April 23, 2011 - The Political Cesspool - James Edwards
41:35
20110423_Hour_1
|
Time
Text
Welcome to the Political Cesspool, known across the South and worldwide as the South's foremost populous conservative radio program.
And here to guide you through the murky waters of the Political Cesspool is your host for tonight, James Edwards.
All right, everybody, welcome to another live installment of the award-winning Political Cesspool Radio Program, our nationally syndicated broadcast coming to you this evening, Saturday, April 23rd, 2011, from our flagship radio station, WLRM Radio AM 1380 right here.
We sit in the studio overlooking Bill Street in downtown Memphis, Tennessee.
We are also broadcasting this evening to our newest affiliate station, AM1600WMQM, also right here in Memphis.
And we're going out as well to the AM FM affiliate stations of the Liberty News Radio Network and simulcasting online to a worldwide audience at thepoliticalcesspool.org and libertynewsradio.com.
I know it's a nice spring day and everything, but if you've not yet joined us in the Political Cesspool fan party and online chat, we encourage you to do so right now.
It's never too early.
I don't care how nice the weather is, rain, shine, perfect conditions or not, you should be here with us right now.
And we invite you to do so.
Cfcc.org, our political Cesspool weekly fan parties, give you the opportunity to commiserate with other political Cesspool fans and we, the hosting staff ourselves.
So join us now, sponsored by our friends at the Council OF Conservative Citizens C?
Ofcc.org.
It's easter weekend.
Happy easter everyone, of course.
Uh, easter is the seminal moment in the Christian faith as we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
It's a very special time of year to us and to most of the western world.
We'll be talking about that a little bit later tonight, but first we're going to be very Confederate heavy this first hour.
Don't forget that we are still in the center of Confederate History month 2011.
We're very excited to continue our ongoing series promoting and celebrating all things Southern, and we're going to be doing that tonight with Keith Alexander during the opening hour of tonight's program.
But first Keith, before we get there, I know you have something else you want to address briefly to the audience and Keith, by the way, it's great to have you tonight, thank you.
It's always great to be here anticipating the holiest day on the Christian calendar easter uh, which will be tomorrow, of course.
But uh, talking about Easter and the Holy Land, I think that it is uh long overdue for us to turn our attention to this so-called Arab spring that's happening in the spring of 2011 uh, where all the so-called spontaneous uprisings that our State Department seems to just happen, happen to know all about and has all sorts of contingency plans for, are breaking out throughout the Middle East, in all of the Arab nations but, of course,
conspicuously missing would be any type of uprising in the state of Israel.
The thing that is so blatantly obvious about this to us and it's not mentioned by any of the major news networks, or even minor ones as far as I'm concerned is that all this is is a playing out of a strategy that was concocted quite a while ago, in fact in the early to mid 1990s, in a paper called A Clean Break,
a New Strategy for Securing the Realm, written by Richard Pearl and Douglas Fife, who were two close and influential foreign policy advisors in the George W. Bush administration, and they had been advisors before in the George H.W. Bush Administration.
Now what the Clean Break memo proposed and it was an in-house paper at the U.S. State Department was regime change in all Arab nations in the Middle East, replacing the then current leadership with supposedly leaders that would be friendlier and more reconciled to the existence of the state of Israel.
Now people like Michael Adeen, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney of course were big boosters of this.
And if you will recall when George W. Bush was running for president, he made it a point to say that he was for a more humble foreign policy for the United States where we didn't project our power into foreign nations.
Well once he got in he was immediately double teamed, triple teamed, whatever you want to say by all of the so-called Jewish expert technocrats like Wolfowitz, like Richard Pearl, like Douglas Fife, like Michael Adean.
And they cherry-picked and stovepiped intelligence to him and convinced him basically to follow the clean break memo.
That's why he, based on the erroneous assumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, he agreed to succumb to what the neocons wanted and invaded Iraq.
He toppled Saddam Hussein and then we continued on in Afghanistan.
Now, what is so ironic about all of this is that one, we haven't gotten a darn thing out of this.
We haven't gotten cheap oil.
You know, I've just looked, went by a gas station today, and I think it's up to about $3.65 a gallon here in Memphis, which is very possibly an all-time high.
We're not getting any benefit from all of the money that we've spent.
We've spent over a trillion dollars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and it hasn't done the American people one bit of good.
And now we have supposedly the anti-Bush in office, this liberal peacenick, supposedly Barack Obama, who now, amazingly, has been converted to being a proponent of the very same clean break position paper doctrine.
He's up here about to put boots on the ground in Libya.
He has, you know, started, rather, he hasn't gotten out as he promised from Iraq or Afghanistan.
He hasn't closed down Gitmo as he promised when he was campaigning for presidency.
Instead, he's opened a new war in Libya, and he's trying, and he also supported an uprising in Egypt that basically got rid of Hosni Mubarak, who was a great ally of the United States since the assassination of Anwar Sadat for being too cozy and friendly with Israel.
Now, of course, Michael Adeen said early on in the administration of George W. Bush, Mubarak is no great shake.
Certainly we can do better than him.
So that's what, you know, basically Jewish power and influence controls both of our political parties and all of our political discourse in America.
It's time to understand that.
This is, you know, two sides of the same coin, James.
And we're going down the same path.
And it's just almost comical to watch this thing play itself out.
And nobody's talking about it.
And it's so obvious that, you know, just look up a clean break, put it on your Google box and see what comes up, folks.
And what's even more comical is the fact that, what, two weeks after he was elected president, Barack Obama got awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Since then, he has not pulled the troops out from any place.
They were put by George Bush.
And in fact, he's expanded our military presence if that was even possible.
Stay tuned, everybody.
We'll be right back.
Jump in the political says pool with James and the game.
Call us tonight at 1-866-986-6397.
And here's the host of the Political Cesspool, James Edwards.
All right, everybody.
Welcome back to the show, our live broadcast.
As always, we are live, unrehearsed, and uncensored here on the Political Cesspool.
But just because we're unrehearsed doesn't mean that we're ill-prepared.
And as we do each week, about midweek, Keith Alexander and I got together to chart the course for tonight's first hour.
And I tell you, it is those gatherings that I really wish all of our fans could be privy to, the behind-the-scenes goings-on here in the Political Cesspool radio program.
I wish you could see us live in action with video when we host this nationally syndicated radio program, but at least you get to hear us.
But it truly is the behind-the-scenes stuff that I think so many of those of you in our audience would love to be part of.
I actually posted, it's been a very busy week on the blog.
If you haven't checked out some of the articles that we're featuring there this week, you've got to do so right now.
Thepolitical Cesspool.org, bookmarket, make it a daily read, thepolitical cesspool.org, the official internet headquarters of the Political Cesspool radio program.
But I actually posted a behind-the-scenes recap of time spent with Tom Sunik a couple of years ago and included a video.
I don't know why all of a sudden I decided to post that, but it's there, along with several breaking news items from this week.
So check it out, thepolitical cesspool.org.
But as I was mentioning, Keith Alexander and I got together this week to kind of plan the agenda for tonight's first hour.
And he brought for me for my review a couple of just, I can't say good articles because they were terrible articles, but they're going to make for great commentary tonight.
It's articles pertaining to the war between the states, and as we continue to celebrate Confederate History Month, I'll turn it over to Keith for his analysis and dissection.
Keith, what do you have for the fans tonight?
Well, we have two articles from the Commercial Appeal, the local Memphis paper, and we bring these out not because we think that the Commercial Appeal is some stellar example of journalistic genius, but because it is so typical of typical daily newspapers in America today.
They are all reading from the same script.
They all have carbon copy editors, and they all sing from the same hymnal, unfortunately.
We have two articles right now.
One is called Remember the Civil War's Lessons by Chris Peck, who's the editor-in-chief of the Commercial Appeal.
This was in the Sunday, April 17th, 2011 edition, last Sunday's edition of the Commercial Appeal.
And then we have one that's a little bit more recent than that.
This one was from the Thursday, April 21st, 2011 edition of the Commercial Appeal, right on the front of the editorial page.
How we still fight the Civil War by Clarence Page, who is a black syndicated columnist who can always be dependent upon to fall on the liberal side of the equation on any issue.
You know, if you want to know what the liberal side of anything is, just check Clarence Page, and if he's talked about it, he is charting out the extreme left of every position that you can imagine.
Now, what these articles are about is they are lamentations that there are still benighted people in Red State America and elsewhere in the world that do not buy the liberal orthodox position that the Civil War was exclusively about slavery.
And it was a very simple morality play where blacks are good and whites are bad, particularly southern whites.
Liberalism is totally invested in the idea that slavery was the one and only cause of the Civil War.
Why?
Because it fits perfectly with their dialectic Whig theory of history.
They like blacks and dislike whites.
This is what both Trotskyism and cultural Marxism demand.
If you'll recall, Trotsky, after World War I, concluded that the white working class was totally ill-equipped to function in their selected historical role as the proletariat of a Marxist revolution.
He thought they were just a bunch of weenies, a bunch of bourgeois wannabes who could be bought off with the first gestures of prosperity and would abandon the revolution.
They, in other words, lacked what he thought was essential, a quality that he called revolutionary zeal.
On the other hand, in the 1930s, this is after he lost out in the power struggle to Stalin and was exiled, he concluded that race was the key.
He knew that even back then, non-whites were 75% of the world's population and whites were only 25%.
But whites had the prosperous nations and basically controlled things.
They were the people at the top of the totem pole.
Well, he knew because of this, all non-whites had a chip on their shoulder and a grudge against whites.
They'd either been defeated by them militarily or they had been economically dominated by them.
And as a result, he said that chip on the shoulder could easily be converted into revolutionary zeal.
and that therefore to have an effective Marxist revolution, you needed to look upon non-whites as the spearhead or the proletariat and that any good communists that resisted this in America or otherwise showed that they weren't truly committed to a communist victory because this is the way it would lay.
And of course the cultural Marxists likewise questioned why classical Marxism's blueprint, which was the First World War, in which the proletariat would be armed, and they thought it'd be a very simple matter for to convince German and British and other working class people in the trenches that they had more in common with their fellow proletarians on the other side of the trench line than with the bourgeoisie officer corps.
They could be convinced to turn their guns on the officers and that they would, you know, we'd be off to the races with them spearheading the revolution the way that Marx and Engels had predicted.
Well, it happened that way in Russia, but not in Germany, France, England, Austria, Hungary, or anywhere else.
And they concluded it was because Westerners, as they call them, Western Europeans, had been marinated in two millennia of Christianity and Western civilization, and that you had to have a long march through the institutions where you basically captured those institutions that said ethical and moral values.
And once you did that, then you would have the means by which to send out a message of radical egalitarianism, which would now be the new orthodoxy.
And that's exactly what all of this talk regarding the Civil War being all about slavery, being all about race, being all about black versus white, comes from.
It's right from that.
Now, according to the cultural Marxist Trotskyist, or to put it another way, typical American liberal viewpoint of today, if blacks have bad characteristics, this is because of things that whites did to them, like slavery.
All black pathologies and shortcomings are the result of white-on-black racial discrimination.
And slavery is the ultimate act of white-on-black discrimination.
Of course, they ignore the fact that everybody's ancestors were enslaved at one point or another in history.
When you try to make that point in a debate with a liberal, they just ignore it.
It's like it doesn't exist.
You haven't said anything.
They go on with their talking points because that is an affront to their basic, you know, strongly held belief that history is a dialectic and that it's race, black versus white.
And they keep preaching that and preaching that and trying to hammer it into the heads of us, you know, stupid red state Americans, I guess.
Now, to suggest that some reason or group of reasons besides slavery alone was the cause of the Civil War is therefore dangerous heresy that must be rooted out and destroyed root and branch.
That's the way that they look at things.
Consequently, all modern historical authorities, i.e. academics, agree with one voice that the Civil War was about slavery and slavery alone.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is merely demonstrating their inferior intellect, James, and is to be pitied.
We're going to let Keith Alexander resume right there when we continue with tonight's first hour and our tribute to Confederate History Month.
On the show and express your opinion in the political cesspool,
call us toll free at 1-866-986-6397.
We gotta get out of this place.
All right, welcome back.
As we continue our analysis of the Second War for Independence, we do so by dissecting a couple of news articles that pass as objective commentary on the matter.
They came from Memphis's Daily Paper.
One of them writes about how basically everyone in the South is a Klansman, and the other one is pretty much talking about, well, for all intents and purposes, the same thing.
They say we're still fighting the Civil War because people in Red State America, as Keith calls it, don't haven't acquiesced to the blue point, as Keith says.
And they don't go out and they aren't enthusiastic about voting for socialist black Democrats.
So nevertheless, these are, you know, it's just defecating on the South, you know, sliming the South.
This is what they do.
We're inundated with it.
But here comes the political cesspool rising out of the ashes like a phoenix to offer you a breath of fresh air, standing in fierce defiance for what is right, for what is righteous, and standing against cultural Marxism, particularly during Confederate History Month and the war against our great Southern traditions and values.
Keith was on a roll with his exquisite commentary there.
We're going to let him continue right now.
Thanks, James.
We were talking about how both of these articles basically meant the fact that despite all of the wisdom and pearls that they've thrown before us swine in Red State America, we still don't buy into liberal orthodoxy, which is that the Civil War was exclusively about slavery.
Southerners were wrong.
They were bad people.
They were oppressors.
Northerners were angelic, and they were just so committed to the rights of black people that it would thrill and stir the soul of any modern liberal.
Of course, that's all hogwash.
Now, that position is what is, you know, is taken for great liberal intelligence at the highest level now.
All of these academics, people like a guy named McPherson at Harvard, is supposedly, you know, the guy that has the best one-volume treatise on the Civil War.
And, of course, that is the cornerstone of it.
And, of course, race is a cornerstone of modern liberalism.
Now, of course, all of these academic experts believe that slavery was the only cause of the Civil War.
They're academics.
And they wouldn't be academics.
And they wouldn't have tenured positions at places like Harvard and Yale if they did not back up liberal orthodoxy.
If they didn't, they wouldn't have gotten to be tenured faculty members and they wouldn't therefore be experts.
If you want more examples of this, look at Thomas D. Lorenzo, who is a great historian who takes issue with not only the slavery thesis about the cause of the Civil War, but also with the wonderfulness of Abraham Lincoln.
And Thomas de Lorenzo has been a guest on this show during Confederate History Month in the past.
Well, of course, he is languishing at some college called Loyola of Maryland, in other words, in obscurity.
Likewise, Thomas Woods, Jr., who wrote The Politically Incorrect History of the United States, likewise questions this orthodoxy.
And despite the fact that he has a Ph.D. history from Harvard, he's languishing, toiling in anonymity at some junior college on Long Island.
This is what happens to you if you're a conservative academic.
You're basically not chosen.
This is the way that the cultural Marxist left operates.
They banish you to Siberia in effect, and they ignore you and they treat you like you're a boob if you don't follow their guidance and their orthodoxy on everything.
Now, since the Civil War, however, there has been no consensus about the cause of the Civil War.
There have been respected experts that agreed that slavery was a primary cause, and there were also respected experts that disagreed with this vehemently, and there was no consensus.
But there was a vigorous debate, which the left is trying to shut down about what the primary causes were.
If you really want to look at things as they occurred when the war began, you should study original sources like newspapers and contemporary events.
When you study these sources, it's clear that slavery was not the issue that caused most Americans to go to war.
Most Southerners did not own slaves and were too smart to be led into a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.
Most antebellum northerners, furthermore, were not enamored of blacks and were not interested in sacrificing their sons, fathers, and husbands on the altar of racial equality.
Abolitionists were not numerous, and most antebellum Americans, North and South, considered abolitionists to be the lunatic fringe of American politics at that time.
Abolitionism appealed to a small clique of New England elites, transcendentalists, Unitarian types, but they had little actual experience with blacks, and they liked abolitionism primarily because it was a dagger pointed at the heart of the South's economy, or so they thought.
This fit hand in glove with the real reason for the Civil War, which arose due to secession, which in turn arose due to economic and political domination by northern interests, which rendered the South a virtual colony with no effective way to protect or assert its own perceived political self-interest.
Now, we're going to give you, we're going to arm you tonight with the two irrefutable arguments for dealing with liberals that insist that slavery was the cause of the Civil War and that anybody that doesn't believe this is just in a state of extreme denial.
The answer to that argument is called the Corwin Amendment.
It was the first proposed 13th Amendment of the Constitution.
It was proposed by Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator himself.
And its purpose was to guarantee slavery forever.
This was in the kind of phony war period that existed between when the first state seceded and the firing on Fort Sumter.
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of such state.
In other words, the first 13th Amendment would have forever prohibited any constitutional change that interfered with slavery in any state.
Lincoln endorsed this amendment.
It was ratified by the states of Pennsylvania and Ohio before Fort Sumter.
Later on August 22nd, 1861, Lincoln explained his thinking of the war to the abolitionist editor of the New York Tribune, Horace Greeley.
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery.
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.
And if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.
What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps save the Union.
In other words, he was no great fan of the black race.
He was not enamored with them.
But he was enamored with keeping the South in harness so it could be exploited by northern industrial interests, which he represented.
He was a member of the Whig Party before he was a member of the Republican Party, and the Whig Party used the tariffs, one, to foster the development of domestic industry in the Northeast.
Circumstances just didn't allow for that type of development in the South.
And he used it because they wanted internal improvements.
And 90% of the income of the federal government back then came from tariffs.
And tariffs were charges on imported manufactured goods.
Now, the South imported manufactured goods and traded raw materials like cotton.
And that was the key to their economy.
This was truly a dagger pointed at the heart of the Southern economy.
We had the Tariff of Abominations.
The original tariff was set by Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, and it basically set tariffs of 5 to 15 percent on imported manufactured goods.
Nobody complained about that.
In fact, people like John C. Calhoun supported the tariff of 1816.
But then, with the end of the era of good feelings and the rise of sectionalism in 1824, it wasn't very long until you had the tariff of abominations where they tried to raise the tariff to over 25 percent.
You had the nullification controversy where South Carolina threatened to nullify any law from the federal government that they thought was inconsistent with the best interests of South Carolina.
A compromise was reached, but you continued to have this competition between the two sections, the North and the South, in federal government.
And by 1861, or by the 1860 election, it became clear to the South that by fair means or foul, the North and Northern interests were clearly in control of the federal government and they were going to run it for their benefit and against the best interests of the South.
We will be back with more right after this.
Welcome back to get on the political cesspool.
Call us on James's Dime, toll-free, at 1-866-986-6397.
And here's the host of the Political Cess Poll, James Edwards.
As the founding host and figurehead of this radio program, I liken my role on this show to that of a point guard in basketball.
Sometimes, for the good of the team, I need to come out here during showtime and kind of just dominate the airwaves.
But when one of my teammates gets hot and Keith Alexander is hot tonight, my job is to facilitate Keith as he drives to the basket.
And let me just tell you, I'm going to get another assist right now as I pass the microphone over to my star, the star of this hour, Keith Alexander here in the political cesspool, continuing with his commentary on Confederate History Month.
I thought you were more like a ringmaster in a three-ring circus, James.
Let me get back to the Corwin Amendment.
The Corwin Amendment would have guaranteed slavery forever in areas of the United States where it presently existed in 1860.
In other words, the South and the border states.
If slavery had been the issue, this would have settled it.
If the South was seceding because they wanted to preserve slavery, this was offered by Abraham Lincoln as an olive branch and would have prevented the war.
But of course, the fact that it wasn't accepted shows you that the war was not about slavery.
It was about economic domination.
The North had more than just territory in mind when they sought to preserve the Union at the point of a bayonet.
Loss of the southern states would mean loss of most tax revenues, of which over 90% were from the tariff that so burdened the South.
These tariffs showed that the South was being denied the right of self-determination.
It was a blatant power play.
All of the back and forth about whether states came in as slave states or free states were nuts or nutty things about trying to preserve the power of the North, the numerical suzerainty or hegemony that they had so that the South could not effectively legislate in its own interests.
And because of that, that's why the South decided that they had to get out of the Union.
Now, that's the reason.
The Corwin Amendment shows you that slavery was not the issue.
The South went forward and seceded anyway because they were tired of being treated like a colony.
Now, what was the real cause of the Civil War if it was not slavery?
Well, we promised to talk about this last week and we're coming to it right now.
The true cause of the Civil War is understanding the Morrell tariff.
If there had been no Morrell tariff, there might never have been a war.
Most Americans believe the U.S. Civil War was over slavery.
They have, to an enormous degree, been miseducated.
The means and timings of the handling of the slavery question were at issue, although not in the overly simplified moral sense that lives in post-war and modern propaganda.
But had there been no moral tariff, there might never have been a war.
The conflict that cost the lives of 620,000 Union and Confederate soldiers and perhaps as many as 50,000 Southern civilians and impoverished many millions for generations might never have been.
A smoldering issue of unjust taxation that enriched northern manufacturing states and exploited the agricultural South was fanned to a furious blaze in 1860.
It was a moral tariff that stirred the smoldering embers of regional mistrust and ignited the fires of secession in the South.
This precipitated a northern reaction and a call to arms that would engulf the nation in flames of war for four years.
Prior to the U.S. Civil War, there had been no U.S. income tax.
In 1860, approximately 95% of the U.S. government's revenues were raised by a tariff on imported goods.
A tariff is a tax on selected imports, most commonly finished or manufactured products.
A high tariff is usually legislated not only to raise revenue but also to protect domestic industry from foreign competition.
By placing such a high protective tariff on imported goods, it makes them more expensive to buy than the same domestic goods.
This allows domestic industries to charge higher prices and to make more money on sales than might otherwise be lost to foreign competition because of cheaper prices without the tariff or better quality.
This, of course, causes domestic consumers to pay higher prices and have a lower standard of living.
Tariffs on some industrial products also hurt other domestic industries that must pay higher prices for goods that they need to make their products.
Because of the nature and products of regional economies can vary widely, high tariffs are sometimes good for one section of the country, but damaging to another section of the country.
High tariffs are particularly hard on exporters since they must cope with higher domestic costs and retaliatory foreign tariffs that put them at a pricing disadvantage.
This has a depressing effect on both export volume and profit margin.
High tariffs have been a frequent cause of economic disruption, strife, and war.
Prior to 1824, the average tariff level in the U.S. had been from 15 to 20 percent.
This was thought to be sufficient to meet the federal revenue needs and not excessively burdensome on any section of the country.
The increase of the tariff to 20 percent average in 1816 was ostensibly to help pay for the War of 1812.
It also represented a 26% net profit increase to northern manufacturers.
In 1824, northern manufacturing states and the Whig Party under the leadership of Henry Clay of Kentucky began to push for high protective tariffs.
These were strongly opposed by the South.
The Southern economy was largely agricultural and geared to exporting a large portion of the cotton and tobacco crops to Europe.
In the 1850s, the South accounted for anywhere from 72 to 82 percent of U.S. exports.
They were largely dependent, however, on Europe or the North for the manufactured goods needed for both agricultural production and consumer needs.
Northern states received about 20% of the South's agricultural production.
The vast majority of export volume went to Europe.
A protective tariff was a substantial benefit to northern manufacturing states, but meant considerable economic hardship for the agricultural South.
Northern political dominance enabled Clay and his allies in Congress to pass a tariff averaging 35% late in 1824.
This was the cause of the economic boom in the North, but economic hardship and political agitation in the South.
This was the tariff of abominations that we're talking about now.
In 1828, in a demonstration of unabashed partisanship and unashamed greed, the Northern-dominated Congress raised the tariff level to 50% despite strong Southern agitation for lower tariffs and the tariff of 1832 only nominally reduced the effective tariff rate and brought no relief to the South.
These last two tariffs were usually termed in history as the tariffs of abomination.
This led to the nullification crisis of 1832 when South Carolina called a state convention and nullified the 1828 and 1832 tariffs as unjust and unconstitutional.
The resulting constitutional crisis came very near to provoking armed conflict at that time.
Through the efforts of former U.S. Vice President and U.S. Senator from South Carolina John C. Calhoun, a compromise was effected in 1833 which over a few years reduced the tariff back to the normal rate of about 15%.
Henry Clay and the Whigs were not happy, however, to have been forced into a compromise by Calhoun and the South Carolina nullification threat.
Now, Things went on like this, back and forth, until the election of Abraham Lincoln and the passage of the Morrell Tariff.
The Morrell tariff raised the tariff level again to over 50% in effect.
And because of this, the South said, this just shows you that we've got to get, we've got to end this loveless marriage with the North.
We've got to be our own nation, or else we're going to be in effect a colony of the North, and we're going to be denied the right to govern ourselves according to our own norms and mores and sense of what is in our best interest.
That's what caused the Civil War.
Now, writing in December of 1861 in a London weekly publication, the famous English author Charles Dickens, author of the Christmas Carol, for example, was a strong opponent of slavery, but he said these things about the war going on in America.
The northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.
Now, at first, when the South seceded, and they seceded over the Morrell tariff, Northern public opinion reflected in Northern newspapers of both parties recognized the right of southern states to secede and favored peaceful separation.
But Abraham Lincoln didn't want it.
A November 21st, 1860 editorial in the Cincinnati Daily Press said this, We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute.
Northern industrialists became nervous, however, because they realized the tariff-dependent North would be competing against a free trade South.
Also, all of these so-called internal improvements like the Erie Canal, turnpikes, and railroads were being financed from tariff revenues.
80% of the tariff revenues were being used for this, and 80% of the internal improvements were in the North, not the South.
There's only one major East-West Railroad in the South at the time the Civil War came into being, and that was the Memphis to Charleston Railroad completed in 1857.
We were getting screwed.
That's why we got out.
Ladies and gentlemen, the political session radio program is the only mainstream broadcast entity in the world that is going to bring you true history here during Confederate History Month.
We've got to take a break.
When we come back in the second hour, we're going to have a guest, and then later on in the show, we're going to be catching up on some vlog items posted to our website this week.
Stay tuned.
Much more coming your way tonight.
It was a fight for survival.
But that's the guy in revival.
They were jumping, pews, and shouting.
Hallelujah!
And the squirrel ran out of his riches leg unobserved to the other side of the room.