This appears to be a 1 out of 100 channels for giving unbiased historical review ... you are a glimmering light of hope in a a world of dark agendas. Thank you.
Wow and it's still here...betcha not for too much longer if it's telling the truth and not rewritten history by the ELITE who caused the war in the first place. "If you want a war call in the Jesuits" Ask who they truly are and find that qoute. There are many others just like it from famous people down through history of the last 400-500 years.
The Southern Cotton Kingdom wanted cheap European industrial goods to change with cotton and the high tariff was obstacle for this. South did not want industrialization in the USA at all! The North could start the higher tariff after the 7 original states left the USA (Texas, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina) left the Unio!
The North wanted to build domestic modern industrial country, but the South was not interest in the modern industry. The higher txation could help the domestic industry. The example was GERMANY, which country used the higher taxition to assist strong Germany domestic industry instead of buying the industrial goods from France, from united Kingdom and from Belgium.
Appreciate these historical insights into the free trade argument summarizing early 19th century political debate in the U.S. Consistently did we see free trade's proponents create a smokescreen obscuring the most urgent matter of investment necessary for securing the blessings of Liberty, a matter extending well beyond the issue of tariffs (be they revenue generating or protective, which distinction, by the way, is not made in the Constitution wherein Congress is given power to levy tariffs). The same flaw in dynamic logic afflicts today's free trade advocates of imperial slave systems (which use of language, indeed, is purposely presented here to draw the reader's attention to the same philosophy underlying opposition to tariffs taken by 19th century's Southern slave states). The harmony of the evolved Southern state position on tariffs with that of the New Venetians of London through their plagiarist fraud Adam Smith is not an accident. Rather it was a purposeful subversion joining a foreign enemy with domestic opportunists (which curse we must always contend with in a constitutional republic such as the U.S.). The matter of investment raising the productive power of labor is of supreme value to the cause of securing liberty, and this no matter some upfront cost that might need be paid (through a tariff, or a tax more generally). The simple fact is posterity likely is not attended free-of-charge. There is a cost to ensuring liberty to future generations. Yet by our investments promoted in conjunction with the means to generate revenue for government, possibly even negligibly raising costs in the here and now (unconcerned with less urgent matter of something being had more cheaply through foreign provision), the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity more assuredly will increase in their bounty through creation of assets we and future generations might creatively leverage in ours and their brief time on earth. And we might rest assured these future generations, too, will pay the added, negligible price for maintaining a government [far less imperfectly than today] of, by and for the people to ensure the same blessings of liberty to those who in turn follow them. Like I said, posterity likely is not attended free-of-charge. Should this attitude prevail through time, then the free trade argument must by necessity diminish, particularly as gross imbalance its largely financial manifestation in our time has created is doomed to collapse, as INTENDED.
Earth is a Realm it was mostly slavery but both the abominations and morill tariff did have a role in the Civil War. The War was just as much about the south not wanting to be told what to do. Had the south won the war I gaurantee the confederacy would have established a new free trade aggreement.
@@cjisawesome3686 To bad the South didn't respect the North's STATES RIGHTS to keep slave hunters out and to respect the laws! States rights my arse! States rights to trample the rights of others! That's what it was!!!
@@cjisawesome3686 slavery was a tool used by the north to condemn its opponents. The north wasn’t a moral enclave, and even your most adamant abolitionist were perfectly fine with those same slaves starving to death on the streets of New York; or an 8 year old Irish boy newly arrived, made to work and die in a factory after his parents died from some completely preventable disease on the boat ride over.
FYI, for those in the South that are still in denial that the main cause of the Civil War was slavery. The leaders of the south, in the articles of secession, their personal writings and in the constitution of the confederacy make no mention of tariffs. The Morrill Tariff had not passed in the Senate when 7 of the southern states seceded. The vote, which needed a 2/3 majority to pass, was 25-14 without those 7 southern states or 14 potential votes voting. If they had stayed in the Union, and all voted they could have easily prevented the passage of the Morrill Tariff since it needed 32 votes to pass (60% of 53 votes (39 that voted plus the 14 potential votes, a simple 8-6 against would do)). And the Tariffs set in 1857 were the lowest since 1817. Hence, it was not about tariffs. Or, state rights, since the south only cared about state rights so that they could keep and possibly expand slavery into newly acquired territories. The fugitive slave law in 1950 showed how little the south cared about states rights by forcing the North to help enforce slavery against their state's policy about not having slaves. So grow up -- no one is blaming you -- just some of the adults that lived in the South in 1860.
The tariffs were the lowest since 1816, when the seccestion crisis started. The Morril tariff had no hope of passing wihhout the abdication of the 14 southern senators.
Short answer: no, the tariff did not cause the civil war We have so many documents between the union and the confederates demonstrating they wanted to maintain their slave industry - meanwhile the north wanted them to stop attacking. The fallacy is “the north didn’t want slavery anymore” Nah - the south wanted slaves and attacked the north - the north didn’t care about slaves, but recognized freeing them was a good way of winning the war. The ones who freed their slaves won the war. Nothing to do with taxes. I think it’s sad that people are so easily fooled by arguments like “civil war was about state rights” Nah - just Christians wanting to maintain their way of life
I wonder who was it exactly that was threatening in 1861 to supposedly end slavery and take away slaves . Lincoln ? NAH in his inauguration he promised the South he would not interfere with the institution as he "felt he had no right too" Congress ? NAH in fact they passed the Corwin Ammendment which Lincoln publicly supported and said he would sign that would have constitutionally prevented the Government from doing anything about slavery. So who in the North threatened the South on slavery so much that they would go to war over something they already had and literally nobody said they would take away I will wait
@@bobbyprice7452 Thomas Jefferson en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves They started the abolition of slavery at the turn of the century - many countries signed treaties to end slavery in Africa. While this was happening, states like Ohio abolished slavery in their constitution. We amassed a floating army at sea called the navy. We helped end slavery in africa - when lincoln was elected, he said he would pick up Jefferson’s torch. Well before Lincoln, the abolition was going to happen.
This appears to be a 1 out of 100 channels for giving unbiased historical review ... you are a glimmering light of hope in a a world of dark agendas.
Thank you.
Wow and it's still here...betcha not for too much longer if it's telling the truth and not rewritten history by the ELITE who caused the war in the first place.
"If you want a war call in the Jesuits"
Ask who they truly are and find that qoute. There are many others just like it from famous people down through history of the last 400-500 years.
UnBaIsEd
Lost Cause Propaganda
@@OldHeathen1963 what was the "lost cause"?
@@joecitizen6755 Look it up.
I have watched these before. I have always liked history and this was very educational. So thank you for this.
It took me hours of searching the lost cause and getting the usual debunking videos until I finally found this gem
Good
What's true then, remains true today and forever.
Thank you for your kind comment
Lost Cause Propaganda with some Reaganomics thrown in!
Where can I find such a bewitching creature like you? Why has Clio showered you with such great musings?!
Where did you get the photos of the tariff documents?
Library of Congress
Outstanding! Very good work.
Lost Cause Propaganda
The Southern Cotton Kingdom wanted cheap European industrial goods to change with cotton and the high tariff was obstacle for this. South did not want industrialization in the USA at all! The North could start the higher tariff after the 7 original states left the USA (Texas, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina) left the Unio!
loved it great job
Look up The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo
The North wanted to build domestic modern industrial country, but the South was not interest in the modern industry. The higher txation could help the domestic industry. The example was GERMANY, which country used the higher taxition to assist strong Germany domestic industry instead of buying the industrial goods from France, from united Kingdom and from Belgium.
The taxes were going to help the north that is stealing
Appreciate these historical insights into the free trade argument summarizing early 19th century political debate in the U.S. Consistently did we see free trade's proponents create a smokescreen obscuring the most urgent matter of investment necessary for securing the blessings of Liberty, a matter extending well beyond the issue of tariffs (be they revenue generating or protective, which distinction, by the way, is not made in the Constitution wherein Congress is given power to levy tariffs). The same flaw in dynamic logic afflicts today's free trade advocates of imperial slave systems (which use of language, indeed, is purposely presented here to draw the reader's attention to the same philosophy underlying opposition to tariffs taken by 19th century's Southern slave states). The harmony of the evolved Southern state position on tariffs with that of the New Venetians of London through their plagiarist fraud Adam Smith is not an accident. Rather it was a purposeful subversion joining a foreign enemy with domestic opportunists (which curse we must always contend with in a constitutional republic such as the U.S.). The matter of investment raising the productive power of labor is of supreme value to the cause of securing liberty, and this no matter some upfront cost that might need be paid (through a tariff, or a tax more generally). The simple fact is posterity likely is not attended free-of-charge. There is a cost to ensuring liberty to future generations. Yet by our investments promoted in conjunction with the means to generate revenue for government, possibly even negligibly raising costs in the here and now (unconcerned with less urgent matter of something being had more cheaply through foreign provision), the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity more assuredly will increase in their bounty through creation of assets we and future generations might creatively leverage in ours and their brief time on earth. And we might rest assured these future generations, too, will pay the added, negligible price for maintaining a government [far less imperfectly than today] of, by and for the people to ensure the same blessings of liberty to those who in turn follow them. Like I said, posterity likely is not attended free-of-charge. Should this attitude prevail through time, then the free trade argument must by necessity diminish, particularly as gross imbalance its largely financial manifestation in our time has created is doomed to collapse, as INTENDED.
But my schoolin told me it was cause of da slaves?
Earth is a Realm it was mostly slavery but both the abominations and morill tariff did have a role in the Civil War. The War was just as much about the south not wanting to be told what to do. Had the south won the war I gaurantee the confederacy would have established a new free trade aggreement.
Your school was correct. Mine was not. N.J. class of '82.
@@cjisawesome3686 To bad the South didn't respect the North's STATES RIGHTS to keep slave hunters out and to respect the laws! States rights my arse! States rights to trample the rights of others! That's what it was!!!
@@cjisawesome3686 slavery was a tool used by the north to condemn its opponents. The north wasn’t a moral enclave, and even your most adamant abolitionist were perfectly fine with those same slaves starving to death on the streets of New York; or an 8 year old Irish boy newly arrived, made to work and die in a factory after his parents died from some completely preventable disease on the boat ride over.
@@heyzeuswept2413 True as you mentioned. Not to mention many northerners were Still Incredibly Racist.
"wealth of nations"...but England didn't give it any greedance either.
FYI, for those in the South that are still in denial that the main cause of the Civil War was slavery. The leaders of the south, in the articles of secession, their personal writings and in the constitution of the confederacy make no mention of tariffs. The Morrill Tariff had not passed in the Senate when 7 of the southern states seceded. The vote, which needed a 2/3 majority to pass, was 25-14 without those 7 southern states or 14 potential votes voting. If they had stayed in the Union, and all voted they could have easily prevented the passage of the Morrill Tariff since it needed 32 votes to pass (60% of 53 votes (39 that voted plus the 14 potential votes, a simple 8-6 against would do)). And the Tariffs set in 1857 were the lowest since 1817. Hence, it was not about tariffs. Or, state rights, since the south only cared about state rights so that they could keep and possibly expand slavery into newly acquired territories. The fugitive slave law in 1950 showed how little the south cared about states rights by forcing the North to help enforce slavery against their state's policy about not having slaves. So grow up -- no one is blaming you -- just some of the adults that lived in the South in 1860.
@FigsTroistok LOL, you're delusional it was the main cause by far.
@@ultimaterankings1154tariffs are most certainly mentioned idk what you're reading
@@nicholasmaximus3412 Maybe the articles of secession where several Confederate states said they were leaving specifically to preserve slavery.
A tariff war .
The tariffs were the lowest since 1816, when the seccestion crisis started. The Morril tariff had no hope of passing wihhout the abdication of the 14 southern senators.
@@viktorcabadaj6088tariffs generated over 90% of federal revenue during that time, the majority of which was paid by southern states
@@nicholasmaximus3412 South never paid majority of the tariffs. That's a lie. Majority of tariffs were paid by NYC and Boston
@@nicholasmaximus3412 The city of New York alone paid more in tariffs then the entire South
We need to make John Brown's Birthday a National Holiday 🙂
No thanks. John brown was a unhinged lunatic and a criminal.
@@mickeybeavison1053 He was certainly monomaniacal, but there's actually nothing wrong with eliminating those in favor of slavery.
based af
Nah he’s burning lol
11:09 for later reference
Short answer: no, the tariff did not cause the civil war
We have so many documents between the union and the confederates demonstrating they wanted to maintain their slave industry - meanwhile the north wanted them to stop attacking.
The fallacy is “the north didn’t want slavery anymore”
Nah - the south wanted slaves and attacked the north - the north didn’t care about slaves, but recognized freeing them was a good way of winning the war.
The ones who freed their slaves won the war. Nothing to do with taxes.
I think it’s sad that people are so easily fooled by arguments like “civil war was about state rights”
Nah - just Christians wanting to maintain their way of life
I wonder who was it exactly that was threatening in 1861 to supposedly end slavery and take away slaves .
Lincoln ?
NAH in his inauguration he promised the South he would not interfere with the institution as he "felt he had no right too"
Congress ?
NAH in fact they passed the Corwin Ammendment which Lincoln publicly supported and said he would sign that would have constitutionally prevented the Government from doing anything about slavery.
So who in the North threatened the South on slavery so much that they would go to war over something they already had and literally nobody said they would take away
I will wait
@@bobbyprice7452 Thomas Jefferson en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves
They started the abolition of slavery at the turn of the century - many countries signed treaties to end slavery in Africa. While this was happening, states like Ohio abolished slavery in their constitution.
We amassed a floating army at sea called the navy. We helped end slavery in africa - when lincoln was elected, he said he would pick up Jefferson’s torch.
Well before Lincoln, the abolition was going to happen.
Beliefs against this put lives like Mathew c Perry’s at risk of being forgotten.
That was a true American 🇺🇸
@@rckli because if it's on Wikipedia it's fact ? Lmao nice try.
@@rckli Thomas Jefferson died in 1826.....the South was so upset it took them almost 40 more years to go to war ? Smh