Posted on 07/26/2021 4:33:01 PM PDT by ammodotcom
I see you simply ignored my point. Should I bother to mention it again? Doesn't seem worth the trouble, because if you refused to acknowledge it the first time around, I don't see why you would acknowledge it the second time around.
I'll do it anyways. "Profit." 40-50% greater profit.
The fact that 73% of that money came from the Southern states has already been pointed out to you, and it was therefore their money anyway.
Apart from that, I recall reading that Charleston had dredged the channel again on their own dime around 1860. Either way, the utility of Charleston as a port isn't really the issue. Whether it be a good port or a bad port, it was *THEIR* port to do with as they liked.
After they left the control of the Washington DC corrupt power structure that is even to this day cheating the citizens, they would have likely seen a massive increase in usage due to the fact that they had slashed import taxes by 35-40% over what would have to be paid north of the border.
They had also made it legal for foreign ships to carry all traffic, and that would have resulted in a massive increase in foreign commerce on foreign ships to the Southern states.
To borrow a term from BroJoeK; "Nonsense." Back in 1817, nobody in the southern states could see the manner in which it would impact them in the future, much like the Patriot act has done since it was passed years ago. The southern states initially supported it, but came to regret it because it effectively handed a monopoly to northern shipping interests.
They didn't see it as a big problem when they voted in favor of it.
If there was no interest in establishing a ship-building industry or creating costal packet lines in the south to begin with then why would they complain if the North filled the gap?
Only if you have a negative picture of labor unions. I point out that the sections of the country that became the places in which Unionization was concentrated are the same places in the country that still vote Liberal progressive today. (Democrat now, Republican in the late 19th century.)
Now of course labor unions didn't exist in the 1860s and were a later phenomena, mostly created by the abuses put upon the work force from New York and other progressive cities, but their geographic location and their demographic roughly coincides to today's modern Democrat Union centers.
Or take school prayer or the pledge of allegiance.
Another consequence of the badly written, not legitimately ratified and badly abused 14th amendment.
For some people, these are unfair to atheists.
"Unfair" is meaningless in this context. The country was founded as a Christian nation, and those who don't like it really have no legitimate recourse in the same manner that it was founded as a slave nation, and those who didn't like it had no legitimate recourse. (Other than amendment.)
Whether protectionism is progressive or not could be the subject of much debate.
The Democrat party has been quite protectionist for most of my life. It is only with the advent of Chinese influence on major corporations and players in Washington that the Democrats have seemingly backed away from protectionism and are now reflecting corporate interests above that of their Unionized rank and file. Nowadays it's seeming that the rank and file Republicans have adopted a more protectionist attitude.
I don't think the farmers and shopkeepers of the North who voted Republican would see their votes as being in favor of "big government control" or social disruption or opposed to existing social morality.
Modern Democrats don't grasp the effects of their vote in the larger picture. They didn't grasp it back then either.
Party of wealth and privilege? Wealthy merchants in the big cities wanted to keep their commercial connections with Southern planters.
There was certainly that aspect of it at first. Hence the Corwin Amendment. As time went on and they realized they would be cut out of the money flow, their concerns turned more to keeping their own interests afloat at the expense of the Southern states.
Your own materialistic view of history ought to make it clear to you why they wouldn't want to disrupt things.
Absolutely. So long as they thought they could keep their cash flow going, they wanted things to remain as they were. (Hence the Corwin Amendment.) When it became clear to them that they were going to lose in the financial game, they then needed government to rescue them from the free market.
And where were the wealthiest counties in the country -- in terms of average income of free white people?
Was just reading some excerpts from another thread yesterday that asserted the Southerners had the higher average incomes during that period.
You are apparently saying that Republicans in the mid 19th century were the same as progressives today.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Margret Sanger. Susan B. Anthony. Jane Addams. Louis Brandeis. Florence Kelley. Roger Baldwin. And so forth. Virtually everyone in the progressive movement was a Republican and from the North, usually big cities. Brandeis actually changed party affiliation from Republican to Democrat after he was appointed by Wilson, so you can see the change starting right there. Jane Addams father was a staunch Republican and friend of Lincoln.
It wasn't about securing equal rights, dignity and respect for African-Americans,
Not until Liberal Republicans realized it was politically advantageous for them to do so.
but it very much was about slavery.
Only insofar as it could be used as propaganda to get the political power they wanted. The Corwin amendment proves they didn't really care about slavery.
And by the middle of the war, slavery was very much the issue.
Yes, because it had become politically popular. Had it not turned out to be, it would have been left by the wayside. Part of the reason it had become politically popular is because Lincoln tended to arrest people who didn't toe the official government line.
Some people adopt the party line in an effort to be popular and maintain connections to power, and some do it out of fear. We are seeing the same effect with Vaccinations nowadays. It has become "unpatriotic" to oppose vaccination or mask mandates.
How does that explain that Charleston’s decline corresponded to the rise of other Southern ports?
It doesn’t.
“They didn’t see it as a big problem when they voted in favor of it.”
Apparently, they didn’t see it as a big problem during the 43 years between its passage and secession either. They controlled Congress during that time and could have made changes if they wanted to.
Are you saying that Southerners were stupid, or just lazy?
I think this is absolutely correct. Prosperity begats Liberalism.
The planter class was crushed by the war. Had the war not happened, they would have been ruling for a long time. This would not have been acceptable to the midwestern states. Take the time if you have it to look up what South Carolina politics were like before the Civil War. That is not something that would be appealing to any people with free and democratic traditions.
I have said more than once that the Southern Aristocracy were @$$holes, and that I would likely have hated them had they become dominant, as much as I currently do the New York/ Washington DC Aristocracy.
You apparently still think that the 2004 election was the template for all American politics.
I think the map of the 2004 election illustrates the likely societal and political changes that would have occurred with the CSA continuing to exist. I think that all those states have more in common with each other than they do with the New York Aristocracy, and they would have eventually formed a political coalition together.
But it took time for the Southern and Plains states to come together politically. The South had to get rid of slavery and segregation.
I see that as all inevitable.
The Germans and Scandinavians of the Plains had to become assimilated and lose their European ways. Southerners a century and a half ago didn't much love the Germans. Neoconfederates today are forever maligning them as early socialists, wrongly but not entirely without reason. All that would have to change, and as recently as half-century ago, the Upper Plains were more Mondale, McGovern, and Humphrey than anything else.
Yes, the Germans and Scandinavians do have too much fondness for socialism, but this I think is the consequence of their homogeneous background. "Socialism" appears to me to be adopting the ideas of a family unit onto a larger scale, and it is more workable and less objectionable among groups that share the same genetic background because it's basically an extension of a "family".
Germans and Scandinavians also seem to have a fondness for authoritarianism too, and that has been another difficulty with integrating them into the American mindset. But all that slowly evolves in line with the social environment in which they find themselves.
Tariffs weren't the big determining factor that you believe they were.
"Tariffs" are an imprecise term for the larger effects of economic changes which would have occurred from secession. "Tariffs" are misleading in this context because the changes from secession go way beyond tariffs. It's just become popular to encapsulate all these ideas under the title of "tariffs", but it is very misleading.
Moreover, tariffs only went up as high as they did because of the necessity of paying for the war. And they only stayed up as high as they did because the Democrats had become identified as the party of rebellion.
Ha! Pull the other one! It is inherent in the history of government that once they get a tax, it becomes nearly impossible to take it away from them again. When you are exercising great power and influence by taxing some to spend on others, your power is diminished if taxation is diminished.
If farmers were discontented, they would work within the political system to redress their grievances, something Southern planters didn't want to do.
Hardly. They would try to go around the system. See "Grainger movement."
Forms of slavery had been around in the area for centuries, and given a pro-slavery national government, slavery would have continued and been expanded.
Doing what? What would pay the slave owner more than cotton?
Given the complexity, I don't see how anyone can have the confidence in their own predictions that you have.
I have great confidence in predicting that people will gravitate towards money and self interest. I believe this is inherent in human nature.
You wrote:
“Apart from that, I recall reading that Charleston had dredged the channel again on their own dime around 1860.”
The real story:
“The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1852 authorized the federal government to dredge the channels of the harbor to a depth of 17 feet. This deepening work was interrupted by the Civil War and was not completed until after the war’s end.[3]”
] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston Harbor Post 45: Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement, Page 1-6. via Wikipedia
I see you simply ignored my point. Should I bother to mention it again?
The decline of Charleston as a shipping port had nothing to do with your supposed reasons. At the same time other Southern ports thrived, which flies in the face of your misdirection.
“Profit.” 40-50% greater profit.”
If you’re referring to tariffs, they had been lowered a few years before the Fire Eaters bugged out and let the tariff of 1861 pass.
I don't understand your question.
What it does explain is why a port that was not previously economical, would suddenly become economical.
It is the nature of problems to grow worse over time if they are not dealt with. They finally came upon a solution that worked for them. They would leave.
They controlled Congress during that time and could have made changes if they wanted to.
I do not know that that is true at all. Not all Democrats were in the South, and the New York Democrats certainly wanted the system to remain as it was.
Are you saying that Southerners were stupid, or just lazy?
Here you have provided us with an example of "Fallacy of false choice." The answer is choice number 3, which you did not list as a possibility. They were not able to do so.
The existence of this effort does not preclude the possibility of a local effort to do the same. My recollection is from reading accounts of the boom conditions occurring in Charleston after secession was declared. Warehouses were being built, Hotels were full up with no vacancies, New docks were being constructed, new businesses of every stripe were being opened and there was a large migration of Northern craftsmen showing up in Charleston to provide their services, and so forth.
This is just like the Navigation act of 1817. (Which you didn't believe existed or that it had the effects I described.) Charleston was going through a massive boom build out during the secession period, and it was all in anticipation of massively increased trade as a consequence of getting out from under USA tariffs and other trade restrictions such as the Navigation act of 1817.
I haven't read this information in years, but as I read it originally, i'm certain it can be found with sufficient looking. If I run across it again in a timely fashion, i'll send you a link, but i'm not going to put myself out to find another thing you don't want to believe until you can deny it no longer.
It has nothing to do with anything. You are trying to equate conditions under the protectionist policies of Washington DC with the conditions which would have occurred without the protectionist policies of Washington DC.
Either you aren't astute enough to grasp how freeing up trade would have benefited Charleston and others, or you don't want to admit it.
At the same time other Southern ports thrived, which flies in the face of your misdirection.
New Orleans and Mobile were doing well, but they would have thrived to an even greater extent without the protectionist policies of Washington DC hindering their ability to trade with Europe.
As I mentioned to "x", "tariffs" are an imprecise word for the large effect of economic change which would have occurred as a consequence of independence.
Firstly, 65 million or so a year would not be going into Northern pockets, and would instead be going into Southern pockets.
Secondly, the tariff of abominations went up, and then it went down, so there was no certainty about where tariffs would end up without secession. With secession they would certainly be much lower than they would otherwise be.
Thirdly, the other economic effects of secession would have resulted in even more money leaving the North and ending up in the South. European products bought at cheaper prices would not only have displaced Northern products in the same southern and midwestern markets, they would have left more money in the pockets of consumers because they would have been bought at cheaper prices than what consumers had previously paid.
Chicago Daily Times. December 10, 1860“In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system or that of a tariff for revenue and these results would likely follow.”
“You are trying to equate conditions under the protectionist policies of Washington DC with the conditions which would have occurred without the protectionist policies of Washington DC.”
I’m trying to show that your statement attributing Charleston’s decline as a shipping port was due to the Civil War was false, since that decline had been almost complete by 1840. You’re going to switch positions, and now claim that it was Northern tariffs and economic subjugation, but that’s not what you posted. You wrote that it had more to do with ravages of the Civil War.
“I don’t understand your question.”
I’ll ask it in another way. If Northern economic subjugation caused the decline of the Charleston port, why didn’t other Southern ports like New Orleans decline too?
“With secession they would certainly be much lower than they would otherwise be.”
The tariffs of the CSA were about the same as the tariff of 1857.
Fail.
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.