The most concentrated area of multimillionaires was New York.
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 ...
The most concentrated area of multimillionaires was New York.
Conventions are elections.
Are you really that dense? So what do you think would happen? The Confederates would load the goods on 18 wheelers and ship it north on the interstate? Goods moved by river or rail in the interior, and there weren't a lot of Confederate rail lines that ran north and south; most supported getting cotton to the southern ports. So that left the rivers - Mississippi and the Tennessee. Both cross into the U.S. at one point and adding a customs house at that point wouldn't be hard at all.
People in the Border states would sneak that stuff in. They even acknowledged at the time that it would have been impossible to patrol the entire border.
In what?
Plus you ignore the effect that making their dollars go further would have on these states. Missouri and Kentucky would have decided they want to be on the CSA side, because it would have been in their better economic interest to be so.
Would they now? Because you say so? There would have been a boatload of Unionists in both states saying other wise.
The Confederacy would have continued to switch states until it looked something like this.
In your hyperactive imagination perhaps.
The economic information which shows the clearest picture of what was happening is in the book "Southern Wealth and Northern Profit by Thomas Prentice Kettell.
Of course it is. Kettell's imagination is almost as active as yours is.
The South was the dominant export engine of the Nation, and all their trade was being controlled by the people in New York and Washington DC with a vigorish of 60%.
Why didn't the U.S. collapse economically after the South rebelled?
“You may not know this, but almost all of the export trade in cotton went through New York control. New York businesses completely ran the trade.”
You may not know this, but the export of cotton generated exactly zero dollars in tariffs. You are conflating the percentage of exports produced by Southern states with the importation of goods and materials from overseas. Of course as a devote of the noble Lost Cause, you assume that virtually all imported goods went South.
To answer my own question from an earlier post, the two biggest commodities imported into the United States were iron and steel. Were Southern railroads laying lots of track? Were the shipyards in New Orleans spewing out more vessels? Which region had more farms requiring farm implements? Which side had more factories requiring industrial equipment? Which region had twice the population?
Why would secession be necessary in order to cut out the middleman? What was stopping Southern business interests from shipping direct before 1860?
Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker.
Apparently our moral high horse only extended to those people who could be financial threats to the crony capitalist power structure still running the Capitol today.
If it was about slavery, once slavery was abolished the country would let the states go and become independent countries. They had a right to secession. If fighting slavery required suppressing secession, once slavery ended they wouldn’t try to stop states from seceding.
Because the Confederate plan was to take those territories and incorporate them into their country. Duh.
“ The trouble with arguing with people who want to believe what they want to believe is that they hear what they want to hear.”
I agree and despite the fact that this describes you perfectly, I intend to keep this going as long as you want.
“ The North did not invade to stamp out slavery. They invaded to stamp out independence.”
That’s obvious and hardly in dispute. The bone of contention is your refusal to acknowledge the obvious fact that the Southern states of the Confederacy sought independence in order to preserve slavery slavery and their concept of white supremacy as a cultural lifestyle.
“ If you have some copies of orders that show the Military was instructed to stamp out slavery when they initially invaded, I’m perfectly willing to accept your claim that Northern Armies invaded because of slavery.”
Strawman argument, since I never made such a claim. Can you feel the ground shifting under your feet as your position weakens?
New York and Boston. That's why they controlled the cotton trade. They had the ships, and the Southerners were prevented from using foreign ships because of the "Navigation Act of 1817."
But with a huge difference in the taxes from New York to Southern ports, the trade traffic would have moved. It would just take longer, but few people of that era would ignore a 30 to 40% increase in profits.
Now what were the two largest imported commodities brought to the United States at that time?
You tell me. I don't remember, and that's if I ever bothered to learn it.
And who is using more of those two things, the north or the south?
The nature of the question infers that it was the North, but the thing you won't explain is where did their money come from to buy those imported goods?
Imports are paid for by exports, and the South produced 73% of those. If you are just now figuring out that the North had developed a way to grab most of that money, then you are starting to grasp how they could pay for imports.
“ Lincoln conscripted people to fight the war.”
And the CSA formed a perpetual union to fight for secession from another perpetual union. This is fun!
They are not state wide. Your words, not mine.
I’ve stated clearly what Charles Dickens was in relation to his supposed observations of the American Civil War. He had a thorough dislike of Americans generally, and was not hesitant to disparage either side depending on his mood.
So what are stopping the south from building their own ships? Developing their own port facilities? Why was poor little snowflake secesh at the mercy of the dastardly New Yorkers for a hundred years?
The shipping costs would have been massively reduced by the employment of foreign ships to carry the cargoes. This was prohibited in the Union because of the "Navigation Act of 1817.".
Some years ago I had a good series of message exchanges with a man who's family was involved in the Cotton trade and Shipping industry of New York. He confirmed that the whole enterprise was set up to transfer as much money from the South as possible.
If I could remember his name, I could probably go back and find those messages where he explained how the whole system worked. Rustbucket, was it you? If not, do you remember who it was?
As for the dock costs, the warehousing costs, the harbor improvements, and so forth, that would have been money directly improving the economy of the Southern cities where improvements were undertaken.
It would have been money not going to the North, and instead being spent in the South. If you read about the boom in Charleston after secession was declared, you could understand that it was going to be massively profitable to them.
Thanks. I've only been studying this subject for a few years. Several years ago I still believed the same thing everyone else believes, but then I started noticing things that didn't make any sense in light of what we were told.
I had never heard of the "Corwin Amendment"? Came as a shock to me. Showed me right away that the war really wasn't about slavery, it was about controlling the economics of the South.
Lincoln conscripted people to fight the war. Conscription is slavery. It’s ridiculous to enslave people and claim one is fighting slavery.
I've always wanted to hear how conscription is not a violation of the 13th amendment.
The war turned a voluntary union of states into a country of states kept by force.
Yes it did.
“Some years ago I had a good series of message exchanges with a man who’s family was involved in the Cotton trade and Shipping industry of New York.”
So how old was this guy, 250? Really, he knew all about the ins and outs of the cotton trade in the 1800s because he worked in it. Oh boy!
“ As for the dock costs, the warehousing costs, the harbor improvements, and so forth, that would have been money directly improving the economy of the Southern cities where improvements were undertaken.”
And this wasn’t the case in 1825, or 1850, or 1861? But a ruinous war was a boon to the economy!
“ I had never heard of the “Corwin Amendment”? Came as a shock to me. Showed me right away that the war really wasn’t about slavery, it was about controlling the economics of the South.”
Because the federal government wanted to maintain the Union! My God are you dense! It was the SOUTH that feared abolition. They didn’t trust any sort of compromise and said so at the time!
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Where was the tariff applied, on the outbound ship or the inbound one? If you want to argue that the profits from exports facilitated the purchase of imports that’s fine, but you simply can’t make a dollar to dollar comparison.
By the way, how do you suppose Southerners felt about protective tariffs on sugar? Who wrote the tariff of 1857?
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.