Posted on 07/07/2012 11:51:43 AM PDT by nickcarraway
At the height of the holiday shopping season of 1860, a bookseller in Richmond, Va., placed a telling advertisement in The Daily Dispatch promoting a selection of "Elegant Books for Christmas and New Year's Presents." Notably, the list of two dozen "choice books, suitable for Holiday Gifts" included five works by the late Scottish novelist and poet Sir Walter Scott in "various beautiful bindings."
Sir Walter Scott not only dominated gift book lists on the eve of the Civil War but also dominated Southern literary taste throughout the conflict. His highly idealized depiction of the age of chivalry allowed Southern readers and writers to find positive meaning in war's horrors, hardships and innumerable deaths. And his works inspired countless wartime imitators, who drew upon his romantic conception of combat.
In 1814 Scott had begun his ascension to the heights of literary stardom with the publication of the historical romance "Waverley," which was soon followed by other novels in the so-called Waverley series. The works were an immediate and immense success in Great Britain and America. Over the course of many volumes, Scott glamorized the Middle Ages, at once shaping and popularizing what we now consider the classic tale of chivalry. As one enamored 19th-century reader explained, each of Scott's romances focused upon the "manners and habits of the most interesting and chivalrous periods of Scottish [and] British history."
Among Scott's most famous works was "Ivanhoe," published in 1820. The romance, set in the 12th century, presents a tale of intrigue, love and valor. The plot traces the fortunes of young Wilfred of Ivanhoe as he strives, despite his father's opposition, to gain the hand of the beautiful Lady Rowena. In the course of Ivanhoe's adventures, Richard the Lionheart and Robin Hood appear, and Ivanhoe performs many a remarkable feat.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
(as documented by Pollard). He had been visited by a number of governors of the Northern States. They offered him money and men;(State militias were offered up to Lincoln to encourage him to attack the South, and here's who was doing the offering: Governor William Sprague of Rhode Island, Governor Oliver Perry Morton of Indiana, Governor John A. Andrew of Massachusetts, Governor Andrew Curtain of Pennsylvania, and Governor Austin Blair of Michigan) but it was understood that nothing would be done in the way of calling out the State militia and opening special credits, until the Southern revolutionists should be actually in aggression to the authority of the Federal government.
Another appeal was still more effectively urged. It was the argument of the partisan. The report of the intended evacuation of Fort Sumter, and the apparent vacillation of the administration, were producing disaffection in the Black Republican party.
This party had shown a considerable loss of strength in the municipal elections in St. Louis, Cincinnati, and other parts of the West they had lost two congressmen in Connecticut and two in Rhode Island.
The low tariff, too, of the Southern Confederacy, brought into competition with the high protective tariff which the Black Republican majority in Congress had adopted, and which was popularly known as “the Morrill Tariff,” was threatening serious disaster to the interests of New England and Pennsylvania, and was indicating the necessity of the repeal of a law which was considered as an indispensable party measure by the most of Mr. Lincoln’s constituents.
Not so fast yourself.
The paid labor per capita rates were $150 in the South to $144 in the North.
If you want to compare the total figures, and you want to include your suggested variables such as how many days were worked (as if this was not already factored in) or labor utilization or median income figures...........well go ahead and try that.
Meanwhile, for non-wage earners, it will be necessary to include the costs of food, housing, clothing, transportation, medical treatments, household items, furniture, tools, buildings for special use such as barns, storage, churches, and burial locations.
Considering that the planting and growing seasons require only about 9 months of labor, the compensation would be in a greater amount than an hourly rate.
However the hourly figures do not lie, and do put the lie to your contentions.
You are very dense, so here again: “Daily wages for bricklayers in New Orleans and Charleston averaged $3. Wages for bricklayers in Chicago and Pittsburg was $1.50.
Carpenters in New Orleans/Charleston earned $2.50 a day.
The same in Chicago/Pittsburg earned $1.50.
General laborers in these Southern cities earned $1.25. Their counterparts in the North earned $.75.
In 1860, the per capital income for Southern wage earners was $150 as compared with $142 for the North.
You said: “A mass meeting is transformed into a major movement”.
Another one of your contrivances to avoid the truth.
Boring.
Still waiting for your response.
I have several for you.
Which would you like?
Translation: “...encourage him to attack the South,...” this means “...encourage him to put down the insurrection unleashed by the Slaverocracy and preserve the Union.”
Senators can stop any legislation coming from the House so control of the Congress is what is significant not just control of the House.
Higher wages rates in the South may reflect some temporary aberration or, the labor force leaving in large numbers to avoid competition with slaves hired out intermittently by their owners. I would have to give the issue a lot more attention than it is worth to me to determine the reason.
At that time efforts were underway to preserve the peace.
The Tariffocracy of the North, i.e. New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago were experiencing their own form of tyranny ....finally....and now calling on Lincoln to start a war.
There was no rebellion. No firing. No lawlessness. Trade continued and peace was at hand.
The only problem for anyone, and that would be in the North, was that millions of dollars in gold as well as trade goods were now moving through Southern ports.
That was the tyranny you said was not happening.
A mass meeting was held discussing support for the South held in December wherein “loyalty to the white race” was sworn should war come. Wherein those gathered for the free booze were warned that the city would be inundated by blacks and laboring men crushed should Lincoln be successful in defeating the Slaver forces. Is this the pack of liars you are inflating to significance?
A meeting of 2,000 in NYC sounds like a lot until it is realized: 1) that NYC was strongly anti-Lincoln being under the control of the RAT party since forever; and 2) that this meeting was SWAMPED by the rallies in the 100,000s of thousands swearing support of the Union after the Slaver attacks forced war, 3) NYC had particular ties to the South and a lot of people profited there from the Slaverocracy are you pretending to be ignorant of that fact?
Any thought of secession EVAPORATED when war came. Treason took a less public stance from then on.
That “movement” lasted slightly longer than a typical bowel movement. It, however, stunk just as badly.
After Sumter there was no secession movement. And, even before, it was petitions and “Appeals” etc. not secession.
In the 1860-1861 Congress, there were enough Republican Senatorial votes to change the rules.
You kept saying that the Republicans did not have a majority.
It seems you have now realized that you were wrong and that the Democrats were not able to stop any legislation.
You were and are simply wrong.
You ought to simply man up and admit your mistake or provide data to the contrary. Simply sitting there typing how right you are is a fool's errand.
NO.
You said: “After Sumter there was no secession movement.”
So, you are excluding from our discussion Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia.
I wonder why.
Republicans did not gain control of the Congress through ELECTIONS in 1860.
After the original FLEEBAGGERS deserted their posts is obviously a different matter. Had the FLEEBAGGERS not fled they could have stopped any legislation.
You said: “Luxuries the Planters were addicted to comprised the majority of the imports affected by the tariff. Planters could have reduced their imports without hurting their economy but that was not their mentality, a mentality based on waste, conspicuous consumption and living like royalty.”
What were the “Luxuries” that you believe were imported?
You said: “Republicans were not a majority in either House of Congress when Lincoln came to office so oppressive tariff legislation could have bee thwarted very easily.”
Wrong again arrosob:
House membership was Republican 116 to 90 Democrat.
Senate was 38 each with Vice President Hannibal Hamlin casting the tie breaking vote.
So, you were wrong about both.
Your own sources showed per capita income was higher in the North than in the South. I pointed it out to you after your amazing attack of blindness. Most of the South and the Mid-West had lower income than the national average. Argue with your statistician, not me.
Wage rates or even per capita laborer income were never the issue. But, since the South had a smaller income from non-slaver laborers, even higher wage rates there would not affect the regions overall income much.
Per capita income in the North was 37% higher than in the South BY YOUR OWN FIGURES.
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.