Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
More findings on the reinforcement of Fort Pickens. The Harper’s Weekly link with the sketch of the troops at Fort Pickens that I posted above says on other pages of that link that there was a second wave of offloadings, and the sun rose as the troop ships were making their way out of the harbor after the offloadings. So, I suspect that the offloading of troops began at 11 PM on April 12 and lasted until near dawn of the 13th.
I discounted Rawle's opinions because, so far as I know, he was not involved in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, or in discussions of that time regarding it's meaning -- i.e., the Federalist Papers. So his later opinions have to be judged against the politics of the time he expressed them. For example, as we've discussed, Jefferson's Non-Intercourse and Embargo acts stirred up much secessionist agitation in New England states.
President Jackson's proclamation of 1832 on Nullification and Secession, I'd put in a different category because:
In other words, I'm not of course saying that Jackson was a constitutional expert. But I am saying his opinions, especailly as a Southerner, carried a lot of weight at the time and helped hold the country together.
Indeed, it's a curious fact that as long as either Southerner, Jefferson or Jackson were president, there was no talk accepted of nullification, or secession or even states rights against the Federal Government. And no president before the Civil War imposed as much hardship on one particular section of the country as Jefferson did with his Non-Intercourse and Embargo acts.
WIJG: "(And, by the way, you are conflating nullification and secession, when, in fact, they are separate issues. ;>)"
I'd be most curious to see you explain how these are constitutionally separate issues. Are you in favor of one but not the other?
I see you read the posts carefully, that is up until a point.
I said: “Quite a large percentage of the goods were direct shipped to New Orleans and Mobile”.
That is a large percentage of what....do you think?
This meant that, if there were very little specie going to Europe, then southern exports were being used as the “currency” to buy European goods that were then shipped back to this country.
In 1860, the total amount of specie available in Northern banks was not enough to finance 20% of the next year's imports if Southern goods no longer were shipped out from the North.
Without southern exports, the entire trade/tariff program, that totally financed the US government would come to a halt.
I already did. Both US and European shippers did it the cheapest, and least risky....ship to NYC.
By your own logic when you said that the vast majority of tariffs were paid in NYC, then it would follow that the same majority of consumers lived right there in NYC.
Since the vast majority of consumers lived in NYC, then there would be virtually no need for any shipments to Boston, since there were no consumers of consequence there.
And no need to ship any imports out of NYC, since there were no final consumers anywhere else.
Isn't that about it?
Then you audaciously turn right around and say: "But again, if all those imports were destined for Southern consumers then why didn't they go to those ports?"
You already know that a large amount of the total imports into the US were direct shipped to Southern ports.
For the record again, the warehousing act boosted NYC because (a) it permitted merchants to import goods without a cash advance to pay the tariffs upon docking and (b) it facilitated wider reexportation among warehoused goods in trade with the rest of the world.
The act's advocates and defenders, among them US Senator Hunter, openly advocated it upon these two grounds and the speech below is conclusive testimony to that fact.
Here, again is Hunter's speech, referring to proposed changes in the 'new' Morrill tariff bill, with the relevant sections bolded:
"There is a proposition in it for the virtual repeal of the warehousing law – that law under which New York has prospered so largely – that law to which England owes so much of that centralization of commerce which she has enjoyed in her cities and in her docks for years past.
It was said that their warehousing system was originated by Sir Robert Walpole, who, for commercial intelligence, seemed, in this and other respects, to have been far, far ahead of his time. According to the history that is given to us, the men that had made so much money out of the frauds which had been perpetrated through the system of drawbacks and debentures, got up a mob and instigated commotions against him.
They beset him as he went to the House of Commons, and made it so disagreeable that he had to abandon the bill. But finally reason conquered prejudice; truth triumphed. The British Government introduced the system, and they allow goods to be warehoused not merely three years, but five years; and then, after five years, the importer may come in and take an account of his goods, pay the duties on those which have been taken and lost or consumed, and re-house the residue again for another five years.
I venture to say that there is not a man in the whole United Kingdom who has any character for financial ability or commercial intelligence, who would think of proposing a repeal of that system. Why should we do it here? Has it not been eminently beneficial since we extended the system to three years?
Why, sir, let us look to the history of its operation. I have had a statement made of the goods that were imported and re-exported from this country from the years 1833 to 1846, before the system was established, and for a corresponding period of years from 1848 to 1860. In the first period of thirteen years, the entire re-exportation of merchandize was $79,767,000; and from 1848 to 1860, the re-exportation of goods imported was $146,095,073, nearly double. Of this latter amount of goods re-exported, $92,200,000 worth were re-exported from the warehouses.
Thus our ship-owners have derived the profit of freights on this increased trade which we have given to New York. Thus our merchants have derived the profits on these exchanges. Thus the owners of real estate have derived the profits upon storages.
Thus New York has been able to become rapidly – and it is since the passage of the warehouse bill that her progress has been most, most rapid – a great emporium and center of commerce.
Why is it? It is because, owing to the warehousing system, a great amount of the goods of the world are stored there, and a merchant or a ship-owner can go there and make out an assorted cargo for any part of the globe. If the merchants have not the goods in their stores, they have them in the warehouses.
When a man carries a bill to New York, he is sure that he can not only convert it into money, but into any species of commodity or merchandize which he may desire; and that is one reason why the banks have been enabled to stand there, when they were breaking and falling everywhere else. That is the reason that a bill upon New York is worth more than a bill upon other places.
That is one thing which has served to make her a great center of commerce. Nor is that all, sir. Owing to this system, the small dealer, the man of small capital, is able to deal in imported goods. He does not have to pay his duties of forty, fifty, or sixty per cent., or whatever they are, and lie out of the interest of his money, and borrow it a long time before it can be returned to him; but, when he finds he can sell his goods, he goes to the warehouse, pays the duties, disposes of his merchandize, and obtains so speedy a return that he, too, is enabled to deal in imported goods.
Thus, the business is not confined to those immense capitalists who are able to advance the money, and wait for the interest and the duty to be returned to them for months, or perhaps years." - Congressional Globe, 36th congress, 2nd session (speech starts on p. 898)
So, which is right? There is no complete explanation of the methods of his calculations, or whether or not he included dependent household members in the count, variations in work patterns due to crop harvesting, or relative impact of recessions.
What is fact is that in 1857 a Senate report by Senator Johnson showed that the 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. Even your source reveals that between 1840 and 1860, per capita income increased more rapidly in the South than in the rest of the nation. By 1860 the south attained a level of per capita income which was high by the standards of the time, surpassing the status of many European countries.
According to the census, the growth in personal wealth in the South in the 1850’s was extensive. From the 1850 census, and state census records in 1858, the value of land and personal property had increased by 57%, while the same measure in the Northeast showed an increase of only 11%.
The typical southern state farm in 1860 had a valuation of $7,101. In the northern states this figure was $3,311. Net worth of southerners was higher than their counterparts in the North and West. Personal wealth in ownership of farm implements, machinery, and animals was greater in the South.
When the 1860 Census was completed it was noted that one measure of the census was “True Value of Personal Property” which was the per capita value of owned property. According to this measure of accumulation of personal wealth, the leading and most wealthy states among all of the United States were Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana.
And finally, from several sources, according to the census, with only 30% of the nation’s (free) population, the South had 60% of the “wealthiest men.” The 1860 individual per capita income in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040.
Now, whether or not you want to call that income or value per person calculated every 10 years, it still shows your points for what they are, BS.
laughing AT you, LIAR, as all intelligent FReepers here DO.
free dixie,sw
Nah. I like this one better.
By the way, should I take “i’m FREQUENTLY wrong” as a concession that your story about the El Paso Thanksgiving wasn’t true, or are you sticking by that one?
my suggestion for your new tag-line is both TRUTHFUL & APPROPRIATE.
laughing AT you LIAR, as most FReepers DO.
free dixie,sw
El Paso Thanksgiving?
SW, "Bubba" should really make his new tagline:
"When caught in a lie, I tell two more to cover up the first one, Bubba Ho-Tep".
fyi, i like that one even better than my suggestion.= laughing AT you, as MOST readers DO.
free dixie,sw
So, either another coward afraid to say things publicly, or as much a figment of your imagination as the El Paso Thanksgiving and the Galveston U-boat. I go with the latter.
Feel free to use that as your tagline, though. Just be aware that mine is an actual quote, while yours would be yet another fabrication.
free dixie,sw
PLEASE apologize to everyone for being "rockrr, the VULGAR lout" & RESIGN from FR. (you are MORALLY UNFIT to BE a FReeper.)
free dixie,sw
And Hey! Your friend!
You never surprise.
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.