Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on May 10, 2007, 11:51:37 AM
-
An interesting development in the War On Terror:
http://www.chrisbrunner.com/2007/05/09/libertarians-are-terrorists-says-the-state-of-alabama/
Alabama has decided that anyone who disagrees with the idea of centralized, powerful government is a terrorist. Guess I shouldn't book any travel out there anytime soon.
The Alabama Department of Homeland Security (ALDHS), established in June of 2003, has recently constructed a website that defines Domestic Terrorists as those who oppose gun control and a strong federal government.
Under the heading “Anti-Government Groups”, the site displays a flag that is widely considered one of the first symbols of American patriotism and reads, “In general, these terrorists claim that the U.S. government is infringing on their individual rights, and/or that the government's policies are criminal and immoral. Such groups may hold that the current government is violating the basic principles laid out by the U.S. Constitution…”
-
Lincoln really screwed up not letting the confederate states secede.
-
Resistance is futile.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Resistance is futile.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s35/68zoom/bush_borg.jpg)
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
so according to that POS state, one's beliefs make one a terrorist, not one's actions. reminds me of the "hate crime" issue, criminalizing thought vs. criminalizing behaviour...
-
Republicans / democrat party masters are well aware more people than ever are rejecting their "better living through stupidity" ideals and registering Independent... time to turn those non party slaves into terrorists.
Edit:
Looks like Alabama took down their "anti gov" webpage, its blank now
http://www.homelandsecurity.alabama.gov/tap/anti-gov_grps.htm
-
(http://www.erbzine.com/mag14/mccarthy3.jpg)
-
chair... it seems to me that the site you link made up the gun control thing... that there was nothing about gun control in the alabama site.
lazs
-
Originally posted by rpm
(http://www.erbzine.com/mag14/mccarthy3.jpg)
Yeah.... :(
-
Heh, looks like the fine folks in Alabama have taken the site down.
-
Lazs, this is a link to the part about gun control and you can see the rest of the sight by clicking on "Home."
Archived Alabama website (http://web.archive.org/web/20060110071648/www.homelandsecurity.alabama.gov/tap/anti-gov_grps.htm)
Though there are some points made where the website is clearly mistaken, such as in one of the interactive quizzes where machine guns could be deemed to be a WMD, I don't really understand the uproar concerning the website. It doesn't mention Libertarians anywhere that I could see.
In any event, more meaningful discussion might result from viewing the actual website and not from reading some blogger's article.
Les
-
Depending upon your point of view at the time, it's quite possible to see our founding fathers as terrorists. ;)
-
King George III probably did.
Les
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Depending upon your point of view at the time, it's quite possible to see our founding fathers as terrorists. ;)
Actually, they were. The question then becomes, was it right to perpetuate terrorism to achieve a better end?
-
Origanally posted by lasersailor184
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, they were. The question then becomes, was it right to perpetuate terrorism to achieve a better end?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being so, the answer to your question I believe would be that it depends on your point of view. If your a British Redcoat, or officer of King George's Navy in 1776, Then yes, The American's are Rebels, traitors, terrorists, criminals, etc.
If you took up arms for the Cause, and joined the Continental Army, Then your a Patriot, Freedom Fighter, Revolutionary, etc.
The winner's write the history books. Right or wrong, has been, and always will be.
-
The primary reason that States have the freedom to be diverse and unique is to prevent one stupid state mandating that the Nation go down the toilet.
The march to socialism progresses as more states beg for national recognition, acceptance and "leadership".
The founding fathers were brilliant, the right to bear arms is there to protect us from where this is going.
Love the Bush Borg picture. Shame though, really. The Lib States are Begging for a Borg Cube while Bush is telling them to solve their own problems As He Should. But the picture is cute, off the mark, but cute.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Origanally posted by lasersailor184
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, they were. The question then becomes, was it right to perpetuate terrorism to achieve a better end?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being so, the answer to your question I believe would be that it depends on your point of view. If your a British Redcoat, or officer of King George's Navy in 1776, Then yes, The American's are Rebels, traitors, terrorists, criminals, etc.
If you took up arms for the Cause, and joined the Continental Army, Then your a Patriot, Freedom Fighter, Revolutionary, etc.
The winner's write the history books. Right or wrong, has been, and always will be.
I don't believe you really can argue about points of view. You have the terrorists actions, and the results of those actions.
Those two things are very objective.
-
Dumping tea into the harbor and flying planes into buildings killing thousands while hoping to kill tens of thousands aren't quite the same.
-
seems the blogger exaggerated a tad. I am trying to figure out what the alabama site thinks about "anti government groups".. they mention some of the traits but don't really say if these are good or bad things.
They only say that a very small percentage of people who are in "anti government groups" are violent.
for instance.. they say that "anti government groups" believe that gun control is enslavement and/or that the constitution has been subverted.
I would say that 90% of people in the U.S. believe one or both of those things to be true to some extent. Does that make 90% of us members of "anti government groups"?
Still.. the site does have a real nasty big brother feel to it. I sure wouldn't want those people in charge of anything.
lazs
-
I went to the blog, read the story then tried to coroborate it through the Alabama Dept. of Homeland Security website the blogger says is the source. I couldn't find anything to give direct confirmation of the allegations. I wasn't terribly surprised at that situation nor from all of the foaming at the mouth posts here as if the story WAS true. Doesn't anyone beside Laz and I go look for the source of this stuff to see if it's real? :huh
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Dumping tea into the harbor and flying planes into buildings killing thousands while hoping to kill tens of thousands aren't quite the same.
If you think that dumping tea into a harbor was the worst we did, you really need to step into a history class.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I went to the blog, read the story then tried to coroborate it through the Alabama Dept. of Homeland Security website the blogger says is the source. I couldn't find anything to give direct confirmation of the allegations. I wasn't terribly surprised at that situation nor from all of the foaming at the mouth posts here as if the story WAS true. Doesn't anyone beside Laz and I go look for the source of this stuff to see if it's real? :huh
Mav,
I went to the site also and could find nothing. Now that being said, I'll be doing more research to be sure I did not miss anything. But if Pandoras box is opened, I would to leave it opened if there is something in there.
Pending.
-
The State of Alabama was describing libertarians by action/belief under the heading of Domestic Terrorists. They have since removed the section, but if you look at the comments left on the blogger page I linked to, folks have found archives stored elsewhere.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I went to the blog, read the story then tried to coroborate it through the Alabama Dept. of Homeland Security website the blogger says is the source. I couldn't find anything to give direct confirmation of the allegations. I wasn't terribly surprised at that situation nor from all of the foaming at the mouth posts here as if the story WAS true. Doesn't anyone beside Laz and I go look for the source of this stuff to see if it's real? :huh
It was here:
http://www.homelandsecurity.alabama.gov/tap/anti-gov_grps.htm
Now blank.
-
Originally posted by L'EMMERDEUR
Lincoln really screwed up not letting the confederate states secede.
He sure did, we would have never had our government polluted with the ideas brought here by carpetbaggers demonstrated in the paragraph above.
-
Here's an old copy of the page via the Internet Archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060421160851/http://www.homelandsecurity.alabama.gov/tap/anti-gov_grps.htm
For Lazs:Today's anti-government groups have their origins in the shock and outrage among a number of groups to include gun rights groups, tax protestors, and white supremacists over the government actions with the Branch Davidian religious cult at Waco and and white supremacist Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge along with recent laws that limited gun ownership.
So no, not made up by the weblog guy.
-
I'm sorry but I don't see the issue the blogger was bringing up. If that is all there was about it IMO they blew a cork over nothing. Just because gun rights are a real issue for some rather extreme folks doies not make it an issue to remove them by Home land Security. I certainly didn't see anything regarding the Libertarians.
I am talking about the entire website you linked not just the blurb you posted.
-
OK I figured it out Chairboy. The website is talking about the Patriot Movement. It mentions them by name. So it's not libertarians. You can relax now.
Les
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
If you think that dumping tea into a harbor was the worst we did, you really need to step into a history class.
Certainly there was much fighting and perhaps atrocities committed by both sides but brutality resulting from warfare isn't necessarily terrorism while throwing the tea into the harbor perhaps was.
-
Originally posted by L'EMMERDEUR
Lincoln really screwed up not letting the confederate states secede.
The biggest mistake your father made was not wearing a condom.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
The biggest mistake your father made was not wearing a condom.
Here, here! :aok
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The State of Alabama was describing libertarians by action/belief under the heading of Domestic Terrorists. They have since removed the section, but if you look at the comments left on the blogger page I linked to, folks have found archives stored elsewhere.
Yup... The implication is there on the Alabama DHS site. While they don't out and out say what the bloggers sez, it's not a far stretch of to interpret it that way. Alabama DHS (http://www.homelandsecurity.alabama.gov/faq.htm#What_is_terrorism) Then again, from their description, one can interpret it to include Gangs, Drug dealers, and the local Bully as well.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
so according to that POS state, one's beliefs make one a terrorist, not one's actions. reminds me of the "hate crime" issue, criminalizing thought vs. criminalizing behaviour...
The majority of people within our good state are gun owners and do not like the thought of anyone trying to take our rights to keep and bear arms away. Just because some politician decided that they wanted to take a politically correct stance doesn't make the state a POS! Should you decided to talk about it then I suggest that you get your facts straight.
ALSO I did not read anything in that linked portion which specifically states those points making the person in question a terrorist. I think this blog boy really screwed the pooch on his statements.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
The majority of people within our good state are gun owners and do not like the thought of anyone trying to take our rights to keep and bear arms away. Just because some politician decided that they wanted to take a politically correct stance doesn't make the state a POS! Should you decided to talk about it then I suggest that you get your facts straight.
sorry, how's "so according to the POS legislators of that state..." work for ya?
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
sorry, how's "so according to the POS legislators of that state..." work for ya?
I will accept that because the old boys and other undesirables just voted themselves a huge pay raise without actually doing any work during their legislative session.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
ALSO I did not read anything in that linked portion which specifically states those points making the person in question a terrorist. I think this blog boy really screwed the pooch on his statements.
You may have missed that the entire discussion was under the heading of 'Domestic Terrorists' on their site.
-
chair... I read the site and the parts quoted and... as I have said... they have a really nasty big brother feel to em... but... they are not what the blogger states.
I am curious as to why you linked the blogger and not the actual site?
If I lived in alabama I would write and tell them that as a gun owner and someone who was upset about both Randy Weavers treatment and that of the branch davidians that I did not appreciate being lumped in with terrorists.
My guess is that they would retract the whole thing since it is probly just one little hack spewing his bs.
As for the south and secession... I agree that it was a mistake to not let them have their right to leave. Lincoln had no right to keep them in by force.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Odee
Yup... The implication is there on the Alabama DHS site. While they don't out and out say what the bloggers sez, it's not a far stretch of to interpret it that way. Alabama DHS (http://www.homelandsecurity.alabama.gov/faq.htm#What_is_terrorism) Then again, from their description, one can interpret it to include Gangs, Drug dealers, and the local Bully as well.
I didn't see any implications at all. They were referring to this specifically by name:
Patriot Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Patriot)
Les
-
Yes the south should have been able to leave the union. Leave huge tax tariffs behind. Open up free trade with Europe. As the song goes "if the south would have won we would have had it made" This is pretty much true. L'EMMERDEUR I am almost sure that you believe that the civil war was about slavery too. That the Union came down here to save a people from oppression, right? I mean it had nothing to do with the fact that the north saw their meal ticket slipping away.. Slash27's comment X2. Your father should have worn a condom.
And chair, sad really to come in here and stir the pot like this. More so with crap from some knuckle heads blog.
-Sp0t
-
The vote for Alabama to secede was so close they almost didn't do it. Alabama was pretty much forced to after South Carolina, Mississippi and Florida. Then the other states followed like dominoes. Secession was not a matter taken lightly by Alabama. In other words, they didn't want to.
I too am curious why Chairboy didn't start off the unrighteous indignation with a link to the actual website. I suppose it's not much fun without a bogey man to gape at and, after all, who can pass up an opportunity to take a poke at Alabama? Even if it's not deserved. Chairboy's implication is Alabama is against American values, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I do not believe that to be so.
I'm gonna take a devil's advocate stance here. Lazs, I doubt a letter to the DHS would get much results, but you never know. They did take down the "offending" portion probably because they discovered many people out there don't read and understand what they read. They see the words "Gun Control" and become fixated on that. A careful reading of that portion does refer to a specific movement of loose groups known to have been involved in terroristic activities. But it is confusing and why the question marks in front and back of certain phrases?
There's no way to win. I wish they had left it up if for no other reason but to stand their ground (taking it down smacks of caving in), but it's easier to just take it down than to deal with a lot of trouble. Of course, the smart thing to have done would have been to endorse the Second Amendment before mentioning anything to do with gun control or the Waco and Weaver events. The website maker needed to do some thinking of his own. They blew it royally. I understand the confusion but I live here and wouldn't think for a second anything in that website lumped me in with terrorists. For me, writing a letter complaining would be more in the category of taking to task more than serious concern, especially when I read the website and know what they're referring to.
Les
-
I eat babies too, Leslie. Geez.
-
Nahhh Chair, you ain't that bad. Hell I like you even if I disagree with you on some things. Sorry to be so rough. Just had to rant, that's all.
Les
-
Origanally posted by lasersailor184
I don't believe you really can argue about points of view. You have the terrorists actions, and the results of those actions.
Those two things are very objective.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right there-Under common definition, they were both terrorist acts.
But, I doubt the Founding Fathers' looked around at each other and said, "Our best recourse, at this point in time, it to resort to terrorism to meet our ends."
It was more like, "Let's show King George what we think of his taxes! Dress up as indians, so that we can't be identified, And so that there won't be reprisals against us. Let's strike a blow against the tyrant...."
That's what I meant by point of view. The British did'nt consider the Boston Massacre of 1770 a terrorist act, even though there were deaths, They considered it riot control. Yes, The Officer and his men responsible, were arrested and charged with murder, but they were aquitted. To me, this would mean that the British gov. did'nt think much of this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origanally posted by AKIron
Dumping tea into the harbor and flying planes into buildings killing thousands while hoping to kill tens of thousands aren't quite the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There again, you're correct. But Terrorism can't be defined by the number of deaths, or the $ damage done. There's been terrorist actions' for Millenia. 9/11 was the worst on U.S. Soil to date. However, any malicious act that is carried out in the name of a cause, would fit the definition of terrorism.
-
Originally posted by BBBB
Yes the south should have been able to leave the union. Leave huge tax tariffs behind. Open up free trade with Europe. As the song goes "if the south would have won we would have had it made" This is pretty much true. L'EMMERDEUR I am almost sure that you believe that the civil war was about slavery too. That the Union came down here to save a people from oppression, right? I mean it had nothing to do with the fact that the north saw their meal ticket slipping away.. Slash27's comment X2. Your father should have worn a condom.
And chair, sad really to come in here and stir the pot like this. More so with crap from some knuckle heads blog.
-Sp0t
To think that the civil war wasn't about slavery is just foolish.
-
laser, it was never about slavery. That was a lincoln afterthought.
-
I think that the little weasels that wrote for that site would get their tits in a wringer over it if enough people wrote in and said that they felt that the site was blatantly anti second amendment.
I think that suggesting, as leslie says, to put a disclaimer that most people who do not favor gun control are decent and law abiding citizens and that the government itself admitted that they handled both the branch davidians and randy weaver badly and that any normal person would recognize that.
I think that the good people of Ala. ought to be very offended by the badly done site.
lazs
-
The civil war ended many years ago. Get OVER it for crying out loud. :huh
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
laser, it was never about slavery. That was a lincoln afterthought.
It was all about slavery. Every single thing you think was the cause of the civil war had slavery as the root cause.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It was all about slavery. Every single thing you think was the cause of the civil war had slavery as the root cause.
LOL
-
*Sigh* Slavery peaked and was on the decline BEFORE the CIVIL WAR. If slavery had been allowed to run its course it would have declined into oblivion in the 10-15 years following. Imigrants were far cheaper, more replaceable, and easier to come by than any slave. I will be flogged for this and understandably so. Common teaching has led to us to believe the Civil War was mainly a slavery issue but then they used to teach us the world was flat as well........Look at the ALL the facts, not just the people that were enslaved. Look at the fact that the imigrants from Europe were flooding into America and would eventually replace the enslaved work force.
CFYA
Ryan
-
Originally posted by BBBB
Yes the south should have been able to leave the union. Leave huge tax tariffs behind. Open up free trade with Europe. As the song goes "if the south would have won we would have had it made" This is pretty much true. L'EMMERDEUR I am almost sure that you believe that the civil war was about slavery too. That the Union came down here to save a people from oppression, right? I mean it had nothing to do with the fact that the north saw their meal ticket slipping away.. Slash27's comment X2. Your father should have worn a condom.
And chair, sad really to come in here and stir the pot like this. More so with crap from some knuckle heads blog.
-Sp0t
Well I guess the world could use yet another poor 3rd world agarian
economy to pour money into. Of course you could be stupid enough to
believe it's cheaper to ship things by sail or steamship from Europe than
by rail from the same continent.
Speaking of missing meal tickets, just think of all those lovely federal
military training bases that would no longer be pouring money into the
local economy.
I think 142 years is long enough to get that chip off your shoulder.
-
slaves were not free, you had to buy them, cloth them, feed them, house them, teach them skills, provide some medical care (a sick slave does not produce), care for the young and those too old to work.
hmmm, except for "buying", that sounds like socialism.
-
Originally posted by CFYA
*Sigh* Slavery peaked and was on the decline BEFORE the CIVIL WAR. If slavery had been allowed to run its course it would have declined into oblivion in the 10-15 years following. Imigrants were far cheaper, more replaceable, and easier to come by than any slave. I will be flogged for this and understandably so. Common teaching has led to us to believe the Civil War was mainly a slavery issue but then they used to teach us the world was flat as well........Look at the ALL the facts, not just the people that were enslaved. Look at the fact that the imigrants from Europe were flooding into America and would eventually replace the enslaved work force.
CFYA
Ryan
The peak of slavery as well as cheaper sources of labor is irrelevant.
Grade school history told us that it was about slavery. High School history told us that it was about economics and other factors. College Level history told us that those economic and other factors were rooted in slavery.
Every single thing, every single strife, every single problem in the US for the 60 years prior to the civil war was caused by slavery. Thus, the base cause of the civil war is slavery.
-
Some now teach that slavery was the sole cause of the Civil War – an explanation that historians have developed in the twentieth century. However, this analysis does not explain why the war started in 1861 (rather than 1851 or 1841) and it fails to explain why slavery was abolished elsewhere without such horrendous carnage.
We emphasize economics and politics as major factors leading to war. The Republicans who came to power in 1860 supported a mercantilist economic agenda of protectionism, inflation, public works, and big government. High tariffs would have been a boon to manufacturing and mining in the north, but would have been paid largely by those in the export-oriented agriculture economy.
Southern economic interests understood the effects of these policies and decided to leave the union. The war was clearly related to slavery, but mainly in the sense that Republican tariffs would have squeezed the profitability out of the slave-based cotton plantation economy to the benefit of Northern industry (especially Yankee textiles and iron manufacturing). Southerners would also have lost out in terms of public works projects, government land giveaways, and inflation.
The real truth about wars is that they are not started over principle, but over power. Wars however, are not won by power on the battlefield, but by the workings and incentives of men who go to work in fields and factories, to those who transport, store and sell consumer goods, and most especially to the entrepreneurs and middlemen who make markets work and adapt to change. This emphasis and this economic account of tariffs, blockade and inflation, like the focus of Degas’s "Cotton Exchange" reveals the most important and least understood aspect of war.
-
Hmmm....Toad, that kinda poses a question like, "What came first, the chicken or the egg?"
If Slavery was a root factor in the mid-19 century economy to that extent, then I could see it being a major factor. However, With the industrial age just getting into full swing, I could see where a major economic change would have rendered it redundant anyway. That would make slavery a side-line issue to economics, in that instance.
-
I think, like he said, it boils down to power and it actually is still a problem to this day. I think the basic issue is states rights. Where did the authority of the Federal government end and where did the sovereignity of the individual state begin. I think you can make the case that many of the states that intially ratified started thinking the rules had changed from what the Constitution originally meant.
-
It's frustrating that the reprehensible practice of slave ownership is linked inextricably with the discussion of state rights. That's the 800lb gorilla lurking in the room whenever the subject comes up, the unspoken implication being "So , you support slavery?" in response to "The CSA had some legitimate concerns".
-
Slavery or not, think how much better off our nation would be if we had just let those states go?
-
Update with more details:
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/05/congratulations-you-may-already-be.html
It discusses the original weblog, plus provides more excerpts from the original documentation and a discussion about Alabama removing the content after it got attention.
-
who is "we" lemer?
I think all of us would have been better off with the south being able to leave the union.. it might have joined back up later or maybe not.
In any case... we would all be better off with less federal government and stronger states rights. You could pick and choose the kind of state you wanted to live in.
Now... all you got is red or blue and not much difference in that. Filthy craphole cities or suburbia with a big federal government more and more into your life.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
It's frustrating that the reprehensible practice of slave ownership is linked inextricably with the discussion of state rights. That's the 800lb gorilla lurking in the room whenever the subject comes up, the unspoken implication being "So , you support slavery?" in response to "The CSA had some legitimate concerns".
The ONLY reason that the CSA supported States Rights was because they believed that the States had the right to choose whether or not to allow slavery. As opposed to the central government having that right. Any other reasoning was a distant second to the choice of slavery.
-
That doesn't change the fact that as defined by our founding fathers, the states originally had more control over their own affairs than they did following the civil war.
This is no more an argument excusing slavery than flying a fighter jet is an advocation of naziism.
-
It was a power struggle between the Federal Government and the individual state. The Feds won.
In one way, that has been and still is unfortunate.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It was a power struggle between the Federal Government and the individual state. The Feds won.
In one way, that has been and still is unfortunate.
Totally agreed. But don't overlook this matter for what it is. The only reason the South seceded was to maintain slavery.
-
The civil war wasn't about SLAVERY, it was about SECESSION. Before the war, America was a union of sovereign states. They joined and left by their own will, and the federal government existed for their benefit. After the war, the states existed for the federal government's benefit, and they had no power other than what the fed gave them. Slave importation was already declared illegal in the south before the north won. Lincoln's emancipation proclamation only freed southern slaves to prevent them from joining their owners to fight the northern invaders. Slavery remained legal and practiced in the north until the 13th amendment. Slavery was just the blanked vilification that the winners applied to the losers, just as unfair taxation without representation would have been the blanket vilification applied to the north if the south had won. Slavery was a nationwide issue and the civil war, while speeding up the process, was not fought for the purpose of ending slavery. It was fought for the same reason America's revolutionary war was fought. There was no "good side" or "bad side", there were just Americans that wanted independence, and Americans that wanted mandatory national unity.
-
Just for you Laser. I know you had some Prof that just made you swoon with his brilliance on the lead up to the Civil War.
Consider that not everyone would agree with him and that there are plenty of brilliant people in that category as well.
We emphasize economics and politics as major factors leading to war. The Republicans who came to power in 1860 supported a mercantilist economic agenda of protectionism, inflation, public works, and big government. High tariffs would have been a boon to manufacturing and mining in the north, but would have been paid largely by those in the export-oriented agriculture economy.
Southern economic interests understood the effects of these policies and decided to leave the union.
-
Toad is right. The state of South Carolina threatened to secede during the Nullification Crisis of 1832, which had its origins in the passage of the Tariff of Abominations in 1828. Signed by President John Quincy Adams, this law raised the tariff on imported goods to 62 %, severely impacting the economy of the southern states.
The British were the major exporters of manufactured goods bought by the Southern states. At a time when most of Europe was in a recession resulting from the Napoleonic wars, the tax forced the British to retaliate by restricting their buying of cotton. Thus, the Tariff of Abominations hurt the sale of the South's major raw material crop, but also increased the outflow of money for manufactured goods.
The Southern states nearly went to war over it, seeing it as an attempt to turn their region into an economic colony of the North. Only a compromise worked out by Henry Clay avoid a civil war. The tariff remained a point of heated dispute until Lincoln's election in 1860.
Thus, it is an oversimplification for any historian to state that the Civil War was "only about slavery."
-
I would love to see a few states secede from the union and see what kind of government they set up... If it was less intrusive into individuals rights... if it followed the original constitution and bill of rights...
I would move there.
lazs