TexasCHLforum.com

Jim Beaux wrote:

joe817 wrote:Glockster, I pray you are not advocating what you posted.

Just what do you see are the advantages of staying in the US? The federal gov is bankrupt & crumbling - it's bringing Texas down with it.

Though Texas cannot legally secede, it's still a reasonable consideration. The US relies on Texas more than Texas relies on the US. The biggest burden that weighs Texas down is due to federal programs and policies. Texas' economic world ranking was in the top 10 until the obama fiasco gutted it.

Recently the lib media has been gloating over the fact that Texas now receives more fed funds then it pays in taxes. The facts are it's the flood of illegal border jumpers who are receiving these fed funds, ie welfare, medicare, education & policing. Also, "dear leader" has hobbled Texas energy industries and completely shut down drilling in the GOM for most of his term - thus causing many Texans to seek unemployment benefits.

As a sovereign country (2014), Texas would be the 12th largest economy in the world by GDP (ahead of South Korea and Australia). Texas has a gross state product of $1.648 trillion (2014) the second highest in the U.S. Texas's household income was $48,259 in 2010 ranking 25th in the nation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Texas


I haven't looked at the numbers but I suspect it also has to do with Federal spending on military bases and other Federal government institutions like the IRS. It's a liberal fantasy that's spewed at virtually every mention of Texas that arouses a liberal response.
It's a very reasonable assumption that the Texas standard of living & economy would improve if it left the US.

Jim Beaux wrote:

baldeagle wrote:I hate to disagree with you guys, but the war was over slavery. The southern states seceded because they correctly believed that the Republicans intended to abolish slavery. Everyone at that time believed that. And as soon as the Republicans took office they passed a bill intended to emancipate the slaves, The First Confiscation Act of 1861. It is a matter of historical record that the act contained an Emancipation Clause, which was gutted by Congress. The War of Northern Aggression.

The first act of the war was the attack on Fort Sumter. South Carolina believed that a Federal fort on their coast was a threat to their independence. Lincoln believed it would be a tacit acknowledgment of South Carolina's independence to abandon the fort, so he ordered immediate reinforcement. The Confederate Army asked the occupants to surrender. They refused, so South Carolina began bombarding the fort and thus the war began. The First Shot of the Civil War The Surrender of Fort Sumter, 1861

South Carolina seceded in Dec 1860, before Lincoln had even been sworn into office. Fort Sumter was attacked in April, 1861. The First Confiscation Act was passed in August, 1861. All eleven states had seceded by June, before the act was passed.

If you read South Carolina's Declaration of Causes of Seceding, slavery is mentioned 38 times, including this:

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

I think it's abundantly clear what the cause of the Civil War was - the Republicans wanted to abolish slavery and were willing to use every means they could employ to succeed. The southern states did not want slavery abolished and chose to leave the Union rather than submit to the government.

My post was accurate. Abolishing slavery was simply an means to an end. If it was as claimed about slavery, why did Lincoln wait 3 years into the war before ending it? It wasnt a morality play, it was a war tactic. He did it with the hope that the slaves would revolt against the south.

The intent to abolish slavery was not one of morality, but of economics. We had two diverse economies. One fueled by the industrial revolution & one driven by agriculture. The south didnt need the north, but the north needed the south and feared it becoming a more powerful international player.

The south was shipping tons of cotton to Europe, & the ships were returning with European manufactured goods.

The northern manufacturers couldnt compete. So, having an advantage in the House, the northern representatives passed protective tariffs on imported goods. The industrialized northern majority in congress was an adversary to the rural southern states.

The Tariff of 1833 was ultimately abandoned in favor of the Black Tariff of 1842, and protectionism was reinstated. Average tariff rates nearly doubled from the initial 20% target for 1842 to about 40%, and the percentage of dutiable goods jumped from about 50% of all imports to over 85% of all imports. For some goods, such as those made with iron, the import tax constituted about two thirds of the overall price of the good. Unsurprisingly, the impact of the Black Tariff of 1842 was immediate: as the cost of imports jumped, there was a sharp decline in international trade in 1843.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1833

Research Nullification Crisis & Tariff or 1842.

Europe threaten to slap tariffs on US manufactured goods & the US removed the tariffs. The tariffs make it clear that the intent was to sell goods to the south.

So when the tariffs failed, the yankees decided to attack the issue of slavery (under the guise of morality). It was the republican industrialists who financed the abolitionists. (Today it is OPEC funding the anti frackers for the similar reasons)

You can bet that if the northern states had a use for slaves, slavery would have continued for years.