Hamilton Wins, Jackson Loses

[kalm]

I'm just curious, but how often do you guys still use paper money or coins? Personally, I can't even remember the last time I touched a bill.

Gambling and tipping so....daily?

[GannonFan]

Uh, they are going to put a woman on the front of a bill, they're going to do it with the $20 bill in a few years.

And of course, the irony of taking Lincoln off the bill and replace him with MLK - I mean, all Lincoln did was wage that war of violence you speak of to free men like MLK and his forefathers from the ignominy of slavery, oh, and to keep the country together so that we could actually have currency to put people's faces on. No biggie.

Lincoln didn't start that war to end slavery. Even the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't intended to do that, as it permitted Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland to keep slavery, and permitted any Confederate state that voluntarily rejoined the Union to keep its slaves.

The war was about money. There was no federal income tax, so most federal revenues came from duties on imported goods. Most of those revenues came through Southern ports.

No offense, but that's about one of the most inaccurate posts I've seen on here. First of all, secession started the war, not Lincoln. Jackson made it very clear thirty years before that nullification and secession were mute points and that they would not be permitted to happen. The South knew this and took the action they did, including firing the first shots of the war. Second, no one is arguing that Lincoln didn't initially rally the North to war to save the Union, not eradicate slavery. Of course it was Union first. And sure, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't end slavery. But there's also no doubt that as the war progressed, and at least as early as 1864 if not earlier, it was clear that the war was going to end slavery everywhere and that's what it did.

And third, the war wasn't about money at all, that really has to be one of the more obtuse things I've ever heard and I cringe that someone taught you that. The war, regardless of what Lincoln initially rallied the North for, was always about slavery. If there wasn't slavery there never would've been a Civil War. Period. End of story. Slavery was the driving divisive force for everything that was argued over before the nation formed and in the first 50 years of its existence. Again, without slavery the Civil War never would've happened.

[GannonFan]

They should take Grant off the $50. Great General. Lousy president.

Still better than Jackson. Jackson was a lesser general and, other than staring down Calhoun and then Biddle, an equally lousy president. Grant wins on the basis of the generalship.

[YoUDeeMan]

Ahh yes, Liberia...what happens when you take Detroit and make a nation out of its "leadership".

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[YoUDeeMan]

Jackson made it very clear thirty years before that nullification and secession were mute points

"Liesl Schillinger humorously defines a mute point as follows: “When somebody in a group makes a good suggestion, but somehow nobody hears it.” In a similar vein, Urban Dictionary defines it as “addressing the participants of a conference call while your phone is on mute.”'

http://blog.dictionary.com/moot-point-vs-mute-point/

[Ibanez]

Uh, they are going to put a woman on the front of a bill, they're going to do it with the $20 bill in a few years.

And of course, the irony of taking Lincoln off the bill and replace him with MLK - I mean, all Lincoln did was wage that war of violence you speak of to free men like MLK and his forefathers from the ignominy of slavery, oh, and to keep the country together so that we could actually have currency to put people's faces on. No biggie.

Lincoln didn't start that war to end slavery. Even the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't intended to do that, as it permitted Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland to keep slavery, and permitted any Confederate state that voluntarily rejoined the Union to keep its slaves.

The war was about money. There was no federal income tax, so most federal revenues came from duties on imported goods. Most of those revenues came through Southern ports.

While I agree that the war didn't begin to end slavery (that happens after Gettysburg). The war was over economics. The North NEEDED the slave labor of the South.

[DSUrocks07]

Lincoln didn't start that war to end slavery. Even the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't intended to do that, as it permitted Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland to keep slavery, and permitted any Confederate state that voluntarily rejoined the Union to keep its slaves.

The war was about money. There was no federal income tax, so most federal revenues came from duties on imported goods. Most of those revenues came through Southern ports.

No offense, but that's about one of the most inaccurate posts I've seen on here. First of all, secession started the war, not Lincoln. Jackson made it very clear thirty years before that nullification and secession were mute points and that they would not be permitted to happen. The South knew this and took the action they did, including firing the first shots of the war. Second, no one is arguing that Lincoln didn't initially rally the North to war to save the Union, not eradicate slavery. Of course it was Union first. And sure, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't end slavery. But there's also no doubt that as the war progressed, and at least as early as 1864 if not earlier, it was clear that the war was going to end slavery everywhere and that's what it did.

And third, the war wasn't about money at all, that really has to be one of the more obtuse things I've ever heard and I cringe that someone taught you that. The war, regardless of what Lincoln initially rallied the North for, was always about slavery. If there wasn't slavery there never would've been a Civil War. Period. End of story. Slavery was the driving divisive force for everything that was argued over before the nation formed and in the first 50 years of its existence. Again, without slavery the Civil War never would've happened.

Money = economy

Slavery was the basis of the Southern economy.

Free/cheap labor costs. The north was on the verge of putting a stop to it. So the South left.

Slavery has always been an integral part of the Civil War. That's a point that shouldn't have to be argued...yet still is.

Southerners should just take the L on that one.

Ironically, if they had embraced the Industrial Revolution as much as the North had, they would have been in a perfect spot to "free the slaves" on their own accord. But "slavery" was the easiest way to seperate blacks into second class citizenship, there was a reason why there are stories of free blacks being kidnapped and sold into slavery. black=slave

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Lincoln didn't start that war to end slavery. Even the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't intended to do that, as it permitted Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland to keep slavery, and permitted any Confederate state that voluntarily rejoined the Union to keep its slaves.

The war was about money. There was no federal income tax, so most federal revenues came from duties on imported goods. Most of those revenues came through Southern ports.

No offense, but that's about one of the most inaccurate posts I've seen on here. First of all, secession started the war, not Lincoln. Jackson made it very clear thirty years before that nullification and secession were mute points and that they would not be permitted to happen. The South knew this and took the action they did, including firing the first shots of the war. Second, no one is arguing that Lincoln didn't initially rally the North to war to save the Union, not eradicate slavery. Of course it was Union first. And sure, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't end slavery. But there's also no doubt that as the war progressed, and at least as early as 1864 if not earlier, it was clear that the war was going to end slavery everywhere and that's what it did.

And third, the war wasn't about money at all, that really has to be one of the more obtuse things I've ever heard and I cringe that someone taught you that. The war, regardless of what Lincoln initially rallied the North for, was always about slavery. If there wasn't slavery there never would've been a Civil War. Period. End of story. Slavery was the driving divisive force for everything that was argued over before the nation formed and in the first 50 years of its existence. Again, without slavery the Civil War never would've happened.

I agree that it wouldn't have happened if slavery hadn't existed. Saying it was about slavery isn't telling the whole truth. It was about the North losing the economic benefits of slave labor. It was about the South feeling that their "free" labor source was going to disappear. Lincoln waged war to maintain the Union, and if that meant slavery continued then so be it.

[Ibanez]

No offense, but that's about one of the most inaccurate posts I've seen on here. First of all, secession started the war, not Lincoln. Jackson made it very clear thirty years before that nullification and secession were mute points and that they would not be permitted to happen. The South knew this and took the action they did, including firing the first shots of the war. Second, no one is arguing that Lincoln didn't initially rally the North to war to save the Union, not eradicate slavery. Of course it was Union first. And sure, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't end slavery. But there's also no doubt that as the war progressed, and at least as early as 1864 if not earlier, it was clear that the war was going to end slavery everywhere and that's what it did.

And third, the war wasn't about money at all, that really has to be one of the more obtuse things I've ever heard and I cringe that someone taught you that. The war, regardless of what Lincoln initially rallied the North for, was always about slavery. If there wasn't slavery there never would've been a Civil War. Period. End of story. Slavery was the driving divisive force for everything that was argued over before the nation formed and in the first 50 years of its existence. Again, without slavery the Civil War never would've happened.

Money = economy

Slavery was the basis of the Southern economy.

Free/cheap labor costs. The north was on the verge of putting a stop to it. So the South left.

Slavery has always been an integral part of the Civil War. That's a point that shouldn't have to be argued...yet still is.

Southerners should just take the L on that one.

Ironically, if they had embraced the Industrial Revolution as much as the North had, they would have been in a perfect spot to "free the slaves" on their own accord. But "slavery" was the easiest way to seperate blacks into second class citizenship, there was a reason why there are stories of free blacks being kidnapped and sold into slavery. black=slave

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Correction: Dumb, hick ass southerners should take a L on that one.

And you can't think of slavery as only a Southern issue. Many of those raw materials going into the North came from the South. Many of them by the hands of slaves that keep prices low. Again...economics.

[Ibanez]

They should take Grant off the $50. Great General. Lousy president.

Still better than Jackson. Jackson was a lesser general and, other than staring down Calhoun and then Biddle, an equally lousy president. Grant wins on the basis of the generalship.

I don't know, Jackson wasn't too bad a general.

[GannonFan]

Still better than Jackson. Jackson was a lesser general and, other than staring down Calhoun and then Biddle, an equally lousy president. Grant wins on the basis of the generalship.

I don't know, Jackson wasn't too bad a general.

Didn't say he was, and in fairness, he didn't get the opportunity that Grant did. Grant won the Civil War by understanding and doing what he had to do to win it. Just a bigger stage than what Jackson had.

[GannonFan]

Lincoln didn't start that war to end slavery. Even the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't intended to do that, as it permitted Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland to keep slavery, and permitted any Confederate state that voluntarily rejoined the Union to keep its slaves.

The war was about money. There was no federal income tax, so most federal revenues came from duties on imported goods. Most of those revenues came through Southern ports.

While I agree that the war didn't begin to end slavery (that happens after Gettysburg). The war was over economics. The North NEEDED the slave labor of the South.

Semantics, but still different than what was posed, i.e. that the war was over duties on imported goods.

[Ibanez]

I don't know, Jackson wasn't too bad a general.

Didn't say he was, and in fairness, he didn't get the opportunity that Grant did. Grant won the Civil War by understanding and doing what he had to do to win it. Just a bigger stage than what Jackson had.

[GannonFan]

Jackson made it very clear thirty years before that nullification and secession were mute points

"Liesl Schillinger humorously defines a mute point as follows: “When somebody in a group makes a good suggestion, but somehow nobody hears it.” In a similar vein, Urban Dictionary defines it as “addressing the participants of a conference call while your phone is on mute.”'

http://blog.dictionary.com/moot-point-vs-mute-point/

My typo, my bad, moot point it should've been. As my wife reminds me everyday, I'm not perfect.

[YoUDeeMan]

And third, the war wasn't about money at all, that really has to be one of the more obtuse things I've ever heard and I cringe that someone taught you that. The war, regardless of what Lincoln initially rallied the North for, was always about slavery. If there wasn't slavery there never would've been a Civil War. Period. End of story. Slavery was the driving divisive force for everything that was argued over before the nation formed and in the first 50 years of its existence. Again, without slavery the Civil War never would've happened.

Of course the war was about money.

If slavery didn't produce enormous wealth, and, instead, simply provided a few comforts (go get me a beer) for the slave owners, then a war would not have been fought over slavery.

620,000 people would not die to free slaves if it weren't for the economic impact of slavery.

[Ibanez]

While I agree that the war didn't begin to end slavery (that happens after Gettysburg). The war was over economics. The North NEEDED the slave labor of the South.

Semantics, but still different than what was posed, i.e. that the war was over duties on imported goods.

Semantics? Economics. Money. Economics is what causes war. It's not the only cause, but it's a cause.

[GannonFan]

Money = economy

Slavery was the basis of the Southern economy.

Free/cheap labor costs. The north was on the verge of putting a stop to it. So the South left.

Slavery has always been an integral part of the Civil War. That's a point that shouldn't have to be argued...yet still is.

Southerners should just take the L on that one.

Ironically, if they had embraced the Industrial Revolution as much as the North had, they would have been in a perfect spot to "free the slaves" on their own accord. But "slavery" was the easiest way to seperate blacks into second class citizenship, there was a reason why there are stories of free blacks being kidnapped and sold into slavery. black=slave

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Correction: Dumb, hick ass southerners should take a L on that one.

And you can't think of slavery as only a Southern issue. Many of those raw materials going into the North came from the South. Many of them by the hands of slaves that keep prices low. Again...economics.

I agree, slavery was a national pursuit and it wasn't just Southerners involved in it or benefitting from it. However, where the South ended up owning it, especially in the historical sense, was by basically choosing to break up the Union and go to war over the issue of slavery. I didn't see factory owners in the North ever go to that extent to save slavery.

[GannonFan]

Semantics, but still different than what was posed, i.e. that the war was over duties on imported goods.

Semantics? Economics. Money. Economics is what causes war. It's not the only cause, but it's a cause.

The difference is he drilled down to custom duties and the potential loss of them as the cause - you're talking in generalities of the economy at large. I disagreed, and still do, with the very narrow reading of the loss of custom duties as the reason why the war happened.

[Ibanez]

Correction: Dumb, hick ass southerners should take a L on that one.

And you can't think of slavery as only a Southern issue. Many of those raw materials going into the North came from the South. Many of them by the hands of slaves that keep prices low. Again...economics.

I agree, slavery was a national pursuit and it wasn't just Southerners involved in it or benefitting from it. However, where the South ended up owning it, especially in the historical sense, was by basically choosing to break up the Union and go to war over the issue of slavery. I didn't see factory owners in the North ever go to that extent to save slavery.

Look again. Off the top of my head, NYC.

[YoUDeeMan]

Semantics? Economics. Money. Economics is what causes war. It's not the only cause, but it's a cause.

The difference is he drilled down to custom duties and the potential loss of them as the cause - you're talking in generalities of the economy at large. I disagreed, and still do, with the very narrow reading of the loss of custom duties as the reason why the war happened.

Yup...I wrote that before reading your other response.

[Ibanez]

Semantics? Economics. Money. Economics is what causes war. It's not the only cause, but it's a cause.

The difference is he drilled down to custom duties and the potential loss of them as the cause - you're talking in generalities of the economy at large. I disagreed, and still do, with the very narrow reading of the loss of custom duties as the reason why the war happened.

I agree with that.

[GannonFan]

And third, the war wasn't about money at all, that really has to be one of the more obtuse things I've ever heard and I cringe that someone taught you that. The war, regardless of what Lincoln initially rallied the North for, was always about slavery. If there wasn't slavery there never would've been a Civil War. Period. End of story. Slavery was the driving divisive force for everything that was argued over before the nation formed and in the first 50 years of its existence. Again, without slavery the Civil War never would've happened.

Of course the war was about money.

If slavery didn't produce enormous wealth, and, instead, simply provided a few comforts (go get me a beer) for the slave owners, then a war would not have been fought over slavery.

620,000 people would not die to free slaves if it weren't for the economic impact of slavery.

Yes, if slavery wasn't effective (or at least systematically entwined in the health of the economy) then we wouldn't have fought over it, I agree with that. But it was effective and that's why the South seceded and started the war.

[GannonFan]

I agree, slavery was a national pursuit and it wasn't just Southerners involved in it or benefitting from it. However, where the South ended up owning it, especially in the historical sense, was by basically choosing to break up the Union and go to war over the issue of slavery. I didn't see factory owners in the North ever go to that extent to save slavery.

Look again. Off the top of my head, NYC.

In what way, do you mean the draft riots?

Nevermind, I see. Yes, there were calls from some politicians in the North to either join the South or not to fight the war to save the Union. Most causes are not 100% fully supported, there's always a percentage who disagree. I'm sure I could find examples of folks in the South who wanted to do away with slavery and stay in the Union rather than fight as well. However, the vast majority didn't feel that way, just like a similar vast majority in the North didn't want the Union broken up.

[CitadelGrad]

The idea that the South started the war is ridiculous. The Southern states seceded, as was their right to do. The South fired no shots until Northern military action forced them to do so.

As for Jackson making it clear that secession and nullification were moot, I ask where did he get the authority to prohibit secession? The correct answer is, he did not have that authority. The 10th Amendment is what it is and Jackson's opinions about it are entirely irrelevant without a constitutional amendment to back them up.

[Ibanez]

Look again. Off the top of my head, NYC.

In what way, do you mean the draft riots?

Not really. Mayor Wood of NYC wanted NYC to secede and be a free city so that it could continue being profitable...off the backs of southern slaves. Tammany Hall!

But, if you think factory owners welcomed a rise in prices, then that's just naive.