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 ...
You said: “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.”
Actually it is per capita income.
And not my calculation.
Again from William Parker's book, Fogel and Engerman, and the University of Virginia, here is the data.......
The per capita income of free populations in 1860 as compiled by the United States Census was the following:
........................South..............North
...........................$150................$142
Make up your mind. YOU claimed the number was “wealth” when I pointed out that there were no income statistics in the 1860 census but then you claimed these were imputed numbers based on wealth.
Since there was no general understanding of the term “income” in 1860 I suspect that your earlier explanation is correct.
If not and the estimates are not derived from “wealth” what are they derived from?
Since we are discussing the RAT Rebellion “North” and “South” are not unwarranted distinctions. And it was the dumbasses in the Cornfederacy which tried to separate the regions.
Do you prefer “Traitors” and “Patriots”? “Dastardly Dimwitted Democrats” and “Loyal Americans”? Perhaps “Anti-Americans” and “Faithful Americans”?
There are any number of appropriate titles.
Per Capita “income” 1860 as estimated somehow for the TOTAL Population:
North $128
South $103
In case you want to look at the relevant numbers.
About what?
You said: "If not and the estimates are not derived from “wealth” what are they derived from?"
here is your answer.
You said: "YOU claimed the number was “wealth” when I pointed out that there were no income statistics in the 1860."
I did no such thing.
How can “estimated somehow” be relevant?
It appears that you are totally unfamiliar with any of the census data for 1860 and do not know how to research.
When and if you want to get around to learning, I will be glad to recommend a few books to you.
Until then, be ignorant my friend. Be ignorant.
You claimed these numbers were derived from “personal Property” estimates.
Personal property is a WEALTH concept. There is no accurate way of estimating income from wealth as anyone who has studied any economics knows.
Per capita “income” according to your link - $128 North $103 South.
I have examined that census which is very comprehensive if you want to know the number of idiots in Pulaski County or the number of blind in Ashley County. But if you are looking for information on per capita income you are SOoL.
In 1860 people would have believed it unconstitutional to even ask about income.
Any real scholar can tell you that the tariff was a dead issue prior to the Wah. The government was controlled by the South and Southerners almost its entire history. JQ Adams, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, Martin Van Buren and Buchanan were its only presidents not from the South and VB, Pierce and Buchanan were completely subservient to the Slavers.
The RAT Rebellion came because the Slavers decided to fight for an Ignoble Cause, under false pretenses and a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference between a Union and a Confederacy clearly laid out in the Federalist.
It was launched almost entirely, if not entirely, in defense of Slavery. The North fought to preserve the Union.
I made no ‘claim’. I told you the method used.
You said: “Personal property is a WEALTH concept. There is no accurate way of estimating income from wealth as anyone who has studied any economics knows.”
Tell that to Parker, Fogel, and Engerman.
So this brings us back to the per capita income data, derived from the census.
And not my calculation.
The per capita income of free populations in 1860 as compiled by the United States Census was the following:
........................South..............North
...........................$150................$142
It is good that you finally have studied the census data and its methodology.
Now it is time that you read what the economists of the time compiled.
I have already sent you the websites.
Please continue to read.
You said: “The North fought to preserve the Union.”
In the sense that it was fighting to protect the TARIFFOCRACY, you are right.
Not is that not income but it only counts part of the population. It is worthless. “per capita” means total population. 128 to 103 South down by 20% even by the wealth measure.
You posted those numbers with the hope they supported your argument. They do not and proved it wrong. I am telling you as I am sure the authors have been told by statisticians/economists that they do not measure income.
There was no such thing especially before the Wah. Why are you spreading Slaver lies when there were few slaves in N. Arkansas? So it is not likely you have to protect your family’s reputation.
There was no tariff issue in 1860.
I am familiar with the 1860 census and its misuse by the Defenders of the Slaverocracy from way back.
You have sent me no websites with “economists of that time” but they would not refute anything I have said anyway. Once again your imagination is running away with you.
You said: “I am telling you as I am sure the authors have been told by statisticians/economists that they do not measure income.”
And your source for that bit of knowledge is???
You said: “Why are you spreading Slaver lies when there were few slaves in N. Arkansas? So it is not likely you have to protect your family’s reputation.”
What does that mean?
Let me correct you again.
Actually it is per capita income.
And not my calculation.
Again from William Parker's book, Fogel and Engerman, and the University of Virginia, here is the data.......
The per capita income of free populations in 1860 as compiled by the United States Census was the following:
........................South..............North
...........................$150................$142
Look up “income”. Look up “wealth”. You seem very confused about the concepts.
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.