Supporters Rise Up To Defend Confederate Flag

what a waste of good resources.

Morrill Tariff in 1860 raised the taxes of the south by more than double, from 20% to 47%, America's population was only 30% in the south but they paid nearly 80% of the taxes due to the Morrill Tariff's trade laws.

When this happened the only thing the south could think to do at this time was to secede from the union, a legal option the south had, and be part of a government that they would have been represented in. This would cause the collapse of the union which caused the north vs south civil war.

The north wouldn't allow the south to secede due to economic collapse and the south wouldn't let the north tax the living crap out of them.

Only 6% of the south in the war had slaves, what were the other 94% fighting for? Especially when the top generals of the north had slaves.

Lincolns war cost over 600,000 American lives, including the forced slaves lives in the union army. Such a horrible massacre would bring a bad name to anyone. Why not blame the south and use slavery as the reason?

/readingrainbow

35,390 / 50,000 signatures.

Remove The African American Monument

You're factually wrong dude.

That tax was adopted after the confederacy was formed, in 1861.

Idk about 6%. Maybe somewhere around 20-25%. You had to pay for slaves and they're weren't cheap so only the rich had them.

Origins
A high tariff to encourage the development of domestic industry had been advocated for many years, especially by the Whig Party and its long-time leader Henry Clay. They enacted such a tariff in 1842, but in 1846 the Democrats enacted the Walker Tariff, cutting tariff rates substantially. The Democrats cut rates even further in the Tariff of 1857, which was highly favorable to the South.

Meanwhile, the Whig Party broke up, and this element of the Whig program was taken up by the new Republican Party, which ran its first national ticket in 1856. Some former Whigs from the Border States and upper South remained in Congress as "Opposition", "Unionist", or "American" (Know Nothing) members; they also supported higher tariffs.

The Panic of 1857 led to calls for protectionist tariff revision. Well-known economist Henry C. Carey blamed the Panic on the Tariff of 1857. His opinion was widely circulated in the high tariff (or "protectionist") media.

Efforts to revise the tariff schedules upward began in earnest in the 35th Congress of 1857–1859. Two proposals were submitted in the House. House Ways and Means Committee chairman John S. Phelps (D-Missouri wrote the Democrats' plan, which retained most of the low rates of the 1857 Tariff, with minor revisions to stimulate revenue.

Minority Ways and Means members Morrill and Henry Winter Davis (a Maryland "American") produced the Republican proposal, an upward revision of the tariff schedule. It replaced the existing ad valorem tariff schedule with specific duties and drastically increased tariff rates on goods produced by popular "protected" industries, such as iron, textiles, and other manufactured goods. Economic historian Frank Taussig argued that in many cases, the substitution of specific duties was used to disguise the extent of the rate increases. Supporters of the specific rates argued that they were necessary, though, because European exporters were routinely providing their American customers with phony invoices showing lower prices for goods than were actually paid. Specific rates made such subterfuge pointless.

However, the House took no action on either tariff bill during the 35th Congress.

House actions
When the 36th Congress met in 1859, action remained blocked by a wrangle over the Speaker of the House until 1860, when Republican William Pennington of New Jersey was elected. A pro-tariff Republican majority was appointed to Ways and Means, and John Sherman of Ohio became chairman.

The Morrill bill was passed out of committee and brought up for a floor vote near the end of first session of the Congress (December 1859 – June 1860).

The vote was on May 10, 1860; the bill passed by a vote of 105 to 64.

The vote was largely but not entirely sectional. Republicans, all from the northern states, voted 89–2 for the bill. They were joined by 7 northern Democrats from New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Five of these were "anti-Lecompton Democrats" (dissident Democrats who opposed the pro-slavery Lecompton constitution for Kansas).

14 northern Democrats voted against the bill.

In the Border States, 4 "Opposition" Representatives from Kentucky voted for it, as did its co-sponsor Winter of Maryland, a Maryland "Unionist", and a Democrat from Delaware. 8 Border state Democrats and an "American" from Missouri voted no.

35 southern Democrats and 3 Oppositionists voted against it; one Oppositionist from Tennessee voted for it.

Thus the sectional breakdown was 96–15 in the north, 7–9 in the Border, and 1–39 in the south.

There were 55 abstentions, including 13 Republicans, 12 northern Democrats, 13 southern Democrats, and 8 southern "Oppositionists" and "Americans". (The remaining Representatives were mostly "paired" with opposing Representatives who could not be present.

Senate action
The Morrill bill was sent on to the Senate. However, the Senate was controlled by Democrats, and so the bill was bottled up in the Finance Committee, chaired by Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia.

This insured that the Senate vote would be put off till the second session in December. It also meant that the tariff would be a prominent issue in the 1860 election.

1860 election
The Republican party included a strong pro-tariff plank in its 1860 platform. They also sent prominent tariff advocates such as Morrill and Sherman to campaign in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, where the tariff was popular, by touting the Morrill bill. Both Democratic candidates, John C. Breckinridge and Stephen Douglas, opposed all high tariffs and protectionism in general.

Historian Reinhard H. Luthin documents the importance of the Morrill Tariff to the Republicans in the 1860 presidential election. Abraham Lincoln's record as a protectionist and support for the Morrill Tariff bill, he notes, helped him to secure support in the important electoral college state of Pennsylvania, as well as neighboring New Jersey. Lincoln carried Pennsylvania handily in November, as part of his sweep of the North.

On February 14, 1861, President-elect Lincoln told an audience in Pittsburgh that he would make a new tariff his priority in the next session if the bill did not pass by inauguration day on March 4.

Renewed Senate action
The second session of the 36th Congress began in December 1860. At first it appeared that Hunter would keep the Morrill bill tabled until the end of the term in March.

However, in December 1860 and January 1861, seven southern states declared secession, and their low-tariff Senators withdrew. Republicans took control of the Senate in February, and Hunter lost his hold on the Finance Committee.

Meanwhile, the Treasury was in financial crisis, with less than $500,000 on hand and millions in unpaid bills. The Union urgently needed new revenue. A recent historian concludes, "the impetus for revising the tariff arose as an attempt to augment revenue, stave off 'ruin,' and address the accumulating debt."

The Morrill bill was brought to the Senate floor for a vote on February 20, and passed 25 to 14. The vote was split almost completely down party lines. It was supported by 24 Republicans and Democrat William Bigler of Pennsylvania. It was opposed by 10 Southern Democrats, 2 Northern Democrats, and 2 Far West Democrats. 12 Senators abstained, including 3 Northern Democrats, 1 California Democrat, 5 Southern Democrats, 2 Republicans, and 1 Unionist from Maryland.
There were some minor amendments related to the tariffs on tea and coffee, which required a conference committee with the House, but these were resolved and the final bill was approved by unanimous consent on March 2.

Though a Democrat himself, outgoing President James Buchanan favored the bill because of the interests of his home state, Pennsylvania. He signed the bill into law as one of his last acts in office.

tldr:
Morrill Tariff was "going" into effect long before the confederacy.
Just as well know what will happen if Trump goes into office they knew what would happen if the Morrill Tariff went into effect when Lincoln was elected president.


This makes no sense considering the south didn't start to secede until December-20-1860 yet the bill was already to go in effect due to the passing of the bill in May-10-1860.

Deleted, I doubled post on accident.

Is the South beginning to rise.......again?

are men going their own way?

Maybe.

Ooooh look at fact 5


Meaning South Carolina isn't about "Taking it down because it is a symbol of hate" they want the NAACP to stop boycotting them and in a sense get more money.

When are they going to change the NAACP's name? Sounds offensive.

I'm just...disgusted with this entire topic now...

Also same website, Fact 6 about why the flag never got lowered.

No.

There was a census taken in 1860

% of families owning slaves in the states that attempted to seceded:
South Carolina: 46%
Georgia: 37%
Alabama: 35%
Arkansas: 20%
Florida: 34%
Louisiana: 29%
Mississippi: 49%
North Carolina: 28%
Tennessee: 25%
Texas: 28%
Virginia: 26%

The US (as a whole) owned 8% of slaves. The southern states had a much higher average.

It would imply that they were risen in the first place :P

That was as population, that was not saying 30% of the people owned slaves. Large plantations generally was 1 owner with many slaves. Especially since the lack of income in the south. Granted I would believe that if there was more money there would have been more slaves though, but that goes on both sides.

I saw those similar numbers too.

I can't imagine that almost half the population in Mississippi were that rich though.

According to any figures I could find and adjusting for today's dollar, slaves would have cost anywhere between $25,000 and $50,000 today. (For just one)

EDIT: Using 1850 as a reference point.

Being prepared/signed and "in effect" and "causing" are all very different things.

You cannot say it caused them to secede when it wasn't even law yet.

Not to mention your other numbers which have already been debunked.

Generally if you started a plantation the income became very vast, that is why slavery was a profitable margin back then. Free unlimited labor, (minus the initial cost of slaves)

Like I said those are population numbers. 49% of Mississippi was slaves according to the census, however 49% of that state was not rich enough to have slaves. That would mean 1 out of every 2 households were plantations with large houses and fields.

That or every house had 1 slave, either way I find no contributing evidence to either debate.

Like I said population numbers. ! house having 50 or more slaves is more likely to represent those numbers accurately.


No they haven't in fact the census only helped prove my point of not nearly many slave owners as people seem to think. Furthermore to disprove your idea about "being prepared to sign" I already stated the bill was passed in May of 1860, the seceding started 7 months later.

I'd argue that the majority are neither independent (let alone extremely), nor individualistic, and also don't like to be different from each other.
And you only have to look at discussions regarding contraception, abortion, and gay marriage to say that the belief in freedom of choice isn't universal either.
Have you traveled outside the US, or have anything else to compare it against? US culture is hugely focused on money; from the price of food/latest good deal/thing someone bought. Take a pad of paper, and just make a mark anytime you have a conversation with someone where money in any of its forms comes up (e.g. government spending, tax, price of goods, latest bargains).

I was reading something before where the price of maintaining large quantities of slaves was huge as well. Then when the whole British control of the cotton industry in India came to be, it was becoming less profitable because of the competition.

Mississippi slave holders: 30,943

Number of Mississippi families: 63,015





Mississippi population: 791,305
Mississippi slaves: 436,631

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/00165897ch14.pdf
Page 135-136, table 63, 64, 65.

Apparently reading is hard too.


Also your understanding of the census data is entirely wrong.