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 ...
Your comprehension is lousey.
.......................................................................South..............North
Per Capita income non-skilled...........................$150................$142
Sources: Fogel & Engerman (1860 Census), Wm. Parker
Per Capita wages non-skilled............................$150..............$142
U S Census, 1860
You insist on ignoring 1/3 of the population of the South in order to arrive at your erroneous conclusion. Did the Blacks disappear in your dream world?
The Post YOU posted lists the income of various parts of the nation. You pick out the only showing showing the “South” to have higher income for a PART of the South’s population. There were more than Whites living in the United States.
“Free Whites” is not the relevant statistic. TOTAL POPULATION is the relevant statistic. ONE part of the South had a higher income than the National Average for this relevant stat and had the highest income of any section of the nation. The other sections were much lower.
Per capita income was $103 for the South as a whole. This is 80% of the per capita income for the North.
Since you have repeatedly been shown you are using the wrong statistic from YOUR post, I can only conclude you are a LIAR. It is hard to believe you could be so stupid as to not see the meaning of your own numbers, though not impossible.
Check any post I have ever made on any subject and you will find I never post links.
You think you can ignore anyone not White to conclude the South had a higher income and call ME “irrational”.
Let me know when you have studied economics. Most of your objections to what I say regarding international trade will then disappear.
You said: “Check any post I have ever made on any subject and you will find I never post links.”
Of course not. Your errors would then be more obvious.
Another source for you:
Wright, Gavin. Slavery and American Economic Development. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2006
Wealth per capita
1850 North.............1850 South.............1860 North.............1860 South
$315..........................$483........................$482........................$868
Your comment: “I can only conclude you are a LIAR.”
When confronted with data that shows you wrong, you start the accusations.
Why don't you contact the US Census bureau, Fogel, Wright, and the other dozen sources I have given you, and tell them that they are lying.
You said you do not believe in sourcing. That makes it easy for you to be the LIAR while hiding behind attacks on others.
It is too easy to post long screeds of irrelevancies. It is one of the biggest stunts of those who cannot make an argument on their own.
Since you cannot refute the data you believed supported your claim that the per capita income of the South was higher after I pointed out how you were mistaken or misusing it, you post something else. Just admit you were incorrect.
In addition, we have not been discussing wealth per capita, particularly when that figure included human beings as property. So your post is irrelevant to the argument about per capita INCOME.
What point would there be in me posting links when you don’t even understand the ones YOU post? You would only misinterpret them or LIE about what they say just as you keeping pretending that there were only Free Whites in the South. You have to use total population.
For the TOTAL population per capita income was $103 South, $128 North. 128>103 in case you can’t figure it out.
The answer to that assertion is that you are wrong.
The per capita income of free populations in 1860 as complled by the United States Census was the following:
........................South..............North
...........................$150................$142
Sources: Fogel & Engerman (1860 Census), Wm. Parker
You are a LIAR. I never mentioned “free” population until I analyzed the data you provided trying to prove per capita income higher in the South.
When I realized the fraud you were attempting I pointed out how you were attempting it.
You do realize “per capita” is based upon the ENTIRE population?
You have not “documented” any assertion. Misinterpreting data or ignoring the proofs that you are incorrect is not “documenting” anything.
If you don’t even admit what “per capita” means there is no hope of you understanding what is posted in any case.
Really.
Here from your post # 245: “..Such as the FACT that the free population of the North was larger than that of the South by at least 3 to 1. It also had a higher per capita income.”
You were wrong. Time to admit it. Here is the truth:
The per capita income of free populations in 1860 as complled by the United States Census was the following:
........................South..............North
...........................$150................$142
Sources: Fogel & Engerman (1860 Census), Wm. Parker
Then refute this:
The per capita income of free populations in 1860 as compiled by the United States Census was the following:
........................South..............North
...........................$150................$142
Sources: Fogel & Engerman (1860 Census), Wm. Parker
Unfortunately, I cannot find those numbers in the 1860 census. Nor are they consistent with the findings of others census.
“Income” was not a concept in use in 1860 either.
And you have made several conflicting claims as to what those figures are.
My comment was poorly worded and did not intend to limit discussion to the free population, black or white. “It also had a higher per capita income.” The “It” in that sentence refers to “the North” not the free populations of either sector.
I apologize for the confusion. Although I doubt that the free population of the North had a lower income. Certainly the MEDIAN income of the North was much higher for the free population.
Calculation of a per capita number which leaves out 1/3 of the population is like calculating a batting average by leaving out 200 at bats.
Yes you can. But they have to be derived, as many historians have already done. You take the value of personal property totals and divide by the populations. Others have done it for you, and I have quoted those sources on more than 10 posts.
To repeat it again for you, a primary source that shows the exact per capita figures I have given you comes from William Parker, "Slavery and Southern Economic Development, The Structure of the Cotton Economy of the Antebellum South", 1970. here
Then you say: "Nor are they consistent with the findings of others census.
Then show where other census data was inconsistent. Documentaion.
“Income” was not a concept in use in 1860 either.
Actually it was. See here
You said: "And you have made several conflicting claims as to what those figures are."
Name them.
First you call me a liar, then you backtrack to self correction and rationalization by pleading confusion.
No, it was very clear. You stated that the “free population of the North had a ‘higher per capita income’.
Those were your exact words. They have been shown to be wrong in dozens of posts. However, as long as you continue to avoid the truth, I will correct you.
Then you say: “Although I doubt that the free population of the North had a lower income. Certainly the MEDIAN income of the North was much higher for the free population.”
Are you sure you want to make that statement?
You said: “Calculation of a per capita number which leaves out 1/3 of the population is like calculating a batting average by leaving out 200 at bats.”
As I have said, tell that to Parker or Fogel or Engerman.
That is not a direct quote from me. Don’t start lying about what I said after you posted the correct statement earlier.
I simply was not sufficiently clear that “it” applied to “the North” rather than the “free population”. I never tried to separate the citizens of the U.S.
The figures you posted listed the per capita income for the total population so they need no notice. They counted every at bat.
“You said: ‘Unfortunately, I cannot find those numbers in the 1860 census.’
Yes you can. But they have to be derived, as many historians have already done. You take the value of personal property totals and divide by the populations.”
This is what I expected. You do not understand the difference between “income” and “wealth”. Income comes from a flow. Wealth is a stock which has accumulated over time. TOTALLY different ideas. Your calculation gives per capita WEALTH not per capita income.
So you believe the National Bureau of Economic Research existed in 1860? The reprint you referenced was published originally at the end of the 20th century. It spoke of income but that was 130 or so years AFTER 1860. They did not use the term in 1860 as I said.
You have called those numbers by several names. Per capita income is only one of them and they are not all synonymous concepts.
Which are you addressing?
You said: “I simply was not sufficiently clear that “it” applied to “the North” rather than the “free population”.
I have responded to that sentence a dozen times. You have had weeks on this thread to realize that. Yet, you ignored my posts that explained your error, and then called me a liar.
Are you just that dense or too biased to comprehend?
You said: “I never tried to separate the citizens of the U.S.”
According to your ‘explanation’, you did. First you ‘separated’ the citizens into North and South, then into regions, and then into free and slave.
You need to be more accurate in your thinking and posting.
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.