Posted on 07/26/2021 4:33:01 PM PDT by ammodotcom
The Battle of Appomattox Courthouse is considered by many historians the end of the Civil War and the start of post-Civil War America. The events of General Robert E. Lee’s surrender to General and future President Ulysses S. Grant at a small town courthouse in Central Virginia put into effect much of what was to follow.
The surrender at Appomattox Courthouse was about reconciliation, healing, and restoring the Union. While the Radical Republicans had their mercifully brief time in the sun rubbing defeated Dixie’s nose in it, they represented the bleeding edge of Northern radicalism that wanted to punish the South, not reintegrate it into the Union as an equal partner.
The sentiment of actual Civil War veterans is far removed from the attitude of the far left in America today. Modern day “woke-Americans” clamor for the removal of Confederate statues in the South, the lion’s share of which were erected while Civil War veterans were still alive. There was little objection to these statues at the time because it was considered an important part of the national reconciliation to allow the defeated South to honor its wartime dead and because there is a longstanding tradition of memorializing defeated foes in honor cultures.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammo.com ...
This part you got right. Here's a simpler way to process the complexity. Look at inputs and outputs.
South put out 72% total value. New York takes in something like 90% of the total value.
Who runs Washington DC today? New York does.
Figure it out.
This is a fascinating question. It demonstrates a dichotomy in your thinking that is alien to me. Can you see what is wrong with your question?
Can you explain to me what is wrong with your question?
I am reminded of the time I was at a high school event in which they had a hypnotist. He hypnotized someone into forgetting the number 7, and then asked this person a series of questions to which the answer was "7", and watching this person being unable to wrap his mind around the answer "7" was both astonishing and hilarious.
That is the feeling I get from you when I see you ask your question.
Yes, why did a subsequent consequence for an event that didn't happen, not happen?
Well, the event didn't happen did it? So why would a consequence occur for an an event that was prevented from happening?
I remember you chiming in for a little while, and then you bowed out. I've been arguing this topic since before you came along the first time around, and yes, at one point the topic of who were the robber barons of the 1860s came up and it was discussed at some small length. Most of them are not particularly famous and so there is no real incentive to remember who they were.
Just look up "Robber Barons" of the "Gilded Age" and you can get some pretty good ideas as to who was calling the shots in the later half of the 1800s.
Must have missed it. I think I read all your messages, but I don't remember anything about a rich shipping firm in North Carolina. Looking at that map of tariff revenue, I don't see any appreciable trade coming into North Carolina. It seems as though New York and Boston take the lion's share.
As much as 3.5 trillion has to do with "Infrastructure." The "navigation act" was protectionism for Northeastern shipping interests. Just like the current liberals voting rights act they are trying to pass simply encourages election fraud, so too do they like to name bills in an innocuous or heroic sounding manner, but the bills often do something very different. Usually some form of corruption or favor for special interests.
Furthermore, the purpose of such legislation was to protect domestic industries,...
Now you are getting it. And where were these industries it was protecting primarily located?
From 1811 to 1840?
To analyze this data in light of the larger picture, how many of these were ocean going trade ships, how many ships were built elsewhere, and did the construction stop after 1840?
What percentage of the overall picture does this represent? As i've said, the letters from Union soldiers saying they couldn't wait to get into the fight so that they could free slaves do exist, but weren't really representative of all the letters sent back home from Union soldiers during the war.
To highlight them and claim they are representative of the larger picture is an effort to deceive.
How do these New Orleans ships fit into the larger picture?
And I will grant you that of all the Southern ports, New Orleans demonstrates the greatest quantity of trade as shown by that tariff map. So that's your best case for your argument. The other ports are not likely to look so good for your point.
No doubt. Also assume this is the work of "factors" who first helped finance farmers plantings, then later purchased their bales of cotton for transport to big cities & export markets.
Such "factors" might have been Northerners, as might be the steamboat owners, but they might just as well have been Southern neighbors of local planters.
Doubtless true, but misleading since it was also true of every other region.
That's because, as DiogenesLamp's graphic endlessly points out, virtually all of Federal revenues in, say, 1860, came from import tariffs collected at major ports, most notably New York.
From these ports imports were shipped around the country, making it nearly impossible to say who actually paid for what.
But that never stops Lost Causers like DiogenesLamp from fantasizing that some great percentage -- take your pick, 60%, 70%, 85% -- were "paid for" by "Southern exports".
In reality, what "Southern exports" paid for was "imports" of manufactured products from the North -- commodities like woolen clothing, shoes & iron manufactures from stoves to farm implements & railroad equipment.
These Southern "imports" contributed to the South's roughly 15% (that's 15%, not 50%, much less 80%) of the U.S. 1860 GDP of roughly $4.4 billion, and so 15% was the Federal loss of revenue in 1861, after secession.
But Southern propagandists in 1860 and Lost Causers today insist that "Southern exports" we're vastly more important before 1861 than they were after, say, 1866.
They weren't.
My understanding is that Southern ports like Charleston & New Orleans had thriving shipbuilding industries up until the time when steamships took over the market.
So the loss of shipbuilding had nothing to do with Navigation Acts or other special laws, and everything to do with new technologies.
It's also important to remember that whatever "special privileges" Washington D.C. awarded were overwhelmingly passed by Southern Democrat controlled Congresses and signed by Southern Democrat presidents or their Doughfaced Northern Democrat allies.
This includes nearly all the tariffs before 1861.
That's why the real reasons for secession were not alleged "crimes" committed against "the South", but rather Southern Democrats' fears of what Northern Republicans might do when they first came to power in 1861.
DiogenesLamp: "Now you are getting it.
And where were these industries it was protecting primarily located?"
First, Southern industries, of which there were some, were as well protected as Northern.
Second, Republicans then as now "put Americans first", while Democrats were & are anti-American globalists, who wanted to ship American manufacturing jobs overseas, so they could buy cheaper imports.
So while DiogenesLamp babbles endlessly about "Northeastern Power Brokers", the fact is in 1860 those were Northern Democrats allied with Southern slavers to keep US jobs down and cheaper foreign imports up.
Democrats like DiogenesLamp were & are anti-American.
“The Navigation Acts, or more broadly the Acts of Trade and Navigation, was a long series of English laws that developed, promoted, and regulated English ships, shipping, trade, and commerce between other countries and with its own colonies. The laws also regulated England’s fisheries and restricted foreigners’ participation in its colonial trade.[1]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_Acts
Was the English Parliament trying to subjugate Dixie too?
IIRC, circa 1817 the U.S. Congress, lead by Southern Democrats passed a similar Navigation Act, signed into law by Southern Democrat President James Monroe.
At that time Southern cities like Charleston, Norfolk & Baltimore had thriving shipbuilding industries.
It was not until decades later that the new requirements for steam powered ships made such Southern manufacturing non-viable.
Now, according to DiogenesLamp, it was nefarious "Northeastern Power Brokers" who killed off Southern shipbuilding, through their control over Washington, D.C..
But if that were true, wouldn't the Congressional Record show many examples of Southern Democrat bills in Congress attempting to overthrow the alleged control of their Northeastern Power brethren?
And yet there are none, leading to yet another reason for chalking off DiogenesLamp's ideas as pure fantasies.
Maybe Diogenes ought to light that lamp once and a while. Or put a wick in it.
“In 1817, Congress passed the Navigation Act, which largely resurrected the British legislation of the same name. Its provisions included a complete ban on foreign vessels from the coastal trade, enabling an already thriving merchant marine to further consolidate its position at home and abroad. One history of American shipping estimates that by 1818, the size of the coastal fleet — measured in tons — was the same as the oceangoing fleet.
The laws had unintended consequences. In the early 19th century, American shipyards and sailors could build and crew ships more cheaply and efficiently than almost any other nation, including Great Britain. Nonetheless, in the 1830s, British politicians chose not to retaliate. Instead, they opted to embrace free trade. In 1849, they stopped shielding their shipping industry from foreign competition.
This unilateral move prompted some Americans to consider doing the same. But the same year that the British steered toward free trade, the Americans discovered gold in California, prompting a massive movement of people and goods to and from the West. Though the east and west coasts weren’t actually continuous, that didn’t stop domestic shippers from invoking cabotage laws to chase out foreign competition from the new and extremely lucrative market.
But the British had the last laugh. It enjoyed a significant competitive advantage in ironworking, and in the 1850s, that country’s shipbuilders pioneered iron-hulled ships. These cheap sailing ships weighed less than American clippers and had more cargo space, and they quickly began to supplant the competition. In time, the British took the lead in building steam-powered ocean-going vessels as well. They quickly supplanted the Americans.”
https://gcaptain.com/why-the-us-embraced-the-jones-act-a-century-ago/
All Confederates had to do was eliminate the North's special privileges and Southern shipping would bloom again.
But in reality, when the time came, Confederates went to the Brits to get their best navy ships built.
“WAR OVER! Brutal, Industrial North Defeated by Gentlemanly , Agricultural South!''
And you wonder why I have gotten bored with responding to you. You often argue like a little child.
And sometimes they have intended consequences. Who benefits in these vaccine programs? Where are these companies located?
So what was powering all those sidewheel paddleboats built in New Orleans that SoCal Pubbie has been telling us about?
It would appear that making people stay in their own states would be regarded as a "defeat" if you think invading other states and subjugating their people is a "victory."
How about leaving people alone?
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.