COLLEGE STUDENT REACTS | Facts About Slavery Never Mentioned In School | Thomas Sowell

YouTube ^ | May 20, 2023 | LFR Jojo

[grundle]

COLLEGE STUDENT REACTS | Facts About Slavery Never Mentioned In School | Thomas Sowell

[Rockingham]

Please clearly identify by name and work the historians who support your view of slavery, the Confederacy, and the Klan. The two that I am aware of who would support your views to any degree are Southerners who wrote more than a century ago — and even they would reject most of your views by placing the race issue at the center of the reason for the Confederacy.

[DiogenesLamp]

Awesome graphic. It does illustrate the economic aspect rather irrefutably, assuming that the first step before assessing tariff revenues was to cheaply import the goods from the south to the north and then execute the lucrative trade.

This is a conservative website. I would expect the vast majority of people who use it would grasp the nature of international trade. You give me something, I give you something back of equal value. Imports are payment for exports. In normal situations, efforts are made to keep trade balanced, meaning the value of imports roughly equals the value of exports.

The South exported 72% of the total value of the nation's trade in 1859. This was about 200 million dollars in 1859.

The South also did 500 million in trade with the North during this same year. That trade was non taxed, but any money the South made overseas, the government took a healthy chunk of, and the various companies in the North all got their bite from shipping, insurance, banking, warehousing and so forth.

The numbers work out to 60% of the South's total export revenue went into the pockets of Northerners and Washington DC, leaving only 40% of their money left for them, and they were required to buy Northern made products priced artificially higher because of protectionist laws that forced better quality European products to cost more.

So the North even got a chunk of that 40% that was left.

So would you work for 40 cents on the dollar, or would you be bothered enough to try to figure a way out of the deal?

[x]

No, it wasn't a lock. Seven of those slave states were already gone and weren't coming back. Other slave states might join them. They didn't trust the Republicans and weren't satisfied with the proposed guarantee.

Only three free states ratified the Amendment — Ohio, Rhode Island, and Michigan — and two slave states — Maryland and Kentucky (so did the Unionist government of Virginia that later became West Virginia, but that may not have counted).

The chances the amendment would pass the legislatures the remaining states weren't good. A 3/4ths majority was required and there was enough anti-slavery sentiment to shoot down the amendment or delay it to the point were it would be moot.

33 or 34 states at the time. 26 or 27 still in the union. Depending on which figure you use that means that 9 or 7 states could defeat or delay the amendment. Maybe my math is wrong, but it was anything but a lock.

It's strange that you are so cynical but take Seward at his word. He was trying to sell the amendment, so of course he made claims for it that exaggerated its strength.

[DiogenesLamp]

It seems slavery would have become increasingly anachronistic as technology progressed. Slavery might work in industries requiring repetitive labor such as cotton picking but would be poorly suited to high-tech jobs requiring high degrees of motivation and skills that were increasingly in demand even in the rural South.

The march of time would have seen slavery fall by the wayside with no other action taken. My guess is it could have lasted between 20 to 80 years longer, but that is probably it.

And if it lasted 80 years longer, it would be because people would be too embarrassed to admit they were wrong.

[KC Burke]

One thing I hare read about some slave holding areas was a tendency for white’s to see wage-earning jobs as almost slavery and that by having slaves in their community, most menial jobs were not relegated to whites. A white youngster expected to be in a “position” rather than be limited to a wage.

Missouri had this situation from what I read.

[DiogenesLamp]

Please clearly identify by name and work the historians who support your view of slavery, the Confederacy, and the Klan. The two that I am aware of who would support your views to any degree are Southerners who wrote more than a century ago — and even they would reject most of your views by placing the race issue at the center of the reason for the Confederacy.

"Authorities" on a subject can be useful, but after having seen so many of them just utterly wrong, like Dr Fauci and Birx, it is foolish to put your faith in "authorities."

If something is true, it doesn't matter if an "authority" says it is not. People who can think for themselves can see the truth without resorting to an "Authority."

[DiogenesLamp]

No, it wasn't a lock. Seven of those slave states were already gone and weren't coming back.

We know that in hindsight, but in March of 1861 it was a reasonable possibility. This is why Lincoln wrote to each of those governors informing them of the passage of the Corwin amendment.

It's strange that you are so cynical but take Seward at his word. He was trying to sell the amendment, so of course he made claims for it that exaggerated its strength.

New York controls commercial access for the great lakes states to the sea. I have come to view these states as a sort of cartel, and even their voting patterns show that they simply follow New York's lead most of the time.

With New York the primary beneficiary of the Southern states production, it is inconceivable to me that the state would not do what was most in their financial interest.

It isn't cynicism, it is having faith that humans will pursue their own self interest.

[Chgogal]

Bookmark

[Mr Rogers]

Yes, I’m telling you WHY Texas left the Union. SLAVERY - and expanding it and LOVING it was their goal. By their own words.

[Rockingham]

If your opinions are well-grounded, there will be credible historians who agree with you. If you know of none, that bears against the soundness of your views and ought to be taken as a reason for reflection and reappraisal.

[heartwood]

How did the tariff money belong to the South? Wasn’t it paid on goods imported from Europe?

[heartwood]

Thank you for your kind correction regarding Texas, and the information about Madison.

[FLT-bird]

As Madison later wrote in the letter in my first post: It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the same authority & by the same process have converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty; or continued it with enlarged or abridged powers; or have imbodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty; or as they did by a mixed form make them one people, nation, or sovereignty, for certain purposes, and not so for others.

Madison's views after ratification of the constitution are just one man's opinions. Madison's views express before ratification are evidence as to what the states were actually agreeing to. As with all contracts, its about what the parties to the contract (ie the states) agreed to at the time.

Also, the 10th amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The 10th amendment clearly separates the United States, the several States, and the People as distinctly separate entities.

To the states respectively, or to the people. The constitution does not spell out how the people would exercise any right or power except through their sovereign states. I'd refer you back to the Federalist #39

[the Constitution would be ratified by the people]"not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct independent States to which they respectively belong.."

[FLT-bird]

Please clearly identify by name and work the historians who support your view of slavery, the Confederacy, and the Klan. The two that I am aware of who would support your views to any degree are Southerners who wrote more than a century ago — and even they would reject most of your views by placing the race issue at the center of the reason for the Confederacy.

Charles Beard for one. He was considered the leading historian in the first half of the 20th century. His view is that the war was mostly about money. he was from Indiana originally and was on the faculty at Columbia so he was hardly a Southerner.

For my part, I don't place much stock in the opinions of other historians. I prefer to look at the original sources and see what they said before the events and during the events in question. I can do the interpretation myself. I don't require an Academic to tell me what my opinions should be.

[FLT-bird]

Texas listed several reasons.

- the federal government had deliberately not secured the border as Texas' accession treaty required them to do.

- the federal government did not provide the security against the Comanche that was required. The Comanche were particularly ruthless and often raided and murdered Texas citizens. This refusal to provide the security they had been promised was in the view of Texans, malicious.

(See here) " They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State."

To wit:

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

- in the words of Texas' declaration of causes, they (the Northern states) "drain our substance" (meaning they screw them over and treat the Southern states as cash cows.

The words of John H Reagan who was a US Representative from Texas address this point:

[To a Northern Congressman] "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of Northern Capitalist. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and our institutions."

Here is what Texas says precisely: "They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance."

Texas also cited in addition to the Northern states violating the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution, (see here)

"The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation."

Texas also cited the support in the Northern states for overt acts of terrorism against the Southern states.

"They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition."

"They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved."

"They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides."

"They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose."

Texas' complaints go well beyond just slavery.

[FLT-bird]

If your opinions are well-grounded, there will be credible historians who agree with you. If you know of none, that bears against the soundness of your views and ought to be taken as a reason for reflection and reappraisal.

You may be willing to outsource your interpretations of history to those in Academia, I am not. I prefer to read the original sources for myself and do my own interpreting.

[FLT-bird]

How did the tariff money belong to the South? Wasn’t it paid on goods imported from Europe?

Southern Planters exported cash crops. They hired a ship and had to pay the cost of the ship and the crew for the transatlantic journey to deliver the goods to market. Once delivered, they needed to fill the holds of the ships with something to help defray the cost of the return voyage. So they purchased manufactured goods which they needed. They then had to pay a tariff on those goods.

[heartwood]

But the map shows that tariffs were greatest in the north east, by far. European goods needed in the south would go to southern ports.

[FLT-bird]

for any questions about how much the Southern states were exporting/importing and how much of the tariff bill they were paying, read these newspapers at the time:

Northern

"The predicament in which both the government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over....If the manufacturer at Manchester (England) can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage....if the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers. Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty free. The process is perfectly simple. The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North. We now see whither our tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated power of the State or Federal Government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad. We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched." New York Times March 30, 1861

"The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more than all other trade. It is very clear the South gains by this process and we lose. No, we must not let the South go." The Manchester, New Hampshire Union Democrat Feb 19 1861

That either revenue from these duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed, the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up. We shall have no money to carry on the government, the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe....allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten percent which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York. The Railways would be supplied from the southern ports." New York Evening Post March 12, 1861 article "What Shall be Done for a Revenue?"

"If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon the imports, no doubt the business of the chief Northern cities will be seriously injured thereby. The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union and that of the Confederated States, that the entire Northwest must find it to their advantage to purchase their imported goods at New Orleans rather than New York. In addition to this, the manufacturing interest of the country will suffer from the increased importations resulting from low duties….The…[government] would be false to all its obligations, if this state of things were not provided against." March 18, 1861, the Boston Transcript

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwide 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." Chicago Daily Times Dec 10 1860

“Let the South adopt the free-trade system and the North’s commerce must be reduced to less than half of what it now is.” Daily Chicago Times Dec 10 1860

"The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole...we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually." Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860

Southern

"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

Foreign

"For the contest on the part of the North is now undisguisedly for empire. The question of slavery is thrown to the winds. There is hardly any concession in its favor that the South could ask which the North would refuse provided only that the seceding states re-enter the Union.....Away with the pretence on the North to dignify its cause with the name of freedom to the slave!" London Quarterly Review 1862

“The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.” London Times, November 7, 1861

"If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union. So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils … the quarrel between North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel." – Charles Dickens, as editor of All the Year Round, a British periodical in 1862

"The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states." --Charles Dickens, 1862

Nobody at the time was in any doubt that the Southern states supplied the vast majority of the exports and paid the vast majority of the Tariff bill.

[FLT-bird]

But the map shows that tariffs were greatest in the north east, by far. European goods needed in the south would go to southern ports.

What the map shows is where the tariffs were collected when they first landed - not who paid them. The people who owned the goods are the ones who had to pay the tariffs. Where they landed is irrelevant.