Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
"The 1860 per capita wealth in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040."
Now you've made several attempts to source & correct these numbers, with different results. Originally you cited them as "per capita income. Now they are said to be "per capita wealth" There's a difference, I'm sure you know, between "income" and "wealth."
So one problem is: there was no 1860 census data produced on annual incomes -- the question wasn't asked. That means, all such numbers we've seen have to be estimates by clever economists working through such data as exists.
Here are the questions asked on the 1860 census
Another problem is, the 1860 census did actually produce data on per capita wealth, which I quoted to you:
One more thought on this -- from page 295:
"In considering the relation of population to wealth, the fact must be borne in mind that a much larger proportion of the property of the western than the eastern states is held by non residents, and that this circumstance is not without influence in exaggerating the wealth of individuals in the states where large investments have been made by persons resident elsewhere."
In short: the per capita wealth of western -- including south western -- states is exaggerated by the fact that much of the valuable property there was owned by people who did not live there.
Finally, let's not forget why we are discussing these numbers. The question is, was the South more or less important economically than has been often portrayed?
The answer is: more important, but let's not go overboard and exaggerate the other way!
Give me a break. As I have stated repeatedly, I prefer to cite Mr. Madison's written, public opinions - which actually helped 'sell' the Constitution to the people of the several States. The historical revisionists here prefer to quote Mr. Madison's self-described 'confidential' opinions, which in absolutely no way influenced the ratification of the Constitution. If I have in fact cited a 'confidential' opinion written by Mr. Madison that is 'disputable,' it weakens your case, not mine. In fact, when you ignore Mr. Madison's published opinions, in favor of his personal, 'confidential' opinions, you look like a 'cherry picker.' Period.
In other words, he rejects secession at will and has a hard time maintaining his earlier idea that a state can decide that the Constitution has been violated and secede on its own. I don't know what to make of this. I can't claim that Madison is being wholly logical...
"I don't know what to make of this." Fine. Perhaps you would like to refer to his imminently logical public writings, such as his Federalist Papers writings, his Virginia Resolutions, and his Report on the Virginia Resolutions.
It is not my argument, after all, that relies on his later, entirely private writings.
Matters of war and danger, in other words those of national survival are consigned to the federal government. Should a state be allowed in time of war to withdraw from the union and throw in with our enemies? Your opinion suggests that they could. I doubt the founders would agree. And if unilateral secession isn't allowed during war, is it permissible in peacetime?
Once again, you resort to the 'unilateral secession' argument. What would your opinion be, if the federal government 'threw in with our enemies in time of war?' Hmm? It could easily happen as the result of a presidential election (and I am not necessarily suggesting the 'War on Terror,' but the jury's still out on that one, isn't it?). Perhaps you should re-read Federalist No. 46, regarding the right of the several States to oppose unconstitutional actions by the federal government, up to & including the use of State military (militia) force...
As to Madison's Federalist 45: you're making far too much of this "few and defined" versus "numerous and indefinite." That's Madison's empirical generalization of the separation of powers under the Constitution, but is that the defining principle that governs Constitutional interpretation? That is to say, is anything you can think up that's vague and indefinite enough going to be a power reserved by the states? That's questionable.
Who says I'm "making far too much of this 'few and defined' versus 'numerous and indefinite' " argument? You? Mr. Madison thought it sufficiently important to make the argument, in public, in writing, to 'sell' the new Constitution to the people of the several States. And said Constitution nowhere contradicts Mr. Madison's supposedly "empirical generalization of the separation of powers under the Constitution."
"Repugnant" didn't just mean something one disliked or found distasteful or immoral. It was a legal term. A "repugnant" condition or interpretation of a contract is one contradictory to the contract itself...
Actually, Mr. Hamilton provided a perfectly acceptable definition of the term "repugnant," in context, in Federalist No. 32 which I cited, and you ignored:
This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty, would only exist in three cases: where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; and where it granted an authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally CONTRADICTORY and REPUGNANT. I use these terms to distinguish this last case from another which might appear to resemble it, but which would, in fact, be essentially different; I mean where the exercise of a concurrent jurisdiction might be productive of occasional interferences in the POLICY of any branch of administration, but would not imply any direct contradiction or repugnancy in point of constitutional authority. These three cases of exclusive jurisdiction in the federal government may be exemplified by the following instances: The last clause but one in the eighth section of the first article provides expressly that Congress shall exercise "EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION'' over the district to be appropriated as the seat of government. This answers to the first case. The first clause of the same section empowers Congress "TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES, DUTIES, IMPOSTS AND EXCISES''; and the second clause of the tenth section of the same article declares that, "NO STATE SHALL, without the consent of Congress, LAY ANY IMPOSTS OR DUTIES ON IMPORTS OR EXPORTS, except for the purpose of executing its inspection laws.'' Hence would result an exclusive power in the Union to lay duties on imports and exports, with the particular exception mentioned; but this power is abridged by another clause, which declares that no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State; in consequence of which qualification, it now only extends to the DUTIES ON IMPORTS. This answers to the second case. The third will be found in that clause which declares that Congress shall have power "to establish an UNIFORM RULE of naturalization throughout the United States.'' This must necessarily be exclusive; because if each State had power to prescribe a DISTINCT RULE, there could not be a UNIFORM RULE.
- A. Hamilton, Federalist No. 32
Care to apply Mr. Hamilton's 'in context' definition to State secession? Of course not...
;>)
WIJG: (If you post a reply, and I don't get back to you immediately, don't worry - I'm visiting three States over the next four days. As you noted in your Post 1743, I need to "get out more"... ;>)
x: I'm definitely not worrying. As I said, this debate is pointless. You've decided that your view is right and aren't even going to consider differing opinions.
Ante up some substantial historical documentation (I know you prefer private, 'confidential' letters, to public writings ;>), and I will be happy to reconsider my opinion. In fact, I am not a Southerner (I was born in the State where the D@mocrats recently stole the election for the diaper-wearing @ss-clown). And I have never lived in a Southern State (although at one time, I must admit, the territory where I was born was claimed by the State of Virginia ;>). I have proved my intellectual honesty, by adopting a point of view, not based on where I was born, or where I have lived, or my cultural background, but based on the written, historical record.
By the way, what's your story?
My point is that things aren't always simple. You can come up with a very definite and clearly defined view of things, but that doesn't make it right. It may just be an oversimplification or a distortion.
Your monumental conclusion is that "things aren't always simple," and that a "clearly defined view of things... doesn't make it right?" Congratulations, for being a legal (and philosophical) relativist. 'Signing a mortgage contract that requires a payment every month isn't always simple, and doesn't make it right.'
Get me a hankie...
As always, you're welcome to your views - knock yourself out...
as i've said, i RIDICULE you (& your arrogantly ignorant supporters, IF you still have any) "to your face" for your KNOWING LIES, as i believe that to be more honest/honorable.
free dixie,sw
the TRUTH is that i don't care at all WHAT opinions you hold and/OR if you HAVE an opinion. what DECENT FReepers DO want is for you to "clean up your MOUTH" or LEAVE forever.
laughing AT you, LOUT, as MOST readers DO.
free dixie,sw
So back to the El Paso Thanksgiving; are you conceding that you didn't know what you were talking about there?
NOBODY (with then possible exception of "rockrr, the VULGAR-talking, IGNORANT, lout) believes anything that you spew out onto this forum.
your REPUTATION is that of a KNOWING, SERIAL, clumsy, LIAR & nothing more than that.
so "prattle on". there's plenty of bandwidth for you to embarrass yourself & the other DAMNyankee nitwits. at least you aren't a VULGAR-talking CREEP.
laughing AT you, as most everyone DOES.
btw, the Spanish were IN Mexico in 1519. they were exploring north to (what would become) TX by 1521-25. this is FACT! = so ONCE MORE, you are exposed as UN-knowing & historically ignorant OR just DISHONEST.
free dixie,sw
“You can’t always get what you want”....
“...but if you try some times, you just might find, you get what you need.”
I don't accept anything on your sole say-so. If I did, I'd believe that the Spanish were celebrating Thanksgiving in El Paso while they were still fighting outside Tenochtitlan, that Texas privateers won a court battle to keep the German U-boat they'd captured and put up in a Galveston park, and that Quantrill didn't know how to spell his own name. Tell one of your alleged friends to make their presence known in some way and maybe I'll give this story some credence.
btw, the Spanish were IN Mexico in 1519. they were exploring north to (what would become) TX by 1521-25. this is FACT!
Really! What expedition was that?
fwiw, you make us all GAG, just by being here.
free dixie,sw
as i said before, NOTHING you post is assumed (absent POSITIVE, independent proof) to be HONEST.
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
Rave on, loon. Your friends are either cowards or they don’t exist. Most people around here go with “don’t exist.” The only time we saw one of your (now former) friends come around on these threads, well, we all saw how that worked out for you.
As you've finally agreed, Cortez landed in 1519 and until November of 1521 was busy fighting the Aztecs. There weren't any expeditions going much of anywhere to the north because the badly outnumbered Cortez needed them all. Around this same time, a couple of exploring cruises our of Cuba charted the Texas coast. Some even stood on the beach long enough to claim it for Spain and then get back on the boat before anyone objected.
Then, in 1527, the Narvaez expedition goes to Florida and it all goes bad, leaving them starving along the Gulf Coast. They eventually build boats and the expedition, by now under Cabeza de Vaca, wrecks at Galveston in 1528. The survivors spend six years there as slaves of the local tribe there before making their way west across Texas. This is about 1534. In 1536, he stumbles on a Spanish slave-collecting expedition not far from Culiacan in Sinaloa--the northern outpost of the Spanish at that time.
The stories that Cabeza de Vaca tells leads to the Marcos de Niza expedition, which includes as a guide one of de Vaca's co-survivors. That's 1539, and he allegedly spots the "Seven Cities of Cibola" while poking up through Arizona and into New Mexico.
Coronado goes the following year and looks for them, exploring the southwest but barely scratching Texas. Just a nip across the northern Texas panhandle and the Oklahoma panhandle on the way to Kansas.
After the Coronado fiasco, not much attention is paid to the north, which seems to be all desert and no gold, as far as the Spanish can tell. All the empire's exploring and colony-building action moves to Central and South America, while the northern frontier is basically a story of Indian fighting, conquistadors vs. Apaches
Then, in 1598, the Onate expedition heads north and crosses the Rio Grande at El Paso. Onate orders a Thanskgiving. Interestingly, El Paso puts on a big celebration to commemorate this 1598 event every year. Onate then continues on north and founds Santa Fe.
Now, I invite you to tell what is incorrect in this narrative and just where this other El Paso Thanksgiving falls in the timeline.
Good.
I hope you choke on it fool.
free dixie,sw
Any corrections on the history of Spanish exploration?
as for people NOT posting what they REALLY think of your KNOWING LIES,what part of "they do NOT want to be DIRTIED by associating with you" did you NOT understand??? (especially since anything posted by anyone here that points out your DISHONESTY gets them attacked by the BIGOTED fools of "the DAMNyankee coven".)
the TRUTH is that you are LAUGHED AT & RIDICULED constantly, whether you wish to deal with that TRUTH or not.
free dixie,sw
Why don't you say what's wrong with that little description?
(especially since anything posted by anyone here that points out your DISHONESTY gets them attacked by the BIGOTED fools of "the DAMNyankee coven".)
And who did that happen to? Another of your imaginary friends?
the TRUTH is that you are LAUGHED AT & RIDICULED constantly, whether you wish to deal with that TRUTH or not.
I suppose that could be, although I doubt it because I've never seen any indication of it on these threads, other than your say-so. And we know what that's worth. On the other hand, the people who constantly laugh at and ridicule you do it openly, so I KNOW that they exist.
In other words, he’s clueless...and shameless to boot...;’}
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.