New Orleans Starts Tearing Down Confederate Monuments, Sparking Protest

You go from objecting to the US government throwing its weight around to demanding that it do just that (or wondering why it doesn't). A lot of people are like that, I guess, but the glaring contradiction doesn't say much for your position or your arguments.

I think what I am doing is pointing out the inconsistencies between reality and what was claimed. As Central_VA pointed out, it started as a war to stop independence, and got repacked as a war to end slavery.

But they really weren't all that interested in ending slavery, and when they finally did it, it was more for revenge and to gain power than any concern for the slaves.

I'm hard pressed to remember a time when you don't use your simplistic notions of economics to buttress the pro-slavery position.

Well that's just it isn't it? When you have clearly reported numbers that tell you ~75% of all money earned by exports was produced in the South, and when you realize that the vast majority of all returning imported goods went to New York, it doesn't get much simpler than that.

New York couldn't produce the income. We have the real numbers (or as close as we will ever get) and they tell the true economic story of what was happening.

Hell, even BroJoeK will admit the South produced 50% of all the trade income from Europe.

You say it is simplistic, but at it's base, all economics is pretty simple.

This economic picture is pretty simple. The Southern states were producing the vast majority of the money, and New York and Boston were getting a huge cut of that production. The money to run Washington D.C. came primarily from these two cities.

Independence for the South would result in a loss of a huge portion of their income. What better reason is there for a war to prevent this loss?

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I don't take the slavers side...

Liar

Thomas Jefferson went so far as to call it “a moral depravity” and a “hideous blot” on the country.

And yet he didn't free his own slaves. Remember when I said that in a contest between morality and the pocketbook, it is usually the pocketbook that wins?

Washington didn't free his slaves either, though he made provisions for it after his death. If I recall properly, it didn't happen, and because of that same old pocketbook thing.

Fast forward to the 1830’s and the slaveocracy is now saying that slavery is a positive good and the natural state for the slaves.

People believe what they need to believe to feel morally justified for what they do. So too did the North rationalize what they did.

they decided to not accept the outcome of a free and fair election and instead rebel.

They decided to leave, which according to the Declaration of Independence, they had a right to do.

The British Monarchy ruled for over a thousand years before the American war of independence occurred. If the God granted natural right to independence could break chains that deep, it could break any lesser chain. Especially one that was only "four score and seven years" old.

Liar

You should have put it in BIG LETTERS, like this:

LIAR

That was the work of the cotton gin, plus all the new textile machinery and means of transportation, plus the new lands that had opened up, plus the fear of slave revolt.

Some people are milking the idea that Northern snobs were looking down on the South 150 years ago, but there had been a boom in cotton. Planters made fortunes. The country's richest counties in terms of total wealth per free man were in the South, mostly in Louisiana and Mississippi.

That made planters cocky and assertive, but fears of slave uprising weren't far from the surface. The fear was that any questioning of the system could cost Southern whites their property and their lives. Feeling your power and fearing losing it can be a dangerous combination.

Even before all this, it wasn't always easy to avoid a them vs. us picture of the world. It wasn't like North and South were always pitted against each other, but it did happen, and it was hard even for someone like Thomas Jefferson to resist the temptation to circle the wagons and assert what they thought were their section's interests against the other half of the country.

And that is a quite reasonable assessment of the situation and one with which I agree.

DiogenesLamp: "I see you assert that it isn't true, but I have yet to see you prove the words don't mean what they say."

We've covered this ground before and you know perfectly well what those words mean, but chose to lie about it.
In the years 1787, 1792 and even 1857 those words, regardless of what DiogenesLamp claims today, or what the Supreme Court declared in 1857, those words at the time only referred to Fugitive Slaves, they did not grant "rights" to slave-holders such as President Washington to bring their slaves permanently into non-slave states like Pennsylvania.

The rights of states to abolish or restrict slavery were respected by our most important Founder, George Washington, and that should establish Founders' Original Intent for all time, regardless of what DiogenesLamp likes to pretend today.

Indeed, there is no Founder -- none, zero, nada Founder -- DiogenesLamp can quote to support his ludicrous claim that the US Constitution forbids states from abolishing slavery within their own boundaries.

The economics of slavery had dramatically changed since the 18th century. It went from being essentially the only form of labor one could use to successfully farm in the Southern climate to being a source of nearly boundless wealth.

The cotton gin allowed the South to produce a seemingly endless supply of cotton and the Industrial Revolution created a nearly insatiable demand.

This created two things in the south:

1. Unimaginable wealth in the deep south
2. A nearly endless need for slave labor to keep that wealth going in the deep south
3. The creation of a commodities market for the slaves themselves. As I said earlier, Jefferson’s Virginia had realized that the labor of their slaves was not nearly worth as much as the slaves themselves. They could sell slaves to the Cotton Planters in the Deep South at tremendous profit.

#3 is interesting because the importation of slaves had been banned for years. But if the Confederacy had actually become a viable nation, the powerful interests in the Deep South would have gotten tired of paying such a premium for a limited number of slaves while an entire continent of cheap labor was a few days journey away.

Neo-confederates like to argue that slavery would have naturally faded away by the end of the 19th Century. What is probably more likely is that an international slave trade would have been re-established by then.

It’s pretty clear that the ideas of “independence” in the South were more of a PR move after their real desires failed to materialize. What the South needed was federal protection of their slave-based economy. The Free States didn’t have to be anti-slavery to devastate the South. A simple policy of “We’re simply not getting involved in slavery” was enough. Hence, the Fugitive Slave Act. Hence Dred Scott.

And the northerners understood what this would lead to long-term: Slave labor in the north. The battles in Kansas weren’t fought on behalf of banks in New York. They were fought on behalf of simple laborers who knew that slave labor would ruin them.

The South needed centralized power to protect their interests. Without that, the entire region was one large uprising away from becoming Haiti.

...those words at the time only referred to Fugitive Slaves, they did not grant "rights" to slave-holders such as President Washington to bring their slaves permanently into non-slave states like Pennsylvania.

Yes, but isn't it so entirely liberal of DegenerateLamp to extrapolate and distort that meaning to provide cover for its agenda?

We've covered this ground before and you know perfectly well what those words mean, but chose to lie about it. In the years 1787, 1792 and even 1857 those words, regardless of what DiogenesLamp claims today, or what the Supreme Court declared in 1857, those words at the time only referred to Fugitive Slaves, they did not grant "rights" to slave-holders such as President Washington to bring their slaves permanently into non-slave states like Pennsylvania.

So you tell me, but how can a state enforce this interpretation? Can they legally bar slave owners from bringing their slaves into a state? Can they bar him from living on land he owns in the state? Can they bar him from using those slaves to work his land, you know, like George Washington did?

What is the state's recourse if a man simply says "your laws are unconstitutional and I refuse to abide by them?" Whether it's original intent was to deal exclusively with fugitive slaves, it's text requires that a slave be returned back to the person to whom the labor is due according to the laws of the state where he is held in labor.

People can claim a distinction, but the text of Article IV does not support this claim.

Oh, and states routinely violated the "fugitive slave" aspect too, so more or less they just didn't want to obey constitutional law.

The rights of states to abolish or restrict slavery were respected by our most important Founder, George Washington, and that should establish Founders' Original Intent for all time, regardless of what DiogenesLamp likes to pretend today.

He made a pretense of respecting Pennsylvania's law by rotating his slaves in and out of Pennsylvania every six months. But Pennsylvania still had slaves despite the state law. I suspect if they had grabbed one or more of his slaves, and if it had gone to Federal court, the court would have ruled that they have to give them back.

But George Washington was trying to strengthen the coalition, not tear it apart.

Indeed, there is no Founder -- none, zero, nada Founder -- DiogenesLamp can quote to support his ludicrous claim that the US Constitution forbids states from abolishing slavery within their own boundaries.

I don't have to quote George Washington, all I have to do is point out that his actions spoke louder than any words he may have said on the subject, and his actions contradict your claimed interpretation.

Neo-confederates like to argue that slavery would have naturally faded away by the end of the 19th Century. What is probably more likely is that an international slave trade would have been re-established by then.

You should read what Washington wrote on the subject. I have read quite a lot of his writings on the issue of slavery, and in his time it was becoming hard to make enough money with slaves to make it worth their upkeep.

Of course as you said, the cotton gin changed the profitability equation, and so the demand increased dramatically.

But the next technological transformation would have had the opposite effect. Once it was noticed that machinery could do the work, there would have been a steady migration away from slavery and into machinery. This was inevitable. The only question is how long would it have taken?

They were experimenting with various farm machinery in the 1870s, but I think the first machine for harvesting Cotton didn't come about till the 1940s. Of course the plowing and the planting and such was being done by machinery around the 1900s, so that alone would have reduced a lot of the labor required.

Other factors are that the social pressure to end it would never have abated, and those wealthy people who would have the largest numbers of slaves would have had the means to pay for alternative technologies.

You point out that there was unimaginable Wealth in the South, and this is true, and if you've studied mankind for any length of time, you start to notice that "unimaginable wealth" is sort of a root cause for Liberalism. People cannot seem to help it. The second generations of "Unimaginable Wealth" always seem to support Liberal ideas, and I have little doubt that the same would have become true of the children of the Wealthy people in the South.

They would have eventually started putting "social welfare" ideas ahead of their own financial self interests. It has happened all over history, and I regard it as a constant in human behavior.

What the South needed was federal protection of their slave-based economy.

You're going to have to explain that. They were the ones with the money. Other than the fact that the FedGov was taxing the sh*t out of them to pay for Northern growth, and other than the fact that the Northern coalition had enough votes in congress to pass laws that virtually guaranteed New York a cut of the South's production profits, they didn't need Federal protection. They need Federal taxes to be lowered and Federal rules that hurt their profits suspended.

Unfortunately for them at the time, the FedGov was very protectionist, because they wanted to build up Northern Industrial power.

They were fought on behalf of simple laborers who knew that slave labor would ruin them.

Now this part is exactly right. Northern sentiment against slavery was primarily focused on slaves as competition for Northern labor. The people who opposed slavery strictly on moral issues were a very small minority. The vast number of Northern people hated slavery because they saw free slave labor as a dire threat to their paid wages labor.

If it were legal in their state, they would have a much more difficult time trying to earn a living. Slaves were unpaid "scabs", and they not only hated them as a people, but they hated them for the threat they represented to wage earners.

The South needed centralized power to protect their interests.

And how would "centralized power" protect their interests? What would it do for them?

So, the South had all the money, control of the Supreme Court, an inflated representation in Congress thanks to the 3/5 clause, and prior to their suicidal behavior in 1860, control of the Presidency.

How was it again that they were getting screwed so badly by the apparently destitute New Yorkers? And why were they so eager to leave this arrangement?

And how exactly did Lincoln have enough money to fund an Army once the South left and he only had the economically helpless Northerners to deal with?

The South believed - wrongly in my view - that slavery (which was the entire basis of their economy) was at risk. And they believed the only way to protect it was to expand it. Hence Kansas.

Have you read the Confederate constitution? That is an expansionist document. The Confederacy was going to expand its territory and it was going to guarantee slavery in those acquired territories - whether it was New Mexico, Cuba, or Pennsylvania.

So, the South had all the money, control of the Supreme Court, an inflated representation in Congress thanks to the 3/5 clause, and prior to their suicidal behavior in 1860, control of the Presidency.

They may have had an inflated representation in Congress, but an actual majority they did not have. What they had was the money, and the majority of Congress was willing to spend it for them.

It is ever the case that the majority of a "Democracy" always votes to take the money away from those people who have it.

How was it again that they were getting screwed so badly by the apparently destitute New Yorkers?

The New Yorkers weren't destitute because among other things, they were siphoning off about 40% of all the Southern trade money. The New Yorkers would have become destitute had the South been able to become independent, because the Southerners would have set up competing industries with their newly acquired 40% more money.

And how exactly did Lincoln have enough money to fund an Army once the South left and he only had the economically helpless Northerners to deal with?

Borrowing. Gold from California, Silver from Nevada. Forcing all European trade to go to the North. Inflation. Conscription. Payments by the wealthy to stay out of the Army. Lots of things contributed to his funding his army.

The South believed - wrongly in my view - that slavery (which was the entire basis of their economy) was at risk.

You aren't reading the right stuff. Read this declaration of causes. It's says a lot about the Benjamins and economic oppression by the North.

And they believed the only way to protect it was to expand it. Hence Kansas.

They believed that slave states would form an alliance in Congress, and therefore a Majority in Congress would preclude any laws that threatened them. Seeing what the Northern majority had already done to them, this is not an irrational move on their part.

Have you read the Confederate constitution? That is an expansionist document. The Confederacy was going to expand its territory and it was going to guarantee slavery in those acquired territories - whether it was New Mexico, Cuba, or Pennsylvania.

Yes, i've read the Confederate Constitution. It is virtually the US Constitution, most of it comprised of the exact same verbiage. They added some stuff to it in various places, but it's blueprint is the US Constitution.

And yes, the Confederacy would have been expansive, and given enough time, it would have likely become the greater of the two nations. It would have appealed to territories to join it instead of the US, and it would have supplied these territories with goods and services as good as what they could get from the New York coalition.

That any businessman can see that the Confederacy would have eventually expanded (because of lower taxes and increasing economic activity) is exactly why it posed a mortal economic threat to the Northern coalition of business interests.

None of you are trying to look at what would have been the future had the Confederate states achieved independence. You aren't looking at this thing from the eyes of New York Robber Barons who could clearly see what a threat to their economic interests that the South would shortly pose.

An independent South would be a virtual "hand of death" for their wealth and power, and they could see it. From their perspective it was absolutely essential that Free Trade be stopped in the South.

There had to be a war.

DiogenesLamp: "So you tell me, but how can a state enforce this interpretation?"

The same way they enforced every other constitutionally valid law.

"Can they legally bar slave owners from bringing their slaves into a state?"
Permanently without freeing them, yes, they could and did and for 70 (seventy!) years before the Supreme Court's absurd Dred Scott ruling, no Founding Father's statement, no law of Congress or ruling of courts overturned states rights to abolish slavery as they saw fit.
"Can they bar him from living on land he owns in the state?
No but they could and did prevent him from permanently keeping slaves there, and for 70 (seventy!) years before the Supreme Court's absurd Dred Scott ruling, no Founding Father's statement, no law of Congress or ruling of courts overturned states rights to abolish slavery as they saw fit.
"Can they bar him from using those slaves to work his land, you know, like George Washington did?"
Permanently, yes they could and did and for 70 (seventy!) years before the Supreme Court's absurd Dred Scott ruling, no Founding Father's statement, no law of Congress or ruling of courts overturned states rights to abolish slavery as they saw fit."

DiogenesLamp: "What is the state's recourse if a man simply says 'your laws are unconstitutional and I refuse to abide by them?' "

The same as enforcing any other law and for 70 (seventy!) years before the Supreme Court's absurd Dred Scott ruling, no Founding Father's statement, no law of Congress or ruling of courts overturned states rights to abolish slavery as they saw fit."

DiogenesLamp: ""Whether it's original intent was to deal exclusively with fugitive slaves, it's text requires that a slave be returned back to the person to whom the labor is due according to the laws of the state where he is held in labor."

Returning fugitive slaves was all it required and for 70 (seventy!) years before the Supreme Court's absurd Dred Scott ruling, no Founding Father's statement, no law of Congress or ruling of courts overturned states rights to abolish slavery as they saw fit."

DiogenesLamp: "Oh, and states routinely violated the "fugitive slave" aspect too, so more or less they just didn't want to obey constitutional law."

But in this case there was no constitutional law for them to violate, only DiogenesLamps' absurd warped 21st century fantasies.

DiogenesLamp on President Washington: "He made a pretense of respecting Pennsylvania's law by rotating his slaves in and out of Pennsylvania every six months."

But there was no "pretense", Washington obeyed Pennsylvania's law of that time, period.

DiogenesLamp: "But Pennsylvania still had slaves despite the state law."

Like almost every other Northern state, Pennsylvania abolished slavery gradually.

DiogenesLamp: "I suspect if they had grabbed one or more of his slaves, and if it had gone to Federal court, the court would have ruled that they have to give them back.
But George Washington was trying to strengthen the coalition, not tear it apart."

Whatever you may "suspect" there's no historical evidence for your absurd 21st century fantasies.

DiogenesLamp: "I don't have to quote George Washington..."

But you do have to quote some recognized Founders if you wish to establish Founders' Original Intent and that term defines today's Conservatives.
Without it you are not Conservative and don't belong posting on Free Republic as one of us.

DiogenesLamp: "...all I have to do is point out that his actions spoke louder than any words he may have said on the subject, and his actions contradict your claimed interpretation."

But no action by Washington, or any other Founder, supports your 21st century fantasies or opposes Founders' Original Intent.

The same way they enforced every other constitutionally valid law.

The Constitution effectively bars any state law that interferes with the relationship between the laborer and the person to whom the labor is due. You ignored this in your effort to *NOT* answer the question.

And thereafter it looks like you just kept repeating yourself.

You point out that there was unimaginable Wealth in the South, and this is true, and if you've studied mankind for any length of time, you start to notice that "unimaginable wealth" is sort of a root cause for Liberalism. People cannot seem to help it. The second generations of "Unimaginable Wealth" always seem to support Liberal ideas, and I have little doubt that the same would have become true of the children of the Wealthy people in the South. They would have eventually started putting "social welfare" ideas ahead of their own financial self interests. It has happened all over history, and I regard it as a constant in human behavior.

That's a fallacy. If you wait long enough, just about anything can happen, but "unimaginable wealth" didn't end apartheid until other factors came into play.

And of course, that wealth wasn't going to last. Cotton prices were bound to fall sooner or later, and with them, the wealth of the planters. That would leave Southern elites, struggling to hold on to power.

But also, it's surprising that your Marxist analysis leaves out another possibility -- with great wealth comes expansionist tendencies and the desire to conquer new territories abroad. Social welfare ideologies usually come into their own after geographic and economic expansion falters.

So it was that we acquired overseas colonies just before turning to progressive and social gospel ideas, and wealthy European countries devoted more energy to imperialism and militarism than to social policy -- up to the point where those wars and colonies became too costly.

There have been all kinds of alt histories written regarding the Confederacy. I think the most likely scenario is that it would have followed a path closer to a South American country than the US, Canada, or Western European countries.

Slavery was ingrained in the Confederate Constitution which meant that it almost had to be an Agrarian nation. Which meant that a few rich land-owners would have risen to the top of society with a vast underclass of subsistence farmers. And then slaves below them.

Any move towards industrialization and mechanization would have been met with the same question: What about the slaves?

I think the world should probably be pretty thankful that the South lost for the simple reason that by the 1930s you could have had mechanization in agriculture, a worldwide economic depression, AND widespread acceptance of eugenics possibly meeting in a Southern cotton field.

The houses of the instigators should be at risk of conflagration