Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: DoodleDawg
Hardly. Goods entering in through New Orleans in an independent Confederacy would have the tarrif applied once they crossed into the U.S.

In theory. Very likely not in practice, or have you noticed how well we are guarding our southern border?

People in the Border states would sneak that stuff in. They even acknowledged at the time that it would have been impossible to patrol the entire border.

Plus you ignore the effect that making their dollars go further would have on these states. Missouri and Kentucky would have decided they want to be on the CSA side, because it would have been in their better economic interest to be so.

The Confederacy would have continued to switch states until it looked something like this.

The economic reinforcement zone of the great lakes and New York would have remained, but the rest of the nation would have done better without being controlled from New York.

Maybe because most rational people don't depend on newspaper editorials for their economic information.

The economic information which shows the clearest picture of what was happening is in the book "Southern Wealth and Northern Profit by Thomas Prentice Kettell. You've seen it's excerpts before. BroJoeK has also posted links to other sources, and when you cut away all the bullsh*t he tries to spin it with, it shows exactly the same thing.

The South was the dominant export engine of the Nation, and all their trade was being controlled by the people in New York and Washington DC with a vigorish of 60%.

The newspaper articles just let you know what prominent people of that time were thinking.

You can post your economic data any time.

397 posted on 08/01/2021 2:36:09 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp

Great posts. Thanks. They’re very informative.

Lincoln conscripted people to fight the war. Conscription is slavery. It’s ridiculous to enslave people and claim one is fighting slavery.

The war turned a voluntary union of states into a country of states kept by force.


399 posted on 08/01/2021 2:43:14 PM PDT by TTFX ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp
In theory. Very likely not in practice, or have you noticed how well we are guarding our southern border?

Are you really that dense? So what do you think would happen? The Confederates would load the goods on 18 wheelers and ship it north on the interstate? Goods moved by river or rail in the interior, and there weren't a lot of Confederate rail lines that ran north and south; most supported getting cotton to the southern ports. So that left the rivers - Mississippi and the Tennessee. Both cross into the U.S. at one point and adding a customs house at that point wouldn't be hard at all.

People in the Border states would sneak that stuff in. They even acknowledged at the time that it would have been impossible to patrol the entire border.

In what?

Plus you ignore the effect that making their dollars go further would have on these states. Missouri and Kentucky would have decided they want to be on the CSA side, because it would have been in their better economic interest to be so.

Would they now? Because you say so? There would have been a boatload of Unionists in both states saying other wise.

The Confederacy would have continued to switch states until it looked something like this.

In your hyperactive imagination perhaps.

The economic information which shows the clearest picture of what was happening is in the book "Southern Wealth and Northern Profit by Thomas Prentice Kettell.

Of course it is. Kettell's imagination is almost as active as yours is.

The South was the dominant export engine of the Nation, and all their trade was being controlled by the people in New York and Washington DC with a vigorish of 60%.

Why didn't the U.S. collapse economically after the South rebelled?

403 posted on 08/01/2021 2:50:35 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

I don’t know if the crowbar you got hit with sent you back to 1860 or to 2004, but that Bush-Kerry election was anything but typical in American electoral history. Kerry had extremely limited appeal in most of the country, but that hardly means that Ohio or Nebraska or Montana would submit to government by the planters of Richmond or Montgomery. In your own biased view westerners and midwesterners wouldn’t want African-Americans around any more than they wanted competition from slaves or haughty slaveowners so they’d tell the CSA to P.O. and FOAD.


425 posted on 08/01/2021 6:55:40 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson