Posted on 07/26/2021 4:33:01 PM PDT by ammodotcom
And you're doing it again. Written in 1894 after he had become a Republican? Grant's Campaign manager? Wasn't that the party line back then?
Lower than the South? If slavery cost more than free market labor, I have no doubt that all the slave holders would have suddenly had moral epiphanys about abolition.
I am assured by my knowledge of historical human greed, that the economics worked out to the favor of the existing system at that time.
The New York metropolitan area had a large population and the city was connected to others by an extensive railroad network. No Southern city could compete with New York in terms of market size.
What good is a large market that has no money to purchase your items? The way New Yorkers were getting their foreign money is by taking 60% of the total value of production of Southern exports.
Cut off that exploitation and they wouldn't have the money to purchase imports, big market or no. They had to get their hands on the European money, and their export values only amounted to About 28% of the total exports from the US, and some of that was due to textile exports dependent upon Southern cotton.
I have no reason to believe that it wasn't passed by both the House and the Senate. Do you have evidence indicating otherwise?
Yes, I’m sure they’re true an accurate. To be clear, the sole truth I’ve been proving is the motivation for Southern secession. Which was the preservation of slavery. The constitutional right to secession, Lincoln’s goals, etc are side issues, to which you always deflect the debate. Just like in this post. avoiding the ludicrous idea that the Cornerstone speech can be disregarded because it was reported in the newspapers.
What if the ships stopped first at New York or Boston or Philadelphia to offload imports then sailed south to load up with cotton exports? That would limit the time spent in ballast and it the most likely explanation given the comparatively small amount of imports when compared with exports for southern ports.
An advantage to be sure. But that doesn't explain why Union soldiers didn't abandon the Union cause in droves when their enlistments ran out in the spring and summer of 1864. They did not, in overwhelming numbers.
Others are not so decent. Some are so ludicrous, so dedicated to trolling others, that snark is too good for them. These people don't like the taste of their own medicine. They deserve no further responses. They are non entities.
“No one can successfully run a shipping business if the ships are required to arrive with empty holds, especially when their protected competition does not have to abide by such rules.”
Shall I post the Southern newspaper notices of foreign ships advertising the wares they’ve brought from overseas, or will you ignore those too like the ones posting rates for foreign ships carrying cotton OUTBOUND from Southern ports?
There is likely some truth in this, because people will always favor easy money over hard, but as their own country, industrialization would have followed anyways.
Some of that Northern industrialization was paid for by Southern money and Federal Government economic favoritism for the North.
It's a lot easier to graft off expensive Big Government projects like Railroads and Canals, and it is my understanding that most of the Railroads built in the North were from various forms of government money. I saw an article the other day showing Lincoln was heavily involved (as a state legislator) in pushing state funding for the Illinois Central Railroad that nearly bankrupted the state and wasted 13 million dollars.
Most of the Southern railroads were built by private funds.
Who is more stupid, those who didn't take the deal to make slavery permanent, or those who claimed to be against slavery, but created the deal to make slavery permanent?
*YOUR* side offered permanent slavery. You have no moral ground on which to condemn others.
It is clear that you do not understand what it has to do with anything, but it is the most succinct answer to the question you asked.
If you were more familiar with "Standard Oil" you would understand it's significance in monopoly economics.
Sure I have. I've shown it sufficiently to enlighten anyone willing to be objective, but as Upton Sinclair noted:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Same applies to deeply held beliefs that were taught through propaganda for a century and a half.
They should have had a say, but the laws of US society between 1776 and 1865 did not recognize their right to have a say in governance with certain exceptions.
But the Declaration of Independence was not written or intended to address the issue of slavery. It is deliberate misinformation to attempt to make the Declaration of Independence about slavery.
Shall I post the dollar amount value of imports compared to the dollar amount value of exports for the major southern ports for the year prior to the rebellion?
Privileges and Immunities clause. If these are rights in the states, they must also be rights in the territories.
“ Shall I post the dollar amount value of imports compared to the dollar amount value of exports for the major southern ports for the year prior to the rebellion?”
And that would address the question of whether or not foreign shipping interests were importing foreign made goods how exactly? Apparently you were the one claiming that foreign ships would have to come with empty holds, or was it the other guy?
The point here is that you don't get to just declare something "true" simply because someone printed it.
Likewise the fact that none of the Rogery Taney biographers found the claim of a Taney arrest warrant supported by enough evidence to justify including it in any of their biographies of the Chief Justice is evidence that it never happened.
I think you once listed names of Taney biographers, and my recollection is that it was the typical class of Northern residents and graduates of Northern Universities which even today is going through another set of politically correct convulsions.
There is corroborating evidence for Lamon's claim. I read something the other day indicating there were three or four examples of corroboration for Lamon's claim. I recall reading a reference to it in a book about Baltimore which mentioned it, and the book was published back in the 19th century. I posted links to it last time this topic came up.
You do not want to believe historical facts that undermine your world view of Lincoln, and so you chose not to believe them, even when there is corroborating evidence.
Same number as there were when the USA was founded.
This is like saying that a drug addict deserved to get murdered because he was a drug addict. The fight wasn't about slavery, the fight was about the Northern states losing a huge chunk of money.
Also the Northern states still had slavery and kept it longer than did the Southern states, so spare me the moral outrage about how the Southerners needed to be murdered because they had slavery. So too did the North, and even worse, the North offered the Southern states permanent slavery through a constitutional amendment known as the "Corwin Amendment."
I realized the Deep State/Crony Capitalism went back as far as Lincoln, and others have told me it went back to Andrew Jackson, but I can see some merit in the claim that it went as far back as Adams.
And yes, the meaning of the US constitution has been greatly bastardized from what the States agreed to when they ratified it.
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.