Posted on 06/23/2016 2:04:08 PM PDT by ColdOne
Nicely done!
Btw, I had no idea this thread was still chug, chug, chugging along from June 23!
Well, first of all, Charleston was & still is a minor port in a small state with relatively little commerce to ship, period.
Nevertheless, Southerners did build & operate their own ships when they saw need & opportunity.
SS Planter, built in Charleston, SC, 1860 loaded with 1,000 bales of cotton:
You know perfectly well that lawful slavery was a precondition for union in 1776 and 1787.
Abolitionist Northerners agreed to accept slavery in the South because doing otherwise would not produce a United States.
Even in 1860, most-by-far Northerners were willing to accept Southern slavery, so long as the South didn't bring its slaves up North, or out West.
That was the Republican platform Lincoln ran on, and it's what caused Deep South Fire Eaters to go berserk, first declaring secession then war on the United States.
Because of that, there is no possibility -- zero, zip nada possibility -- that the secessionist generation or even their children would ever consider abolition in the Deep South.
Certainly not as long as cotton production was slavery's major economic contribution.
The only con-job going on here is the one DiogenesLamp is trying to work.
In fact, nearly all Northerners opposed slavery from Day One in 1787, in the North and that's why they soon outlawed it in their own states.
But all understood that every Southern slave state had a constitutionally recognized right to its "peculiar institution".
So by 1860 what Republicans wanted was to prevent slavery's expansion into western territories, or via Dred Scott, into their own states.
That's why, without Civil War there could be no abolition of slavery in the South by Federal Government.
But the Confederate Declaration of War on the United States provided the Union with both the reason and a constitutionally permissible method for abolishing slavery in the South.
So, sorry DiogenesLamp, but your ridiculous con-job here is just pathetic, time for you to move on.
Cotton was half, not 3/4, of US exports and more than half of that shipped from Gulf Coast ports directly to international customers, not through Northern ports.
So, if Northern ports accounted for less than half of cotton shipments, it means 3/4 of Northern shipments were of non-Southern origin.
FRiend, you whole hypothesis here has been falsified over and over again -- give it up!
DiogenesLamp: "They fought that war to get that money back, not to abolish the source of that money."
No, the United States went to war against the Confederacy because the Confederacy provoked, launched and formally declared war while supporting pro-Confederates in Union states.
That made the Confederacy an existential threat, far more so than ever Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan 80 years later.
Sorry, but regardless of how often or how loudly you proclaim your falsehoods, they're still false, FRiend.
In fact, the United States went to war because the Confederacy provoked, launched and formally declared war while sending military aid to pro-Confederates in Union states.
Imitation is considered high art among the neo-yankee cult.
Au Contraire, Mon Frere. I am the opposite of an anarchist. I follow the Burkean concept of natural law.
God looks after the affairs of man, but our time is not his time.
Fixed it for you.
Sure, no problem, you're welcome, FRiend.
Except that the population of slaves was growing at the same rate as white Americans, despite the abolition of imports of new slaves after 1808.
And along with the number of slaves the value per slave also increased dramatically:
Growth of slave populations in Southern States, 1770 to 1860:
Growth in total value of all slaves, 1800 to 1860:
At the same time, numbers of Northern state slaves dwindled towards zero by 1840.
The economic fact is that US Southern states were the Saudi Arabia of cotton in 1860 -- they produced the most, the best and the cheapest cotton available in world markets and so dominated the international cotton trade.
And this graph shows that US cotton production did not end in 1860, in fact continued to grow:
So there's no reason to think that cotton and slaves would not continue to be important to Deep South economics for many decades after 1860, had the Confederacy won it's Civil War.
In fact, such "Puritans" were politically irrelevant, even in 1860.
The Republican platform did not call for abolition of slavery in the South, only for preventing its expansion into western territories or, via Dred Scott, into Northern states.
But such limited opposition was still plenty enough to drive Deep South Fire Eaters insanely berserk, first declaring their secessions, then declaring war on the United States.
DiogenesLamp: "Incorrect.
You are merely repeating the lies you have been taught.
The Union invaded the South with 35,000 men.
Prior to this time, the South simply exercised the right to independence."
Incorrect.
DiogenesLamp is merely repeating lies of his own invention, concoctions and wild fantasies.
jmacusa had it right: the Confederacy first provoked war, then launched war, then declared war on the United States while sending military aid to pro-Confederates in Union states.
So the Confederacy was an existential threat far greater than either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan some 80 years later.
All this happened before a single Confederate soldier was killed in battle with any Union force and before any Union Army invaded a single Confederate state.
Now I'm out of time again, must run.
:)
DL, would you as vehemently defend the inherent right of the slaves to declare their independence from their masters? ......as you do the SlaveHolding Southern States right of independence from the despotic and tyrannical North?
Of course. Slavery is wrong, and always was wrong. But as Lincoln said: "One war at a time."
Where I am coming from is a consequence of this current situation we have now. Washington DC (Abetted by the Media owners of New York) is insane, and the way I do the math, the system will crash and it will drag everyone else along with it.
Secession is about the only way to avoid the worst of it, but the whole concept of secession is tainted in the minds of most people by that botch of a Civil War.
People must be made to understand that self determination is a natural law right and modern states have a right to become independent if they so wish.
The Coasts and the Heartland are now two very different peoples with little to nothing in common. It would be far better for the two to separate along their natural demographic boundaries instead of the Coasts, with their greater power and influence over our government, driving us all into bankruptcy.
Let New York and Los Angeles reap the consequences of their foolish Liberal governance, and let the rest of us be free of their influence and control through their abilities to brainwash the people.
Let some piece of America be preserved while the coasts descend into their insisted upon socialist nightmare.
Good question. His posts are so fiercely anti-American that it gives pause to wonder where his allegiances lie.
The trouble with you is when ten people tell you you look like a horse you refuse to wear a saddle.
Mine fought to preserve the United States of America, the country we both live in you moron and they didn’t commit atrocities. One served as a hospital orderly tending to the wounded-from both sides.
DiogenesLamp: "Not the Union.
So long as they were sucking up the profits from all that slave money, they were going to keep it going."
Total nonsense.
From Day One in 1787, nearly all Northerners were committed to abolishing slavery in their own states, and to accepting it in the South where it was already legal.
The issue in 1860 was whether Federal Government could abolish slavery in Western territories and continue to allow abolition in the North despite the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision.
Sure, a few abolitionists (i.e., John Brown) wanted abolition in the South, but they were far from the majority and not part of Lincoln's 1860 Republican platform.
Northerners' reasons for accepting slavery in the South had nothing to do with its profitability, or lack of, but rather with their commitment to the Constitutional compromises engineered in 1787.
They well understood that attempting to abolish slavery in the South would lead directly to disunion and likely war, which of course they didn't want.
As President Lincoln's First Inaugural (March 4, 1861) said, Southerners could not have war unless they themselves started it.
Which they soon did.
Sorry, but it's DiogenesLamp who's oblivious to truth, even when it slaps him silly upside the head.
DL you're just full of pro-Confederate fantasies & propaganda.
In fact, months before a single Confederate soldier was killed in battle and before any Union army invaded a single Confederate state, secessionists provoked war, started war, formally declared war on the United States and sent military aid to pro-Confederates in Union states.
So the Confederacy in early 1861 represented a more existential threat to the United States than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever dreamed of being 80 years later.
DiogenesLamp: "Your 'team' were the evil perpetrators of the war.
They went to war to fuel their greed.
They went to war to continue slavery money coming into their pockets."
Secessionists not only provoked, started and declared war, they also refused to end their war on any terms more favorable than "unconditional surrender".
Now DiogenesLamp somehow thinks: after Appomattox in 1865 cotton production in the South ended.
It didn't.
After 1865 despite the loss of slavery, cotton production continued rapid growth (nearly doubling in 10 years) meaning slavery was irrelevant to Northern merchants, industrialists or shippers.
Sure the loss of slave asset values to Northern bankers was doubtless a major blow, but it was one time and at the beginning of conflict in early 1861, so Northern economy quickly recovered.
DiogenesLamp: "They bungled.
Before it was over, they had lost the cause for which they started the war, (money) and were forced to live up to the rhetoric they had spoke."
Actually, the write-off of Northern loans to Southern planters happened in early 1861, long before the war itself got started.
Here is one report:
In short, Northeastern bankers were anti-Lincoln.
They supported the fusion ticket of Democrat parties.
DiogenesLamp: "Of course the aftermath of a power broker dominated government was the most corrupt era this nation had ever seen."
No actual evidence supports the idea that the so-called Gilded Age (1870 to 1900) was any more, or less, corrupt than eras which preceded & followed it.
Indeed, chief economic facts of that time are:
The result was many new-rich families, just the kinds of people even today we like to satirize as, for example, "Beverly Hillbillies".
But there's no evidence these people were actually more corrupt, though doubtless the roaring economy gave some many more opportunities.
Transcontinental Railroad 1868:
Assasin of President Garfield:
19th Century steel mill:
Assassination of President McKinley, 1901:
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.