Posted on 07/26/2021 4:33:01 PM PDT by ammodotcom
“Even when the Southern cotton bound for Europe did not put in at the wharves of Sandy Hook or the East River, unloading and reloading, the combined income from interests, commissions, freight, insurance, and other profits took perhaps 40 cents into New York of every dollar paid for southern cotton. This unnecessarily inflated the cost of cotton for overseas customers and crippled the Southern farmer.”
Assuming for a moment that statement above is true, how would all these costs have been eliminated had the commissions, freight, insurance, and other profits been in Southern hands instead? Would all that been done by slaves so it would have been free?
Do either of you actually understand how the plantation owner sold his crop?
You chastised me for being snarky. I apologized.
They may be legal, but the fact that they are considered to be immoral means that they can't claim to be on the same level of legitimacy as other, more respectable ways of earing a living.
Societal disapproval does not equal force of law. To eradicate something, you must make it illegal. There was not sufficient support in the populace to do this in 1861, and if we are being honest, there was not sufficient support in the populace to do it in 1865 either, but Washington DC cheated, as they are wont to do.
You persist in identifying today's progressives with the mid-19th century Republicans, when most of today's progressives, apart from occasionally appealing to popular images of Lincoln, aren't fans of Lincoln or his party or his policies.
It's an easy comparison to make. Where were the hearts of progressivism in 1860? In the big cities, especially in Northern big cities like Boston and New York. What is the ideology of Progressivism in the 1860s? Protectionist. Societal upheaval. Big government control. Disapproval of the existing social morality. Party of wealth and privilege. Same as today.
Once people understand that virtually everybody was racist back then, it's not hard to buy into the idea that Northerners were even more anti-Black than Southerners, as Dickens did at the time. The truth is more complicated than that.
I don't think it really matters if they were worse, and there is some evidence to indicate they were, but the main point here is to demonstrate they were not motivated by concern for black people. In other words, they didn't give a sh*t about slavery, and they did not invade with the intentions of doing anything about it at all.
Their intent was to do what Washington DC demanded they do, and Washington DC didn't give a sh*t about slavery either. Washington DC invaded to establish economic control over states that would have been a massive financial threat to their wealthy buddies controlling the government then, in the same manner wealthy progressives are controlling it now.
The claim that the civil war was about slavery goes down as the biggest con-job in American history, and this from a president that said "You can't fool all the people all the time."
:)
bfl
Didn't I predict that you really didn't want the information, and that you would reject it if it didn't fit with what you wish to believe?
I’m doing my own research. So far, I found no legislation actually titled “The Navigation Act of 1817” or anything like that.
Yeah, you're late to the game. I found the actual text of the "Navigation Act of 1817" many years ago. I think there might be a link to it in that thread I linked somewhere. Several people went to some great length in that thread to explain the effects of the Navigation act of 1817 and how it adversely affected Southern shipping and trade while helping consolidate power in New York.
You could just try reading through that thread.
Prior to that, slavery was on the wane, and prior to that they did use them for other things because those other things were more profitable at the time. After cotton became more profitable, the vast majority of slave usage was for that purpose. Yes, there still existed slaves dedicated to other work, but this was a teeny tiny fraction of slavery at the time.
Unionization has been in decline since the 1950s, but at one point it was quite a significant component of the work force. The areas where Unionization was quite strong are all Democrat strongholds today.
I guess you don't have a broad knowledge of American history and the social dynamics and demographics of different areas of the country during the different periods.
I try to keep up with it because you never know what piece of knowledge will give you some insight into why something happened the way it did.
Govt jobs are almost universally unionized. It’s an ugly symbiosis for the taxpayers.
What it's "intentions" were when it was passed is irrelevant to what it's effects were in operation. Year after year we see these bozos up in Washington declaring they are passing some such thing for some such purpose, and invariably it ends up doing something else and which is much worse than we were led to believe.
Remember the "Patriot act"? How's that looking now?
Let's say I believe their intentions were good, but invariably any law is twisted by immoral players into something they can use as a tool or a weapon. The Navigation Act was no different.
I think the decline of Charleston had more to do with a Federal invasion and destruction of capital and economic activity that they did than it did with anything Charleston did in mismanaging their businesses.
Somewhere in that linked thread there is a very good explanation of how the New York business interests managed to gouge the Southerners with all these little cuts that worked out to be 40% of the total revenue produced by export. When I get time to do so, i'll read through the thread and see if I can find those sections where that same fellow claiming his family was involved in this shipping business at the time, explains how they were gouging because of laws which allowed them to do it.
Do either of you actually understand how the plantation owner sold his crop?
Pretty sure I do. I've only read and reread this information dozens of times already. New York ran the cotton trade. Period.
Between New York and Washington DC, most of the money produced by slaves went into the pockets of people in New York and Washington DC.
*NOW* you know why they didn't want to do anything about slavery. *NOW* you know why they had no trouble passing the Corwin Amendment.
Agreed. Heavily unionized areas (like Washington DC) vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
There were successful Southern shipping companies with the Navigation act in place. Had it not been for that law, the Southern shippers would have lost out entirely to the British shippers.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3443027/posts?page=1045#1045
This made it possible to clear the sandbars without getting stuck. An added benefit was that now bales of cotton could fit more easily in the flat-floored hold and carrying capacity was greatly increased. At first, the sailing qualities of such a vessel was doubted, but soon, to the relief of their owners, these flat-bottomed ships proved to have fine sailing qualities. These were the ships used in the coastal trade. With these technical advancements, cotton was loaded onto the coastal packets, shipped to New York via these fast boats, offloaded to warehousing,and shipped out on the large V-bottomed ships that sailed the high seas to Liverpool.
This claim is patently false. According to records from the year prior to the rebellion, 248,049 bales of cotton were exported from New York City. That was about 8% of the 3.133 million bales exported in that year. By comparison 302,187 bales were exported from Savannah, 456,421 bales were exported from Mobile, 214,888 were exported from Charleston, and 1,783,678 bales were exported from New Orleans. Whatever the costal packets were bringing back from southern ports, very little of it was cotton.
If you really believe his family were big-time shippers, you are very gullible. The federal government dredged Charleston harbor in 1852. Federal funds paid for the dredging, not state or private funds. Federal funds still are paying for dredging the harbor. In the 19th century, federal government also dredged and removed snags from Southern rivers to make the Mississippi and Tennessee navigable.
Okay, again, going round and round from one poster to another is not information. I want the actual details of the legislation, which you will never post or link.
There is no “Legislation Act of 1817.” If there was, you could simply link to it and I will be able to look for myself but you won’t do that because it doesn’t exist.
You’re being disingenuous again. You were not referring to the past, you were referring to the present time. I’m still waiting for you to tell me where these hotbeds of unionization are today.
“ New York ran the cotton trade. Period.”
Absolutely untrue. Cotton was sold through factors. Factors allowed the grower to be paid quickly instead of having to wait until the product made it to the buyer. Factors also advised the grower on the best time to sell if they anticipated the market going up, or to sell at the moment if they felt the price would be going down. Factors also helped arrange loans from bankers and provide all sorts of equipment that the growers needed. There were factors all over the South. Sometimes the plantation owners even sold directly to factors in England.
I’m going to school you on these facts in a post in the coming days so make sure you get plenty of sleep between now and then.
The growers sold to factors. Then the product was out of their hands. It would be great if farmers and manufacturers could sell directly to the end-user and cut out all the transportation, warehousing, sales commissions, and other costs involved in getting their product to the end-user but that’s a bit of a fantasy. Then again your whole view of the antebellum South is a complete fantasy.
“I think the decline of Charleston had more to do with a Federal invasion and destruction of capital and economic activity that they did than it did with anything Charleston did in mismanaging their businesses.”
To quote a certain poster here “You don’t know what the f*ck you’re talking about.
“In the mid-1840s, Charleston repealed its restriction against steam engines within the city, but railroad tracks still stopped at the edge of town. By then, the port had lost its edge. “Charleston was seen as a terrible port starting in the 1840s,” says Nelson. Its shallow harbor could not accommodate the new transatlantic steamships with deep drafts. The most sophisticated shipping merchants and technologies were found in the North. About 60 percent of South Carolina’s exports had to be sent in the coastwise trade to New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, where the major transatlantic lines were located.
The least industrialized major city in the United States in the late antebellum years, Charleston, travelers noticed, lacked the verve and energy of other seaports. Lowcountry planters held anti-business attitudes, with the exception of agricultural commerce. A southern gentleman made his money in agriculture and owned slaves. A gentleman did not own textile factories—thus benefiting from the South’s leading export—and hire white workers who could upset the order of a slave society.”
Rise and Fall and Rise: South Carolina’s Maritime History
COASTAL HERITAGE MAGAZINE
VOLUME 17 – NUMBER 2
FALL 2002
https://www.scseagrant.org/rise-and-fall-and-rise-south-carolinas-maritime-history/
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.