What Should a First-Time Visitor to America Read?

National Review ^ | April 7 2018 | Daniel Gerelnter

[iowamark]

A friend recently posed this question: “If you had to recommend one book for a first-time visitor to the U.S. to read, to understand our country, what would it be and why?”...

If the goal is an education, we could recommend Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager’s Growth of the American Republic, a two-volume history that used to be required reading...

Huckleberry Finn may be the greatest American novel... But there is no single novel, no matter how great, that can do the job alone.

Consider instead the great American essayists who invented a new style of writing in the 1920s and founded The New Yorker. E. B. White’s One Man’s Meat is the finest such essay collection... Joseph Mitchell’s Up in the Old Hotel is nearly as great...

Teddy Roosevelt’s short book The Strenuous Life, which opens with his 1899 speech by that name, is an explanation of America’s view of itself — a view that greatly shaped the 20th century. It was the peculiar marriage of power and prosperity together with a sense of moral urgency. Roosevelt demands an active life, a life of struggling for personal and national virtue. He commends a triad of strength in body, intellect, and character — of which character is the most important. America must meet its moral obligations vigorously, he tells us: “It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed.”...

The origin of that moral urgency was America’s most important spiritual crisis. It is best expressed in a single speech, rich in Biblical imagery and contemporary prophecy: Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, which is the greatest of all American writing. It is a tone-poem or photograph of the American soul. A complete understanding, in just 697 words.

[DiogenesLamp]

The key fact here is that DiogenesLamp hopes to impose his own historical narrative on historical people who would not recognize it.

The key fact here is that the economics of the situation clearly shows that New York and Washington DC were ending up with all the trade money.

Another key fact is that most of this money would have disappeared from their control if the South traded directly with Europe. They wouldn't get what they had come to regard as "their cut."

We have here a towering motive called "Money" but gullible people prefer to believe it had some other cause than that, though uninvolved observers on the other side of the Atlantic pretty much nail the cause as a dispute over money, nor morals.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "With the South producing 65-84 percent of the total export value, 65-84 percent of the tariff money must come from this revenue stream.
(Probably more actually, because the tariffs were also weighted to favor the North.)"

The correct figure, for purposes of this discussion, is exports not of ill-defined "Southern products" but rather of strictly Confederate products, which turned out to be: cotton, in 1860 ~$200 million or 50% of US total exports.
Most everything else classified as "Southern products" turned out to have shipped from Union states or Unionist regions of Confederate states.

DiogenesLamp: "But none of this addresses the largest and most significant aspect of this.
The bulk of European trade would have moved to Southern ports, and it would have very badly hurt some Northern Industries and especially New York."

Today about 95% of US trade tonnage goes through ports that are not New York.
Indeed, the entire Eastern Seaboard, from Boston to Baltimore, by my calculation receives only 10% of total US freight tonnage.
And how big of a problem has this caused either average Americans or those amorphous "Northeastern Power Brokers"?

You tell me.

[BroJoeK]

x: "Sure, just like Thomas Jefferson."

DiogenesLamp: "By the standards of his time, he was very much a liberal."

And by the traditional definition -- which is the correct definition -- Jefferson still is "liberal", in the best sense of that word.

Our problem is the Left corrupts everything they touch, especially our language, now using the word "liberal" to refer to people more accurately thought of a fascists.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Too long. Not going to read it."

You are mentioned at times in that post, so traditional FR courtesy, you are included in the addressees.
Unfortunately, the only way I could direct you to those mentions would have been to number items & responses, then I could say, for example: DiogenesLamp is mentioned in my responses numbered 15, 18 and 27. ;-)

Oh well...

[DiogenesLamp]

The correct figure, for purposes of this discussion, is exports not of ill-defined "Southern products" but rather of strictly Confederate products, which turned out to be: cotton, in 1860 ~$200 million or 50% of US total exports. Most everything else classified as "Southern products" turned out to have shipped from Union states or Unionist regions of Confederate states.

You go to great lengths to deny the significance of the export value because you realize what it looks like if the true contribution of the South is acknowledged.

But does it not occur to you it still looks bad even using your deliberately minimized figures? 20 Million people in the North producing only 50% of the export value while 5 Million in the South are producing the other 50%?

Going all out to drop the real number from 34-25% does not suddenly make the point disappear. It still doesn't make any sense at your lowball number of 50%. (I've got SoCalPubbie up to 65%)

You think your 25-34% reduction in the number exculpates? It doesn't.

Also I don't care what the modern shipping patterns are now, they are irrelevant to what was going on in 1860.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“To a rational man, it demonstrates clearly that slavery was not the issue to which the North objected.”

How many times do I have too spell it out?

THE SOUTH FOUGHT TO PRESERVE SLAVERY!

THE NORTH (AND ABOUT 100,000 SOUTHERNERS) FOUGHT TO PRESEVRE THE UNION!

[SoCal Pubbie]

” Northern claim that the war was over slavery.”

What Northern claim? Everyone knows that the Union fought to preserve the Union in 1861. If we made a drinking game out of it, we’d all be plastered it’s been posted so many times.

[x]

The Navigation Act of 1817 was passed by a Democratic-Republican Congress and signed by a Virginia planter President, James Madison. It was a nationalist measure. We'd just fought a war with Britain that was in large part due to their practice of taking sailors off our ships and impressing them into British service. So clearly, Americans -- North and South -- didn't want the British meddling in our coastal waters.

The Warehousing Act of 1846 was likewise passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by a slaveowning president, James K. Polk. That was the Congress that passed the low tariff of 1846 and the law was intended as a free trade measure. As with the Navigation Act, it was only later that some Southerners started to see all this as part of a Yankee plot.

The idea that the Navigation Act meant that Northern shippers set rates only a little higher than the fines imposed on foreign shippers has some things wrong with it.

First of all, there wasn't a cartel that could enforce rates, so far as I know. US shipping companies were in competition with each other, and if the rates were too high, planters and merchants could ship directly to the Old World on British ships, since the Navigation Act didn't apply to shipping to and from Europe, so there was a limit to how high rates could go.

Secondly, why would using British ships automatically be cheaper? You could make the case the established British millowners still produced thread and cloth that was better or cheaper than US products, but why would that apply to shipping, something that Yankees were as experienced at as were the Britons?

Third, the idea that British companies would be shipping between US ports and incurring fines is a little sketchy. If you're not welcome and there are fines and prosecution involved you go into business somewhere else.

The law effectively kept the British out of US domestic shipping. Prices may have been a little higher, but developing US shipping was considered to be worth it. If the US abolished the law it wouldn't mean a flourishing of Southern-owned shipping, it would just have meant that British firms would enter into competition with US ones.

[SoCal Pubbie]

I was referring to Lampie’s need to have imports and exports balance, as part of the proof that Southerners paid the vast majority of the tariffs. Clearly there were more imports than exports throughout the antebellum period. Of course he just blows it off as “roughly equal.”

[DiogenesLamp]

How many times do I have too spell it out?

THE SOUTH FOUGHT TO PRESERVE SLAVERY!

Because it is clearly and demonstrably a lie, you have to repeat it quite often to convince gullible people to believe it. That's why it has been repeated loud and often since 1863. (Notice I didn't say 1861? It's because they weren't even trying to push that crap in 1861. They started pushing it in January of 1863.)

It is clearly contradicted by the evidence of the "Corwin Amendment", but you still desperately want to believe the war was somehow about slavery, instead of about the 238 Million dollars of European trade that would move from New York to Southern ports, and thereafter threaten these same New York industries by supplying the interior of the nation with Imported European goods, instead of theirs.

Besides that, it doesn't really matter why the South was fighting off an invasion, it only matters why the North was engaging in Invasion.

Invaded people get more leeway on why they were killing invaders, it is the invaders that have to justify why they were invading someone else.

[DiogenesLamp]

What Northern claim? Everyone knows that the Union fought to preserve the Union in 1861.

It fought to Preserve economic control over the Southern money stream.

Lincoln was going to accept a deal to let the original seven states go if Virginia would offer assurances that it would remain in the Union. "A state for a fort is no bad business."

You see, the problem with principles is that they are inviolable. Once you violate them, they can no longer be regarded as a "principle", but are instead, bargaining chips for a deal.

This business of "Preserving the Union" is like that joke about the woman sleeping with a man for a Million bucks.

"We've already determined what sort of girl you are, now we are just haggling over the price. "

As with The Corwin Amendment breaking the principle of Union support for Slavery, so too does the "Virginia deal" break the principle of "Preserving the Union."

But here you are, pushing the propaganda you desperately desire to believe, that both "Slavery" and "Preserving the Union" are not mere bargaining chips used by a cynical manipulator to keep the money flowing to the right people.

When you finally wake the F*** up, I think you will end up doing some serious soul searching, as did I when I realized that most of what I had been told was just a lie.

The establishment Cartel of New York/Washington and it's media weapon still rule us today. Both New York and Washington are attempting to use all their firepower to get this guy that is challenging them.

[DoodleDawg]

The 73-84 percent (depending on who you believe) of the trade created by Southern Exports would move to the South...

Why would the trade go to the South if the demand for the imports wasn't there?

I'm not surprised you couldn't be more creative in coming back with a dig.

Off day. I'm fighting a bug and am a little under the weather.

[DoodleDawg]

Here we go again. Another denial that the vast majority of Americans believe and repeat the claim that the war was about slavery.

I can't be responsible for what you and the majority of Americans believe in spite of all evidence. Unless, of course, you're saying the South rebelled over slavery. Then you would actually be right on something.

Slavery could not expand within the United States, even if a law to do so had been passed by that Congress which BroJoeK says was under the Control of the Democrats which were committed to slavery.

So what was in it for the South so far as the Corwin Amendment was concerned?

You couldn't set up plantations in the territories because slave intensive cash crops wouldn't grow there.

The majority of slaves never saw the inside of a cotton field.

Expanding it into the Caribbean (it was already there) or Mexico, would have been outside the prerogative of the US to control anyway, so is therefore irrelevant.

But not outside the dreams of the Confederate States.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Navigation Act of 1817 was passed by a Democratic-Republican Congress and signed by a Virginia planter President, James Madison. It was a nationalist measure. We'd just fought a war with Britain that was in large part due to their practice of taking sailors off our ships and impressing them into British service. So clearly, Americans -- North and South -- didn't want the British meddling in our coastal waters.

In 1817, it seemed benign and desirable. It took years before people realized how it put them at a disadvantage. Many is the act of congress that later was discovered to be a disaster.

As with the Navigation Act, it was only later that some Southerners started to see all this as part of a Yankee plot.

Not so much a plot as it is mutual interests cooperating to their mutual advantage.

The idea that the Navigation Act meant that Northern shippers set rates only a little higher than the fines imposed on foreign shippers has some things wrong with it.

First of all, there wasn't a cartel that could enforce rates, so far as I know.

Everyone in the industry knew what the rates were with and without penalties. If you don't think that provided a clue for everyone to set their rates at just below the penalties, then you are grievously underestimating the intelligence of business people.

US shipping companies were in competition with each other, and if the rates were too high, planters and merchants could ship directly to the Old World on British ships, since the Navigation Act didn't apply to shipping to and from Europe, so there was a limit to how high rates could go.

No shipper wants to cross the ocean with an empty ship, and so they always carried cargo both ways. What were these British ships going to carry as cargo to the South? All the stuff the Southerners wanted was greatly taxed, and so wouldn't be as easy to sell as it would in a free trade or low tariff market.

The British ships would also be limited as to their profit potential by being required to dock at only one port. They couldn't sell some product in one, and move to another, it all had to come off at whatever single port they chose.

Somewhere in one of the larger threads, there is a pretty good analysis of all the detriments to the South caused by the Navigation act of 1817. I'm sort of looking for it, and I expect I will eventually find it.

Secondly, why would using British ships automatically be cheaper? You could make the case the established British millowners still produced thread and cloth that was better or cheaper than US products, but why would that apply to shipping, something that Yankees were as experienced at as were the Britons?

Rail Road iron and Rail Cars/Engines would be cheaper. Iron products in general would be cheaper. The things that were protected by tariffs would have all come in cheaper than what they could be bought for with the tariffs in place.

Third, the idea that British companies would be shipping between US ports and incurring fines is a little sketchy. If you're not welcome and there are fines and prosecution involved you go into business somewhere else.

They checked your log books, and there were penalties beyond just the forfeiture of your cargo for manipulating those. If you got caught trying to ship between US ports on a foreign built ship, a foreign owned ship, or even a ship that has a partial foreign crew, then your ship could be seized as well as your cargo, and you could end up in Prison.

The port authorities made a record of every ship that docked, and these got sent to Washington where they were checked for exactly this sort of Port to Port banned trading. They would have caught anyone attempting it.

The law effectively kept the British out of US domestic shipping. Prices may have been a little higher, but developing US shipping was considered to be worth it.

Worth it to the people running Washington and New York, but perhaps not so worth it to the people in the South. Also there is the factor of how many people want to do business with people who really really hate them and consider them immoral?

I make a point to boycott businesses that come out against the NRA (founded by Union officers) or other conservative organizations. I don't doubt there was some sentiment to do that in the old South.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why would the trade go to the South if the demand for the imports wasn't there?

The demand for imports in the South was artificially constricted by the added taxation for stuff the South wanted. (I believe the costs of some things were doubled.) Once the extra costs were gone, there would have probably been quite a lot of demand for English rail road iron, cars, engines, and other machinery, iron implements and such.

Off day. I'm fighting a bug and am a little under the weather.

Well I hope you get to feeling better. Nobody likes being sick.

[Rome2000]

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/14976/14976-h/14976-h.htm

MOB RULE IN NEW ORLEANS:
ROBERT CHARLES AND HIS FIGHT TO DEATH,
THE STORY OF HIS LIFE,
BURNING HUMAN BEINGS ALIVE,
OTHER LYNCHING STATISTICS
BY
IDA B. WELLS-BARNETT
1900

[DiogenesLamp]

It was 6.9% away from being exactly equal. Close enough to establish the point.

Besides that, i've got between 13% and 25% of margin of export value to play with, depending on who you cite as a source to demonstrate the South's export value.

[DoodleDawg]

The demand for imports in the South was artificially constricted by the added taxation for stuff the South wanted.

Like?

(I believe the costs of some things were doubled.)

For example?

Once the extra costs were gone, there would have probably been quite a lot of demand for English rail road iron, cars, engines, and other machinery, iron implements and such.

Why? Leaving aside for the moment that there was no tariff on railway engines, there wasn't a lot of demand for it in the South before the rebellion. Add to that the fact that the Confederacy enacted their own tariff so prices of imports wouldn't drop that much. Plus all the items they used to get from the North now was taxed as imports.

The long and short of it is that before the rebellion upwards of 95% of all imports entered through Northern ports. After the rebellion you would have us believe that all those imports would all go south. If the demand wasn't there before the rebellion why would that change?

[SoCal Pubbie]

“When you finally wake the F*** up, I think you will end up doing some serious soul searching, as did I when I realized that most of what I had been told was just a lie.”

I am awake you fool, and I will never get my head stuck up my Southron region as you have!

[x]

In 1817, it seemed benign and desirable. It took years before people realized how it put them at a disadvantage. Many is the act of congress that later was discovered to be a disaster.

The Navigation Act was proposed by a Georgian and amended by a South Carolinian. Southern planters wanted US firms to control US coastal shipping. They also wanted US control over shipping to the West Indies. It seemed like a good idea at the time, and from an American nationalist point of view, it was.

You used the word "disaster." What sane human being could possibly conclude that the Navigation Act was a disaster? Why? Because it advantaged Americans rather than Britain? Because it meant a few less pennies in slave owners' pockets? Why was it a "disaster"?

Everyone in the industry knew what the rates were with and without penalties. If you don't think that provided a clue for everyone to set their rates at just below the penalties, then you are grievously underestimating the intelligence of business people.

American firms were competing with each other. It only took one to charge less, and the collusion would break down and rates would fall. And if everyone knew what was going on, then British ship captains knew enough to avoid practices that would mean incurring penalties. They'd be out of the picture, so far as coastal traffic was concerned, so why would penalties be such a large factor in American rates?

No shipper wants to cross the ocean with an empty ship, and so they always carried cargo both ways. What were these British ships going to carry as cargo to the South? All the stuff the Southerners wanted was greatly taxed, and so wouldn't be as easy to sell as it would in a free trade or low tariff market.

Ships tended to bring goods from Europe to Northern ports because there were more people living there and hence, a larger market. It made sense to pick up cotton from those ports as well, rather than make the longer trip to pick up cotton from Southern ports where there was less of a market for imported goods in the less populous cotton states.

The British ships would also be limited as to their profit potential by being required to dock at only one port. They couldn't sell some product in one, and move to another, it all had to come off at whatever single port they chose.

Bad for England. Good for America. You realize that if the Navigation Act hadn't been passed in 1817 and British goods were being dropped off in every port, sooner or later the country would have passed the bill. It only looked like a horrible thing to people who didn't have to live with the alternative.

Rail Road iron and Rail Cars/Engines would be cheaper. Iron products in general would be cheaper. The things that were protected by tariffs would have all come in cheaper than what they could be bought for with the tariffs in place.

But if you were an American who wanted to ship goods from New Orleans to Charleston, it wouldn't have been cheaper to do so on British ships.

Your point seems to be that without the Navigation Act, Britain could penetrate much further into US markets and displace US manufactures. Good for Britain. Bad for the US. Bad for Southern manufacturers, no less than for Northern manufacturers.

Also there is the factor of how many people want to do business with people who really really hate them and consider them immoral?

I make a point to boycott businesses that come out against the NRA (founded by Union officers) or other conservative organizations. I don't doubt there was some sentiment to do that in the old South.

No, they were too busy defending slavery, just like you.

You remind me of a lunatic who thinks he invented a time machine. The machine is defective, so he keeps getting confused about what year it is. So it's madness upon madness and you think everything that was true today was true in 1860 (and many things that weren't true in 1860 are true today).