Posted on 05/22/2016 6:17:11 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Congress passed a proposal on Thursday that essentially bans Confederate flags from national cemeteries. With a 265-159 vote, the proposal makes it illegal to display the Confederate flag in Department of Veteran Affairs cemeteries – even on individual grave sites that honor soldiers who fought for the Confederacy, except on Memorial Day and Confederate Memorial Day.
Introduced by Rep. Jared Huffman (D) of California, the proposal received support from 84 Republicans and all but two Democrats. Rep. Sanford Bishop (D) of Georgia, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, voted against the amendment, while Representative Betty McCollum (D) of Minnesota voted "present."
Huffman's proposal was added as an amendment to the Veteran Affairs spending bill, and it remains uncertain whether it will become law....
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
That is hard to say, the ruling elites certainly had a vested interest in keeping the institution of slavery going however slavery depressed wages for poor whites. My best guess slavery would have ended in the CSA by the 1900’s. With the black being returned to Africa in most cases.
Had the south seceded they would have been able to sell their cotton without the onerous tariffs. They wouldn’t be forced to sell their cotton cheap to the north. Slavery would have ended soon.
The real question is: How long could the northern textile mills last without the cheap cotton extorted from the south? Not long.
Not surprisingly, the northern textile mills did just fine without the "cheap cotton extorted from the south".
My North Carolina born 93 year old mother passed away in winter of last year.
She was reasonably healthy and very alert even in her final years, was a life long conservative and recently a Tea Partier.
Mom was always optimistic about life, would never give up, no matter what.
I think she would have been for Cruz this year, but would have no problem supporting enthusiastically our nominee, Donald Trump.
They raped the south and its people. They distorted the cause of the war to be about slavery. Just fine is not how I would describe it.
The very same people ran the slave trade and who ran their slave markets right there in Boston blamed the South for slavery. There was a slave market right in Faneuil Hall. Ironically it is part of the Freedom Trial.
Oh dear, where do we even start with this?
How about here: there were no tariffs on exports, none, never, ever, ever, never: none.
Is that clear now?
There were, of course, tariffs on imports, and these were intended to both provide Federal revenues supporting the Army & Navy, and to protect US manufacturers.
Everyone paid, directly or indirectly, import tariffs, North, South, East & West.
Most tariffs were paid at the major ports of entry being primarily New York, Boston, Philadelphia & Baltimore.
Very small percentages were paid by Southern ports like Charleston, Savanah or Mobile.
New Orleans was a large port for both exports and imports, but as much of its product came from, and went to, Northerners down & back up the Mississippi River.
Of course, the pro-Confederate claim has always been that only the earnings from cotton & tobacco exports paid for the imports which provided tariff duties in support of Federal revenues.
Yes, there is some truth in that, overall it's about half true: by 1860 cotton exports were half of total US exports while tobacco added another 6% or so.
However, other US exports, especially manufacturing, were rising rapidly, and the US was able to quickly adjust to the loss of Southern cotton & tobacco during the 1860s.
Now on the question of protectionist tariff rates -- these went up & down over the decades before 1860.
They reached a high around 35% under President Andrew Jackson and Vice President Calhoun, the so-called "tariff of abominations".
By 1860 US tariffs were reduced to near its all-time low of 15%, which is also the level set by the Confederate Congress.
In the mean time, many Northerners supported a higher tariff, called the Morrill Tariff originally proposed around 22%, but opposed and defeated by Southerners in Congress.
When those Southerners seceded and resigned from Congress, the Morrill Tariff passed, and was soon increased again to pay for the Civil War.
ladyjane: "They wouldn’t be forced to sell their cotton cheap to the north."
Of course, no free person was forced to sell anything to anybody, and roughly 80% of Southern cotton shipped to Europe, not the US Northeast.
By 1860 Southern cotton was the sole, best and cheapest source of cotton in the world -- that's why Southerners were so prosperous.
They were, in effect, the OPEC of cotton and that made them proud to the point of arrogant about it.
They came to believe that, like OPEC, they could cut off the supply of cotton and bring the world to its knees before them.
So that's what they did in 1861, but it failed.
Europeans quickly enough found other sources for cotton, and the South never fully recovered.
ladyjane: "Slavery would have ended soon."
The Confederacy was unlikely to end slavery so long as it remained economically viable.
How long could that be?
Well, already by 1860 many slaves were working in Southern factories, out-competing white workers.
Of course, not to the extent found in the North, but the South had manufacturing, and it was growing rapidly.
Plus, the Supreme Court's Dred-Scott decision meant there was no lawful way to prevent slaves from being put to work in Northern factories!
ladyjane: "How long could the northern textile mills last without the cheap cotton extorted from the south?"
By 1861 there was already a huge overstock of Southern cotton in both Europe and the Northern US warehouses.
This allowed enough time to bring other global sources of cotton on-line, especially India and Egypt.
So it turned out that, like OPEC in recent years, Southerners had grossly overplayed their "cotton card".
Complete and utter claptrap.
Not true, either literally or figuratively, unless you consider abolishing slavery a metaphorical "rape".
I don't.
ladyjane: "They distorted the cause of the war to be about slavery."
Nah, nobody except Lost Cause mythologizers distorts any of real history intentionally.
Everybody understands the Deep South seceded to protect slavery and declared war on the United States to assert its "sovereignty".
The United States responded in order to defeat the Confederate Army, restore the Union and, for good measure, to abolish slavery.
It's really pretty simple if you're not determined to believe a lie.
ladyjane: "The very same people ran the slave trade and who ran their slave markets right there in Boston blamed the South for slavery.
There was a slave market right in Faneuil Hall.
Ironically it is part of the Freedom Trial."
For crying out loud!
You surely understand that slavery was lawful, according to British law, in all 13 Colonies in 1776, and that Northern states began gradually abolishing slavery starting with Vermont in 1777.
In 1783 Massachusetts was the first state to entirely abolish slavery.
By 1860 every Northern state had completely abolished slavery, and the institution was beginning to die out in Border States like Delaware, Maryland and even Missouri.
Massachusetts never passed any legislation to abolish slavery. The colony was afraid the slaves would be a welfare burden on the towns. As a result they stopped calling them slaves in the census. I know this because my ancestors owned slaves there after 1875.
oops - after 1785
It was called their state constitution, ratified in 1780.
In 1783 the Massachusetts supreme court ruled the new constitution outlawed slavery.
ladyjane: "The colony was afraid the slaves would be a welfare burden on the towns.
As a result they stopped calling them slaves in the census."
Massachusetts was a state, not a colony, in 1783.
Their supreme court ruling required existing slaves to bring suits in court for their freedom.
Slaves who did not sue for freedom remained slaves.
By 1790 Massachusetts had about 5,000 freed non-whites (no slaves) out of its 380,000 total population.
How many of those blacks continued to serve their former masters, now employers, we don't know.
But in the 1830 census Massachusetts did report one slave, so clearly, Bay Staters still understood the difference between slave & free.
ladyjane: "I know this because my ancestors owned slaves there after 1875 1785."
Were they paid a wage?
Were they free to leave?
Were they protected as citizens by law?
Then they were no longer slaves, they were free.
The Massachusetts 1790 census reported zero slaves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.