.

The USA inc. demanded compensation after the war and in 1872 was awarded $15.5 million by an arbitration committee.
link to source.
edit on 15/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Here is some information about the Erlanger Cotton Bonds of the CSA.


One of the key events which made blockade running a viable business in the latter half of the war was the so-called Erlanger Loan (or "Cotton Loan"), an issue of bonds made by Emile Erlanger and Company of Paris.
Because Confederate currency was worthless in Europe, Erlanger cotton bonds became the de facto currency used by the South when purchasing ships, supplies and other war materiel abroad.

In a very real sense, the Erlanger Loan gave the Confederacy at least a modicum of financial solvency even as its generals suffered defeat after defeat.
The Erlanger Loan was issued in five European cities -- London, Liverpool, Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt -- on March 19, 1863 and raised 1,759,894 ($8,535,486). The bonds sold at 90% of face value, and were redeemable for Confederate government-owned cotton in the Confederacy itself.

This last clause was a critical catalyst in stimulating blockade-running, because the holders of Erlanger bonds had to risk the Federal blockade to convert them into a tangible commodity.


link to source



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
Again... Independence was gained with the Declaration of Independence.


No, independence was gained through the successful rebellion of American patriots. Had we lost against the British, and the British resumed control over the colonies, independence would have been delayed, the declaration would have amounted to nothing.



Unfortunately it went by the wayside in 1871.


With what? The Civil rights act of 1871?


And yet the Confederate States of America still seceded.


And yet today they are not a country. So how did they secede again? They declared secession and independence but they never really achieved it. They had a functioning government for a good 3-4 years? But they were never formally recognized by the Union as a sovereign State, they were not recognized by either of the European powers. The only recognition of independece the Confederacy recieved was from themselves and their apologists today.


West Virginia was a border state with supporters on both sides.


So did the South, there were some Union supporters formally from the South, what's your point? Now there were more Union soldiers native to West Virginia than there were southern ones. The majority of Virginians voted for the formation of a new state in 1861 over those that voted to join the confederacy:
en.wikipedia.org...

There were a number of counties that banded together to form West Virginia as a new state, and with the help of Union forces they gained their statehood, yet the confederates ignored the will of those counties, they considered them part of the Confederate states as territory, regardless. What's my point again? The "right" to secession, any "right", declared by the confederacy, only concerned themselves.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


You are such a hypocrit. You state the seceded states were never seceded because they were not recognized as such but that's because the U.S. government's response was to declare them "illegal". However you turn around and manipulate the record to state that "with Union troop" assistance West Virginia was able to secede and create a new sovereign state which had the power to JOIN the union!

The secession of a part of a state to form a new state was an issue that was virtually UNANIMOUSLY rejected as being possible by either Federalists or Anti-federalists during the great debate on ratification of the Constitution. As far as I know NO ONE approved that a part of one state could secede to create a new state.

So you are backing something that virtually every founding father (both federalist and anti-federalist) opposed, yet you are making a virtual jack-ass of your argument's stance by rejecting what even the Federalist founding fathers supported - the sovereign rights of a state to choose to participate and choose to discontinue participation in the Union. That's secession.

You really are making a spectacle of yourself.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
You state the seceded states were never seceded


The South attempted secession, but they never successfully achieved it. You can have a declaration of secession, and not successfully gain independence as the result of it. To claim that the Confederate States were successful at secession is false, we have the results of the civil war as evidence of this. Confederate sovereignty was only recognized by the Confederates themselves and their apologists.


they were not recognized as such but that's because the U.S. government's response was to declare them "illegal".


Illegal you say?


Do you think the rebellion of American patriots against the British was in anyway "legal" under British Crown law? The answer is no. Do you think it was perfectly "legal" for the United States to invade Northern Mexico and claim it for herself? It certainly was not under Mexican law, but the Mexicans had no real say, they had to defend their northern territories by force, and they lost.

Tell me, why on earth did Lincoln and his Union forces have to care about what legalities the Confederates laid anymore than Polk had to care about what "legalities" the Mexicans would claim upon his invasion of their territory? The Union did what they did, raising the "legalities" of what they did back then does not change the result of the civil war. Had it not been for their actions, the greatest country in the world may very well have not existed.

Life isn't fair, is it? Neither is history.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



Illegal you say?


No... Actually illegal YOU say.
She was quoting you.

Are you illiterate or just playing dumb because you have no other recourse?

If you possessed a modicum of reading comprehension skills then you would understand that she was QUOTING YOU.

Methinks that you are trying to get a rise out of us, the people who have totally owned you in this debate, in order to get somebody banned.

Classic shill move.
You are a total shill.

I took a look at your threads and every single one is designed to divide.
You are purposely looking to create division by using highly charged political subjects, most of which involve the GOP, and then you word your threads to provoke two sides into combative banter.

And just as you are doing now you resort to making arguments that not only do not exist but are complete and total nonsense.

You live in fantasy land.

I see exactly what you are trying to do and you are a SHILL...

You either live to create conflict or you are paid to create conflict, either way your motives are clear and exposed in this thread.
edit on 15/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
Are you illiterate



If you possessed a modicum of reading comprehension skills



Classic shill move.



You are a total shill.



You live in fantasy land.



you are a SHILL...



your motives are clear and exposed in this thread.


A shame you have to end this debate with this kind of tone, I actually believed we would at some point come to an agreement on something and part ways.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Valhall, I asked you earlier to give one example of a bill or law that was met with the resistence of southern politicians in the 1850's, I have not seen a response to my post. Do you have anything? Any law? What did this tyrannical federal government (dominated mostly by the southern backed democrats) do to cause southern secession? Do you anything from the 1850's? Any laws?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


How in the world can we agree on something when you lack the ability to retort with anything resembling logically reasoned communication.

The only reason that you want to take off from this debate is because you have been called out.

And it is so plainly obvious.

Do you realize exactly how many times I have had to ask you to come down from whatever manic flight of irrational deduction drives your comments?

You basically have played mad-libs with the arguments that have been presented to you.

The only thing that you can take from this debate is that you have lost.
You got hardcore served.
Every single poster that has chimed in has agreed with this.

If memory serves, I believe that other posters have called your tactics "disingenuous", and that you "bob and weave".
Another poster said that you got "torn to shreds".
The only reason that I continued this debate is because it was honestly entertaining to see you engage in just about every single deflective mis/disinformation tactic known to exist.


We'll meet again son and I will own you... again.
edit on 16/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 




Valhall, I asked you earlier to give one example of a bill or law that was met with the resistence of southern politicians in the 1850's, I have not seen a response to my post. Do you have anything?


MORE OF THE SAME.

It has already been explained to you that it was the personal liberty laws that ultimately drove the states to want to secede; however, since you are a glutton for punishment, let me answer your question.

Another reason for the South feeling the repression of the abolitionists was the fact that they wanted to gain from taxation of Southern efforts while also condemning the very behavior that allowed the Southern states to be taxed to no end.

Let me introduce you to the tariff of abominations of 1828

The Tariff of 1828 was a protective tariff passed by the Congress of the United States on May 19, 1828, designed to protect industry in the northern United States. It was labeled the Tariff of Abominations by its southern detractors because of the effects it had on the antebellum Southern economy.

The major goal of the tariff was to protect industries in the northern United States which were being driven out of business by low-priced imported goods by putting a tax on them. The South, however, was harmed directly by having to pay higher prices on goods the region did not produce, and indirectly because reducing the exportation of British goods to the US made it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they imported from the South.

The reaction in the South, particularly in South Carolina, would lead to the Nullification Crisis that began in late 1832


link to source

It was this tariff that drove secession from the 1830's through the 1850's.
edit on 16/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by Valhall
 


Valhall, I asked you earlier to give one example of a bill or law that was met with the resistence of southern politicians in the 1850's, I have not seen a response to my post. Do you have anything? Any law? What did this tyrannical federal government (dominated mostly by the southern backed democrats) do to cause southern secession? Do you anything from the 1850's? Any laws?


What about the Morrill Tariff-

Morrill Tariff

The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was a high protective tariff in the United States, adopted on March 2, 1861, during the administration of President James Buchanan, a Democrat. It was a key element of the platform of the new Republican Party, and it appealed to industrialists and factory workers as a way to foster rapid industrial growth by limiting competition from lower-wage industries in Europe. It had been opposed by cotton planters, but they had mostly left the United States Congress when it was finally passed.

Named for its sponsor, Representative Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, who drafted it with the advice of Pennsylvania economist Henry Charles Carey, passage of the tariff was possible because many tariff-adverse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession.

The Morrill Tariff raised rates to protect and encourage industry and the high wages of industrial workers. It replaced the low Tariff of 1857, which was written to benefit the South. Two additional tariffs sponsored by Morrill, each one higher, were passed during Abraham Lincoln's administration to raise urgently needed revenue during the Civil War.


link to source

You do realize that this was a major part of the abolitionist platform in the 1850's.

The problems that the Confederates had with the abolitionist states that caused them to secede were the personal liberty laws.
Laws that I have discussed at length, but for some reason you want to act like you haven't heard this before.

The reason that they withdrew and seceded is because the abolitionists were left in power when the Southern Representatives literally walked out and abandoned their seats in Congress because of the election of Abe Lincoln and the continual blatant disregard that the abolitionist had for the mutually agreed upon, dejure and binding constitution.

Lemme guess.

Now you are going to go off on some kind of a rant about slavery.
edit on 16/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
hi all, just stopping by to offer thanks to xstealth for choosing such a quality quote to build upon


as we're not permitted to give the stars & flags it deserves, i offer a special kudos to you

regardless the ensuing discussion, that was probably one of the most pertinent CW quotes ever.

aside from all of the propaganda then and now, never have truer words been spoken.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


I'm not concerned as to whether you find this debate entertaining, I'm not concerned about your personal issues, I'm just concerned about your position in this debate. I'm all ears, do you have any further arguments?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
Another reason for the South feeling the repression of the abolitionists was the fact that they wanted to gain from taxation of Southern efforts


The issue of tariffs occured 30 years prior to the civil war. If your argument is that the South had a plan to secede over a period of 30 years, and the fact they did so a mere month or so after Lincoln's election win was somehow coincidental, you don't have a strong argument.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
What about the Morrill Tariff-

Morrill Tariff


The tariff argument is such an outdated reference from apologists on this issue.


No, the secession crisis really began in late 1860, and was sparked by the election of Abraham Lincoln. It is true that mentions of the “Morrill bill,” as the tariff was known before it became law, appeared during the secession convention in Georgia in November 1860. But mentions of the proposed tariff law were a peripheral issue to the much larger issue of slavery and the election of Lincoln.
history1800s.about.com...

The Morrill Bill only passed in March 1861, 4 months following the declaration of secession from the first southern states. What makes your argument all the more weaker is that had there not been a declaration of secession from these States, and had they continued representation in congress, this bill would have failed to pass given the majorities the Southern backed Democrats held prior to the civil war.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


I'm not concerned as to whether you find this debate entertaining, I'm not concerned about your personal issues, I'm just concerned about your position this debate. I'm all ears, do you have any further arguments?


Further arguments...

I suppose that you find it perfectly acceptable that 'ole "Honest Abe" found it perfectly acceptable to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, initially only applying to one state... Maryland... and he did this to keep them from seceding.

Which in all honesty is really bizarre considering that, according to you, they couldn't secede anyway.

For a group of people that couldn't secede he went to really great lengths to keep them from seceding.


Along with a declaring martial law, President Abraham Lincoln ordered the suspension of the constitutionally protected right to writs of habeas corpus in 1861, shortly after the start of the American Civil War. At the time, the suspension applied only in Maryland and parts of the Midwestern states.

In response to the arrest of Maryland secessionist John Merryman by Union troops, then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger B. Taney defied Lincoln's order and issued a writ of habeas corpus demanding that the U.S. Military bring Merryman before the Supreme Court. When Lincoln and the military refused to honor the writ, Chief Justice Taney in Ex-parte MERRYMAN declared Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional. Lincoln and the military ignored Taney's ruling.

On Sept. 24, 1862, President Lincoln issued the following proclamation suspending the right to writs of habeas corpus nationwide.

link to source

I guess the Supreme Court didn't matter here because Lincoln decided it didn't.

How is this any different than the King from whom we SECEDED and gained our independence.
(remember the King remark)

Do you realize that at one point he had the entire legislature from the state of Maryland imprisoned in Ft. McHenry.

At one point, the whole Maryland legislature was imprisoned at Fort McHenry as well as the Mayor of Baltimore, Mr. Brown, and a Maryland U.S. Representative, Mr. May.

One such Maryland legislator was Frank Key Howard, Esq., the grandson of Francis Scott Key. He was awakened around midnight when several armed men entered his home, and searched the premises. He demanded to see the warrant and the nature of the accusation, but none was given.


link to source


William H. Seward became notorious for his alleged ability to exceed the king of England in his power to have any citizen arrested simply by ringing a little bell on his desk.


link to source

How can you call any of this liberty.

The only reasoning that you have is that the Union won so whatever they did is history and that's that.

With that same reasoning, you can say that the Jews deserved to die in the Holocaust.
I mean Hitler did kill them.
And they couldn't do anything to stop it.
So he had the power and the might to impose his will and too bad.

Do you realize how asinine that line of reasoning is?

History is on my side.
I have endless support for my argument because this is what really happened.
edit on 16/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Did you take the time to read and understand the source that you quoted?

Because it says explicitly in the source quote that YOU chose to use-

It is true that mentions of the “Morrill bill,” as the tariff was known before it became law, appeared during the secession convention in Georgia in November 1860.


This bill was a part of the abolitionist platform.

It was yet another reason driving secession.


The Morrill Bill only passed in March 1861, 4 months following the declaration of secession from the first southern states. What makes your argument all the more weaker is that had there not been a declaration of secession from these States, and had they continued representation in congress, this bill would have failed to pass given the majorities the Southern backed Democrats held prior to the civil war.


The fact that it was a bill that was being pushed along with the blatant disregard for the Constitution through the personal liberty laws was enough.

You do not understand history.

You are living in fantasy land and completely detached from reality.

I really don't know what else to do with this.
Not only myself, but numerous other posters have submitted a copious profundity of historical facts and documents your way, but yet you refuse to acknowledge their validity while creating a completely revisionist, ad-hoc version of history that is so completely obfuscated that even you can't keep up with the changes leading to contradiction after contradiction.

I am going to sleep while you try to talk yourself out from behind the eight ball.

Cheers to everyone but you.
edit on 16/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 



How can you call any of this liberty.


Depends on your definition of Liberty. I support individual liberty, the motives for Southern secession had very little to do with individual liberty. Liberty wasn't a term invented by constitutionalists, "Liberty" and the American constitution are not one in the same, people may refer to laws dictated by the constitution as those of liberty, but they are not necessarily so.

What is the definition of "liberty"?


1.The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
2.An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Not all Americans were "free" living under society during those times and it was just reality, society had yet to evolve to where we are today. "Liberty" is not synonymous with the American Constitution. The American constitution, in it's originality, held various laws that conflicted with the very essence and understanding of what Liberty is. So don't talk to me about "liberty", because the motives concerning southern secession had little to do with it.


With that same reasoning, you can say that the Jews deserved to die in the Holocaust.
I mean Hitler did kill them.


I would not compare Hitler to Lincoln.


History is on my side.


A history where the South successfully achieved secession and independence? Today I sit within these United States. Your side is evidently outside of reality.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Again, the Morrill bill did not cause secession for the States. It was only passed in March of 1861 and had the South not seceded, their majorities in congress would have voted it out. The morrill bill just become another excuse for Confederate apologists to explain away from the true motive of secession.



new topics
top topics
 
100
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join