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 ...
“So your argument is “because protectionism can be created which does not favor one particular portion of the country to the detriment of another portion of a country, protectionism cannot be made which favors one particular portion of the country to the detriment of another portion of the country.”
No, it isn’t and I never wrote anything of the kind. I was simply stating that protectionist legislation does not on its face favor one part of the country or another. In no way did any of the legislation you have cited prohibit southern shipbuilding, or even southerners buying their own ships built in the northern part of the country. You seem to portray the southern gentry as completely incapable of finding any solutions to their problems other than rebellion and warfare.
“I have shown you how tariff/shipping laws moved the money produced in the South into the North.”
You have done nothing of the kind. You’ve posted numbers on exports and somehow conflated those with imports, and gave no mechanism by which the vast majority of the country was not paying the duties on imports, in other words the North.
To recap:
The reason for secession was the South’s desire to preserve slavery.
The trigger for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which fed fear of the abolitionist foundation of the Republican Party.
The American Civil War began when units of the South Carolina Militia fired upon a Union fort in Charleston harbor.
Must have missed that.
Imports and exports are merely opposite ends of the same horse, so a tax on one is effectively the same tax on the other.
And it wasn't a "rebellion." The exercising of a right to secession is not "rebellion." Salmon P. Chase also reiterated this point, though later he rightfully became terrified of the political power unleashed, and just like Kavanaugh or Roberts, he would capitulate on a principle out of fear for his own safety and concern for his social status.
Your 'evidence' tends to be your opinion and nothing else.
You tend to portray clear cut evidence as "opinion", perhaps because so much of your own "evidence" fits this pattern.
It proves that there was a stack of coins in New York City that reached up into outer space and at least one giant human living somewhere in Texas or New Mexico -- and that's about it.
Yes, the South did produce 72+ % of the total trade value with Europe in 1860.
Trade is a two-way street. Importers also "produce" foreign trade, not just exporters.
I cite Thomas Prentice Kettell, but the official records reflect the same numbers.
Kettell's argument was refuted by Stephen Colwell in Five Cotton States and New York:
The mode of disposing of their cotton is that which the planters themselves have adopted, uncontrolled by any national legislation. The expense consists, in transportation to the port whence it is shipped to Europe or to a Northern destination at home, the charges of shipping, freight to Europe, commissions on advances, and commissions on sales. Exchange is sometimes a profit, and sometimes a loss. The ports whence the cotton is shipped for a foreign market are, Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, and 'New Orleans — the latter receiving about one-half of the whole quantity. The management of the cotton at these cities is wholly under the control of the planters who have not previously sold their cotton, and their factors or agents, and is the best no doubt which their experience and commercial skill can devise. The planter either sells his cotton at once, and realizes the amount in the way which best suits him : he ships it northward, coastwise, and to Europe on his own account; or, having received advances on account, it is shipped in the name of the party who has made advances. For the amount shipped coastwise domestic bills are drawn, and for the most part sold or discounted in the cities where the cotton is first received. Against the amount shipped to Europe foreign bills are drawn, and sold wherever the best rate can be obtained for them, which is almost always at New York, because that is the great market of foreign exchange for the United States. It is there that the importers of foreign goods are concentrated, and thence their remittances are made. There the buyers of exchange congregate, and there, of course, the best price can be obtained ; and that is the chief reason why the planter and his agents send their foreign bills to New York. Bills can be sold in that city when there is no demand elsewhere. A very large proportion of the money advanced upon cotton, at all the places of delivery, comes from New York ; and bills drawn upon cotton are transmitted thither, to reimburse advances. Besides this, the merchants of the whole cotton region find it their advantage, as well as convenience, to pay for all their purchases at the North and their purchases abroad through New York : it is, therefore, a matter not only of convenience, but economy, to keep a large deposit in that city, where it is more available for the uses to which it is to be applied, than if in their own banks.
Colwell has much more to say about the costs of producing, storing, shipping, insuring and selling cotton, and about the risks of loss in the cotton trade and the desire to profitably invest the profits of the trade. Slaveowners were used to not having to pay labor costs, so they resented having to pay for other goods and services. Colwell also compares the cotton production of the five Deep South states with the immense productivity of the Northeastern states industries, to the advantage of the latter. If you have read Kettell, you can read Colwell and see who has the better argument.
Kettell's argument, though, may be indicated in his subtitle. The full title of his pamphlet is: Southern wealth and northern profits, as exhibited in statistical facts and official figures: showing the necessity of union to the future prosperity and welfare of the Republic. Was he pleased or amused or saddened to see his faulty and misleading book used as an argument for disunion?
The transport trade had ended in 1808, and there was no further source of supply other than subsequent generations being born. Presumably the people who were running the plantations already owned the slaves, so how do they "invest" in slaves other than employing the slaves they already had?
That's the same problem that you have with your import/export theory. The economy is fluid. Money circulates. The price of slaves was rising. In the first half of the nineteenth century, more and more land was being used for cotton production. Slaveowners could always sell slaves to people who didn't have slaves. Virginians and Charlestonians who might have started factories or shipyards before the cotton boom bought slaves, moved West and bought land. Some economics classes would show you that there wasn't some fixed quantity of money for exports or fixed size of a market for slaves.
Been over this with you before. *SPECIE* is not trade. No nation willingly continues to use specie to purchase imports because it drains their wealth over the long term.
Historical Statistics of the United States from Colonial Times to 1957 provides data on this. I confess I can't make sense of all the charts. One set tells me that exports decreased during the war years, another says they didn't. But apparently, the export of gold doubled from 1863 to 1864. The US had vastly increased its gold reserves since the 1840s, so draining the reserve may not have been regarded as being as serious a problem as losing the war would have been. The war years were the greenback years, when money - in both the USA and CSA - wasn't backed by gold. That could be related to the outflow of gold as foreigners demanded gold, rather than paper money for their goods. I doubt the statistics were "cooked," but the monetary situation wasn't as fixed and unquestioned as it was in other eras.
Evidence is not really necessary in arguing with you because I have already been through the experience of you and others rejecting any evidence that doesn't suit what you wish to believe.
And you don't realize that applies to you as well? Or you more than anyone else?
So cotton exports was the only way to make money in 1860? Good to know.
In context, what they meant by "One People" was the population of British Subjects residing in the colonies. In practice, they treated each colony/state as sovereign within it's own territory, and required representatives from each one of them to agree to the Declaration as well as the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution afterwards.
They always acted as the minimum common denominator was a population's status as a "State."
But you overlook the central thesis of our founding document. It's that people have a right to secede.
I don’t see anything about “states” there.
A man won't see what he refuses to see. If you are going to go with the "ONE PEOPLE" argument, you must include the British population in England as well as Canada, because the way you are drawing the lines for "ONE PEOPLE", it is the entire nation as opposed to a section of it's population divided into colonies.
The founders meant "states." You have to lie to yourself to believe they meant anything other than "states".
I do not know what the inflation rate was in 1861, and it would take a great deal of data and math to convince me that anyone has a good idea of what was the inflation rate in 1861. Certainly the price of cotton went way up, and i'm sure a lot more than 6.02%.
I have come to distrust information that favors the narrative of the ruling class. I've seen the ruling class lie too often to simply accept what they claim as true.
And Trump supporters are Nazis while January 6th was an "insurrection!"
It's on all the news liars programs, and it will shortly be in all the "history" books.
That too is something you wish to believe because if you didn't, you'd have to confront some unpleasant facts.
What else would they use? Or do you think it was a barter economy?
Which would impact the U.S. economy how exactly?
I have come to distrust information that favors the narrative of the ruling class.
Except when it supports whatever you're claiming at the moment.
Here you go:
https://www.in2013dollars.com/inflation-rate-in-1861
To recap:
The reason for secession was the South’s desire to preserve slavery.
The trigger for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which fed fear of the abolitionist foundation of the Republican Party.
The American Civil War began when units of the South Carolina Militia fired upon a Union fort in Charleston harbor.
Foreign interests often took commodities such as corn or cotton in trade for manufactured goods. Much of the exchange was simply entries on balance books.
“They could build ships, but then they would have to compete with Northern shipbuilders and shippers who had government contracts guaranteeing them a profit, while the Southern shippers would not have such government contracts.”
Please explain these Government contracts that guaranteed profit. If shipping was so unprofitable without subsidies, where was all that “vigorish” you keep talking about.
To recap:
The reason for secession was the South’s desire to preserve slavery.
The trigger for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which fed fear of the abolitionist foundation of the Republican Party.
The American Civil War began when units of the South Carolina Militia fired upon a Union fort in Charleston harbor.
Ownership shares in commercial ships were sold like stock in the 1800s. Smart Southerners we’re free to buy ownership, but preferred buying more land and more slaves.
Let’s hear about this Warehousing Act of 1846. Pray tell, how did this hurt the South?
Oh, and it was repealed in 1961.
To recap:
The reason for secession was the South’s desire to preserve slavery.
The trigger for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which fed fear of the abolitionist foundation of the Republican Party.
The American Civil War began when units of the South Carolina Militia fired upon a Union fort in Charleston harbor.
Like the canard that the North added a 60% “vigorísh” to Southern profits, this statement is essentially meaningless. Either the states that would form the Confederacy bought 3/4 of the imports, or they didn't.
To recap:
The reason for secession was the South’s desire to preserve slavery.
The trigger for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which fed fear of the abolitionist foundation of the Republican Party.
The American Civil War began when units of the South Carolina Militia fired upon a Union fort in Charleston harbor.
“ The founders meant “states.” You have to lie to yourself to believe they meant anything other than “states”.
I have to pay you another compliment. You’re seldom correct, but never in doubt.
So I guess those counties in Oregon have no right to secede and join Idaho?
To recap:
The reason for secession was the South’s desire to preserve slavery.
The trigger for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which fed fear of the abolitionist foundation of the Republican Party.
The American Civil War began when units of the South Carolina Militia fired upon a Union fort in Charleston harbor.
“Southern wealth and northern profits, as exhibited in statistical facts and official figures: showing the necessity of union to the future prosperity and welfare of the Republic.”
That one has got to hurt!
Didn't like money?
From page 11 of The Five Cotton States.
“There is no doubt that the business of Southern Exchange, that is, the converting bills drawn upon foreign countries for the value of cotton into money at home, is mainly effected at New York, for the simple reason that those that are concerned find it to their advantage, both in point of economy and convenience. The aggregate of profit thus made by New York is less than one percent on the amount of Southern bills purchased.”
Not much “vigorish” there, eh Dim?
Bump
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.