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 ...
Oh, so you can figure things out! I was beginning to wonder.
How is that better? Well it's horrible for the North. It would have been economically devastating on their shipping industry as well as other industries in the North. It's really good for the South though, because the shippers can't gouge them anymore.
You probably forgot or refused to accept it when it was first explained to you, but when the Law sets forth penalties for using foreign ships, (up to and including confiscation of the ship and cargo) The gouging domestic industry sets their prices just barely below the cost of doing business with Foreign ships or crews and the cost of paying all the fines.
So yeah, the Shipping charges would suddenly have gotten way cheaper for the Southern states than they had previously been. That's why Washington DC was *IN* the protection game in the first place. To protect Northern industries, including shipping.
Again, not about slavery. The Corwin amendment proves DC and the North would sell the slaves down the river on a moment's notice, but what they absolutely would not tolerate is the loss of their revenue streams.
War was about money. Only money. Well power too, so okay, money and power. Same as every other war ever fought in history.
I've already tried explaining the wheel to you. You will just have to figure it out for yourself.
Which if your goal is to shaft Northern shippers then that's all well and good. But your original claim, or the author of the post you linked to, was that the north was raping the south by forcing the south to pay them for shipping and insurance and brokerage charges. If it's Europe who is doing the raping and not the north then where is the south any better off? They're still getting raped.
You probably forgot or refused to accept it when it was first explained to you, but when the Law sets forth penalties for using foreign ships, (up to and including confiscation of the ship and cargo)
For costal shipping only, U.S. port to U.S. port. Would the South scrap the Navigation Acts entirely?
So yeah, the Shipping charges would suddenly have gotten way cheaper for the Southern states than they had previously been.
You have no way of knowing if that is true. If the exporters of the south were used to paying X dollars per ton to ship their cargo then why wouldn't the European shippers charge the same?
Again, not about slavery.
From the southern standpoint, yes it was.
You've tried and it's always such a hoot when you talk about smuggling all those goods over the border into the U.S. I need a laugh and was hoping you would do so again.
On 8/9/21 you wrote:
“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.”
So yeah, that's what you wrote.
Here's what really happened:
“South Carolina's leaders also sought to improve waterway connections from inland areas to Charleston. In 1800, the Santee Canal connected the Santee River to the headwaters of the Cooper River. As a result, the interior country's crops were brought downstream to Charleston, but this cut off the Georgetown port's potential growth. Interior farms and plantations once served by Georgetown's port now sent their produce to Charleston. But the Santee Canal was plagued by low water levels and by 1840 it was out of business...
...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.”
https://www.scseagrant.org/rise-and-fall-and-rise-south-carolinas-maritime-history/
Nothing to do with tariffs, nothing to do with anything except mismanagement.
“It’s really good for the South though, because the shippers can’t gouge them anymore.”
Now you’re saying the Europeans were dumb. They had to have been to know they had NO competition with U.S. shippers out of the picture, and not change whatever they wanted to.
Who would have reaped that increase in profits? The growers? The cotton factor houses? The shipping companies? Who exactly?
Do you understand how a supply chain works? Let's take a look, just in case you don't.
“The average wholesale or distributor markup is 20%, although some go up as high as 40%...”
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/193986
Let's say that a manufacturer sells a product to the distributor for $100. The distributor sells it to the retailer for $125. The retailer adds a 50% markup, which means the final price is $250.
"...a 50 percent markup, known in the trade as keystone. What this means, in plain language, is doubling your cost to establish the retail price."
Who gets ripped off here?
The words “, under God,” was added after the Pledge of Allegiance was adopted by Congress.
Not at all relevant to the point you are attempting to address. The 14th amendment was badly written and not legitimately ratified. Adding “under God” to the pledge of allegiance has nothing to do with the comment to which you are responding.
-———————\
It has everything to do with the point I was making because you stated that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and yet “Under God”, these were were left out of the original Pledge of Allegiance. So yes it does because it addresses a talking point that people like to use when they state the United States was founded as a Christian country.
Your “no recourse” statement falls flat.
Point to the Articles in the original U.S. Constitution where it specifically mentions Jesus. We are talking original not Amendments aftter the founding.
Articles of Confederation was done away with. While it part of history it has no legality nor binding authority on the United States of America.
The United States Constitution does NOT mention Jesus. You are wrong. Nor does the Declaration of Independence. You are now making things up. A quick internet search on the full text of the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence will verify that. You need to do that instead of pulling crap out of thin air.
The Articles of Confederation has no bearing on the Uniteed States of America and the Federalist Papers Authors state.
Remember you said “this country was founded as a Christian nation” and now you want to quote the 14th Amendment which was fully ratified in July 1868, almost 100 years after the founding of the United States of America. Unless the I am mistaken the founding documents only include the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights (The first ten Amendments to the US Constitution). An Amendment ratified almost 100 years after the founding of the country does not predicate a founding document or Amendment.
By the way, The Federalist Papers have been used to set precedence in the SCOTUS. Why? Because they are the direct words of the authors of the founding documents. So in an indirect way they do have legal standing in a court of law because they are the direct words of the Founding Fathers.
The US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation which made the Articles of Confederation null and void in the new nation called the United States. Had you read the Federalist Papers, you would know this and why God was not part of the Founding documents.
The Founding documents of the United States of America include and are defined by 1) The Declaration of Independence, 2) The United States Constitution and 3) The Bill of Rights (The first ten Amendments).
The Bill of Rights is considered a founding document because states like Virginia would not join the Union and ratify the US Constitution unless the Bill of Rights was formed.
Again you want to point to the Articles of Confederation as a founding document. It was a precursor to but not an official founding document to the United States of America. “Lord” and “God” do not appear in the United States Constitution.
To eloborate a point you make, the Articles of Confederation has no standing in law of the United States of America, because it was not ratified by the states and two it was replaced by the US Constitution which was ratified. You can quote it all you want but it has no place in this discussion.
Again, the US Constitution, original up to and including the 10th Amendment, does not have the words, God or Lord anywhere in the document.
Lastly, your attempt to discredit me is is funny at best as you point away from the very words of the authors of the Articles of Confederation, the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Your ill attempt to remove the Federalist Papers from the discussion is laughable at best by claiming it has not been codified into law yet it is the very explanation of the US Constitution which was ratified thus codifying it into law. Any lawyer or judge dealing with a case having to do with the US Constitution will reference the Federalist Papers to derive the original intent of the law because these are the direct words of the authors of the Founding documents.
Your ill attempt to show how the Articles of Confederation is a Founding Document is discredited by the Founding Fathers. Hamilton wrote that the Articles were “neither fit for war nor peace,” for they hobbled the fragile new nation that was struggling to defeat Britain despite its flimsy internal cohesion.
Madison wrote to George Washington
On the eve of the Constitutional Convention, Madison composed a memorandum for George Washington, head of the Virginia delegation, listing twelve principal “vices” of the Articles. The first eight itemized the generally accepted weaknesses of the national government (i.e., Congress), and the last four specified defects of the states’ laws—their multiplicity, mutability, injustice, and impotence. “The drafting of this memorandum,” writes Rakove, “was essential to Madison’s self-assigned task of formulating a working agenda that would allow the coming convention to hit the ground running.”3 And that it did. Madison’s “working agenda” spawned the Virginia Plan of Government that, with its emphasis on a strong national government in a federal system of checks and balances, provided the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. A challenging document it is, but one valued by Constitutional scholars and worth study. As Rakove stresses, “Vices” is a “truly remarkable as well as historic document. For one thing, it marks one of those rare moments in the history of political thought where one can actually glimpse a creative thinker at work, not by reading the final published version of his ideas, but by catching him at an earlier point, exploring a problem in the privacy of his study.”
Get that? The Founding Fathers felt the Articles were defective and they wanted to start over, thus forming a new government and nation in the process. Quit citing the Articles of the Confederation when even the Founding Fathers found them to be defective and needed to be tossed out! Not used not used as a founding document, discarded and done away with.
So far you have pointed to the Articles of Confederation as a founding document but I have shown it isn’t because it was defective in the eyes of Hamilton, Madison and Washington amongst others. I have pointed you to the Founding Documents that begat this Great Nation and yet you have discounted the very words of those who wrote those documents. No where in the Founding documents does the words, Lord, Jesus or God appear. The words “...their Creator...” was purposely used by Jefferson.
The original draft text, by Jefferson, of the Declaration was
“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness”
Which was changed later by suggestion from either Adams, Franklin, or both or all five authors of the texts before submittal to Congress in 1787. So even the original version of the Declaration of Independence did not use the words God/Lord or Jesus.
The Articles of Confederation were discarded and the Founding Fathers threw it out as if it were yesterdays trash because it was very defective in their eyes. I state Madison here because it was tasked with Madison to FIX the Articles of Confederation. He tried in vain for three years. Not one state ratified the Articles of Confederation thus even though people like to claim it was the first Constitution, it was not. More like it was a document for one purpose, to win the Revolutionary War and thus merely an interim document with no standing once the US Constitution was adopted and ratified.
So please go away with this country was founded on Christianity when the Founders wanted nothing to do with what was happening in Britain at the time and wanted to distance themselves from Britain.
The Federalist papers are the very words of the authors of the US COnstitution and Declaration of Independence and they hold legal weight in a court of law because it is the direct words not interpretation and it was those minds that codified Organic Law.
The Articles of Confederation is not considered a founding document of the United States of America for very good reason, it was defective in the eyes of our Founding Fathers.
I have not mislead anyone, only the Church and people like you who try to use the US Constitution to proselytize. There are other religions out there and Christians always forget that. Not everyone believes as a Christian and Christianity stole from other religions for its beliefs. The beliefs of Christianity are not unique and God set down more than 10 laws and commandments or do you need to read the Books of Moses again to understand this. These laws were not unique to just the Jews and Christians, there were predecessors just like the United States used the Ancient Civilizations of the Greeks and Romans to form a more perfect nation. This is not a new concept.
So sick of people like you trying to instill and perpetuate lies when they are not factual. The Articles of Confederation were thrown out and the United States Constitution formed a new nation not predicated on the Articles of Confederation. Think of the Articles of Confederation as a mulligan, we started over because the document was defective.
Most people's goal is to further their own interests, especially their own economic interests. This is their primary focus, and the fact that their efforts to further their own interest may have adverse impacts on others is not their primary concern.
But your original claim, or the author of the post you linked to, was that the north was raping the south by forcing the south to pay them for shipping and insurance and brokerage charges.
Which were artificially inflated beyond the market norm because of laws forcing them to use the North's shipping, banking, warehousing, insurances and other services.
If it's Europe who is doing the raping and not the north then where is the south any better off? They're still getting raped.
Well certainly, if the raping were being continued by Europe, but because the Europeans would have to compete in a free market, they couldn't get away with raping them. If the Europeans were gouging the way the Northerners were gouging, they might as well keep using the Northerners.
What would have happened is that prices would have fallen to a market sustainable rate, and it is axiomatic that this would have been cheaper than a rate artificially created through government mandates.
This is basic conservative economic theory. When government artificially creates demand, prices are higher. When markets set demand, prices fall to the lowest amount possible. Government creating artificially high prices is the very nature of "Protectionism."
For costal shipping only, U.S. port to U.S. port. Would the South scrap the Navigation Acts entirely?
Secession scrapped the existing Navigation act, (and the warehousing act, and various other acts.) and as to whether the CSA would have reconstituted their own version of it, I have no idea, but I think that if they were of a mind to do so, it would have been after they had a reason to do so, i.e. protecting their own domestic shipping industry, which as we have all noticed, was virtually nonexistent at that time.
You have no way of knowing if that is true.
Basic free market economics says that it is.
If the exporters of the south were used to paying X dollars per ton to ship their cargo then why wouldn't the European shippers charge the same?
Because the Europeans have to give them a reason to use their ships instead of Northern ships. They have to do it cheaper, or the Confederates would simply continue using the previous shipping system.
From the southern standpoint, yes it was.
So the people who want to justify the invasion and hundreds of thousands of dead keep telling us, but the basic fact of the continuation of slavery in the USA absent secession, contradicts this claim.
You are laughing at your own jokes. As i've pointed out, many northern newspapers asserted the exact same concern about the impossibility of controlling the wide border with the CSA.
We have better resources now, and we can't even stop the many tons of drugs and people being shipped across our border right now.
I think the reality of what you are doing is more like what Upton Sinclair noticed about trying to get people to understand something.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
When people don't want to understand, they won't. They just won't.
I’ve shown your own words to you. I don’t know how I can explain it more simply. If you don’t grasp the meaning of your own, I give up. I can’t do your writing for you. You will have to do some better writing on your own.
This is another example of you trying to put *YOUR* words into my mouth. The Europeans would have sold them shipping at lower rates than the Northern shipping industry, or else the Confederates would have simply continued to use the Northern shipping industry.
Basic free market economics informs us that prices will drop with competition, to the lowest sustainable level.
As a conservative, you should know how basic economic forces operate.
If protectionism by the US government didn't work to increase prices, they wouldn't do it.
I have asked where exactly this 40% greater profits would come from, and exactly where those profits would go. Presumably you're referring to tariffs. The tariffs the South could have prevented, but chose secession instead. Yet the CSA had their own tariffs, so there couldn't have been 40% additional profits based on that.
Then you'll argue that the tariffs of the CSA benefited the South, while the tariffs of 1857 only benefited the North. But there's no evidence of that. The federal government paid for mail service across the South, all military and Revenue Service facilities, even the dredging of Charleston harbor. You just repeat the same worn out mantra.
Then you'll say the South would no longer have to pay Northern shipping interests. Then admit they'd pay British shipping interests instead. So where would the profits come from?
You don't make a lot of sense.
Yeah sure, they’d continue to use the same Northern shipping that YOU say were ripping them off. And the British, like OPEC, wouldn’t realize they’re the only game in town and raise prices. Sure.
You realize of course that there was a glut of cotton in England in 1861 and the British were turning to India and other sources. King Cotton’s reign was ending and those big extra profits would have never happened.
Because newspaper editorials are never, ever wrong?
We have better resources now, and we can't even stop the many tons of drugs and people being shipped across our border right now.
We also have literally hundreds of routes across the borders with dozens of different ways of getting it across. In 1860 goods moved long distances by boat or train, as has been pointed out to you before, and the crossing points between the U.S. and the Confederacy would have been few and easily monitored. But by all means land the goods destined for people in the north is some southern port, tax it, send it up to the U.S. where it can be taxed again, and pretend that is a logical scenario that would turn the northern ports into ghost towns. Like I said, it's very amusing when you try to twist that into what passes for logical scenarios in your world.
And how is complaining that the north charged the south too much for insurance, transportation, brokering, and such and then saying that allowing the Europeans to charge the south too much for insurance, transportation, brokering and the like furthering the south's own interest. Pay Peter or pay Paul, you're still paying. It would have been in their own interest to establish those industries in the south but ther interest just wasn't there.
Which were artificially inflated beyond the market norm because of laws forcing them to use the North's shipping, banking, warehousing, insurances and other services.
What was the market norm and how do you know it was inflated beyond it? And I know about your crazy claim about the law requiring northern ships but what law required them to use northern insurance firms, banks, warehouses, insurance, and other services?
Well certainly, if the raping were being continued by Europe, but because the Europeans would have to compete in a free market, they couldn't get away with raping them.
If the north is denied access to the market then how is it a free market? And wouldn't European costs be higher since they would have to send their own costal packets over and establish their own offices for insurance, banking, and warehouses, and build their own warehouses, and all the rest?
This is basic conservative economic theory.
Not the way you describe it.
Secession scrapped the existing Navigation act, (and the warehousing act, and various other acts.) and as to whether the CSA would have reconstituted their own version of it, I have no idea, but I think that if they were of a mind to do so, it would have been after they had a reason to do so, i.e. protecting their own domestic shipping industry, which as we have all noticed, was virtually nonexistent at that time.
Given what you know, or what you imagine you know, what would a Confederate Navigation Act look like from day one? What about the Warehousing Act which, if you did away of it, makes your crazy claim of landing goods in the south and then sending them north even crazier?
Basic free market economics says that it is.
Where does free market enter into your scenario? You're replacing one monopoly with another, and ignoring the lack of economic incentives for European shippers to enter into the U.S. cabotage market?
So the people who want to justify the invasion and hundreds of thousands of dead keep telling us...
And which those who are completely wedded to the lost cause myths ignore.
I've seen you claim 35% greater profits and 40% greater profits. Can't keep your stories straight, huh?
But be that as it may, both claims are completely bogus. Assuming you're referring to the claim of another poster that New York realized 40% on the dollar for every dollar of cotton export, the only way Southern profits would go up 40% would be if insurance and transportation and banking and brokering costs went to zero. Highly unlikely. Ban the north from the business and give it to Europe and your costs may have remained about 40% or gone down by some unknown percentage or could even have gone up. We don't know.
So who was Lincoln speaking of? And who was the “Judge” he was referring to? And do you have any idea at all about what Lincoln was talking about? And do you have any idea what you yourself are talking about?
No, no you do not. And stop using Lincoln’s words for your purposes. Lincoln is way over your head (even though he lives there rent free).
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.