I believe there was a pilot program in Arizona in the 1890s to grow cotton near a river, but it was nothing like the production of Southern states.
Posted on 06/16/2020 3:17:15 PM PDT by Lucas McCain
Democrat Senator and former VP running mate of Hillary Clinton, Tim Kaine (VA) on Tuesday said the United States created slavery.
To think this degenerate liar almost became Vice President of the United States.
“The United States didn’t inherit slavery from anybody. We created it,” said Tim Kaine as he droned on about racism in America.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
I applaud you for the time and effort you put into formulating that sentence.
The Civil War was a war between the New York Robber Barons and their Washington DC corruptocracy, and the Southern states who were going to trade directly with Europe and thereby cost them hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars in losses to their industries.
They didn't want people looking at this, so they called it a war about "slavery", but the Corwin amendment proves quite conclusively that the North did not go to war with the South to get rid of slavery. They went to war with the South to make sure they didn't wreck the income streams of the powerful men who had Washington DC in their pocket.
Just like today, with those same New York/Washington DC rogues running the same sort of "deep state" crony capitalist corruptocracy.
Did you not see how hard New York and Washington DC proxies fought to stop Kavanaugh from getting a Supreme Court seat? Did you see how hard New York and Washington DC proxies fought to keep Roy Moore out of the Senate?
You need to wake up. Our enemy today is the same enemy the Confederates faced in 1860. They still own the propaganda sources now as they did in 1860.
Being part of the Federal government does not make them "experts." It makes them people who can enforce whatever they think whether it is correct or not.
The free states believed they had a right to outlaw slavery.
I think part of the reason this was never challenged as it could have been, was because when many states were creating all these "Gradual emancipation" plans, slavery was economically waning and most people didn't expect it to last much longer. I don't know if you've read George Washington's commentary on the Subject, but he lamented of finding enough useful work for his slaves to do to cover the costs of their upkeep. It was a problem that seemed to occupy his mind quite a lot.
The forecast for slavery in 1790 was consistent decline. Then Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1794, and suddenly a declining industry was now a growing industry.
But people had already let stand without challenge declarations by states that they had a right to abolish slavery within their borders, and so now too many years had passed to walk it back.
But if the challenge had been raised early, I think the slave side had the better legal argument between the two sides. As the nature of the slave holding states was known prior to the compact, states could scarcely argue they didn't know to what they were agreeing.
His actions in urging it's passage and writing to the governors of all the states, including the seceded Southern states, indicate that he fully believed this would work in securing the return of the Southern states.
Much effort was put into this thing, and it's asking too much of credibility to believe it was some sort of diabolical plan on Lincoln's part.
Lincoln faced a financial crises, and if the Southern states would return, his money problems would be solved. You may not know this, but Lincoln's mentor was Henry Clay, and their governing philosophy was "Mercantilism", which is not that far from Keynsian "pump priming" economics.
The Pacific Railway Act of 1862 is an example of the sort of big projects Lincoln and Clay liked. It greatly enriched the Railroad barons of that era. You do know that Lincoln was a corporate Railroad lawyer?
“Sounds like you can’t do anything to forward your intentions if you tell the truth about them either. “
You have to go slow and exert gentle pressure to avoid resistance. FDR had a strong isolationist faction to contend with, so he had to keep his aid to Churchill and later Stalin off the budget, so he invented lend-lease, and left airplanes next to the Canadian border that mysteriously went missing. If he had “told the truth,” he would have been impeached or lost reelection. Competing factions retard abrupt movement to one direction or the other. See Federalist Papers for a full exposition.
“these colonies had put forth this declaration of principle that everyone who wanted to have independence was entitled to have it. “
No such thing. They put forth this declaration that everyone who wanted to have independence could have it if they could get it. The colonies fought long and hard for independence and won, with the help of the French. “Entitled to have it”? Are you Canadian or something? The South was not “entitled” to independence. They had to fight for it, and they lost.
” Lincoln would have just left them alone, it is quite likely there never would have been a war. “
They attacked Fort Sumter. If Buchanan had fully manned that fort, they would never have dared attack it. But they fired the first shot, and took the fort after a comic opera siege.
” The notion that any significant numbers of slaves were going to go into the territories is a Unicorn that farts rainbow skittles.
There was not ever going to be any significant level of slavery in the territories. The territories could not make sufficient money through slave labor to make it worthwhile to have slaves there. “
The territories needed to clear land for planting, dig shafts for mining, and build houses. And the land that they cleared was an unknown quantity. It could have been good for tobacco, sugar cane, cotton, beets, who knows. The venture of dumping southern slaves in the West might well have been a unicorn farting rainbow skittles, but to a quixotic people such as Southerners, who believed themselves chivalric knights of old along the lines of a Sir Walter Scott novel, this was the impossible dream, a noble cause worth fighting the unbeatable foe over. They thought it was for real, and fought as though it was for real, and nearly won. But the North outlasted them, and they got no overt help from Britain, as they had hoped.
“Alternatively if they had been left alone, the massive flow of new capital into their economy would have severely damaged the powerful and influential robber barons of the Northeast”
And this massive flow of new capital would have come from where? Unicorns? Their idea of economic expansion was for a planter to buy more land and slaves, and cultivate that land with implements originally designed in 1740 or earlier. Then as profits came in from that land, slowly, they would eventually buy more land and more slaves, or depend on the natural increase from the slaves that they already had, or both. Northern states had farmers who would buy the newest plows and harrows, able to spread manure as they break up the ground; learned that horses were stronger than oxen; that bat guano was a better fertilizer than cow manure; etc., etc., in short, increasing their production per acre year after year, while the Southern planters had the same output per acre, just owned more acres and more slaves. Northern states had factories, new inventions, new mining techniques, immigrants full of ambition and pluck. Southerners had slave workers, who had only two motivations for working hard, fear of the lash and a sense of belonging to the plantation on which they were born. As Virginia farmers liberated themselves from the plantation system by shipping slaves down to the Mississippi bottoms, the slaves so shipped lost their sense of belonging, and those remaining felt betrayed and alienated. It was a system ripe for rebellion, and they had one, and in that context, nobody was going to invest any capital anywhere, except maybe diversified, less slaves Virginia, if they would disregard that nastiness with Nat Turner. The other slave states yearned to be like Virginia, but Lincoln wanted to shut the door on their impossible dream, exporting slaves west, so they went at him like a windmill. He didn’t even get a chance to ‘leave them alone’.
To be fair, if we'd kept our nose out of WW1, we wouldn't have had to deal with the real threat that occurred in WW2.
No such thing. They put forth this declaration that everyone who wanted to have independence could have it if they could get it.
This is both a logical error and a factual error. The document says that "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them".
See there? It's a right granted by God. As for your logical error, if you have the power to win, you don't have to iterate a right. You don't need "rights" because you have power.
The colonies fought long and hard for independence and won, with the help of the French.
Yes they did, because the United Kingdom did not recognize such a right. But guess what? THIS nation did. We said so in our declaration of independence. This is what you call a "paradigm shift." We fought for the right of people to be independent, and we recognize the right of people to be independent if they want. Or at least we did until Lincoln came along and launched a war while claiming secession is illegal.
He even had the gall to quote the Declaration as he celebrated a victory over people trying to obtain independence.
They attacked Fort Sumter.
In response to Lincoln's attack, which was launched first. Bet you didn't know about that.
The territories needed to clear land for planting
What were they going to plant in Colorado, in New Mexico, in Arizona, in Utah? Would it be worth having a $1,000.00 slave doing it? Very doubtful.
dig shafts for mining,
How many do you think that would have taken? It might have been dozens, and that's assuming other miners would not object to this, which would be doubtful.
It could have been good for tobacco, sugar cane, cotton, beets, who knows.
Anyone that looks at it. None of that stuff would grow in the territories except perhaps beets, and OMG! They could corner the *BEET* market!
The whole threat of slavery in the territories was just an astro turf fake concern meant to panic people into voting against the Southern states in their representation.
And this massive flow of new capital would have come from where?
I'm glad you asked me that. Most people don't want to look at the actual finances involved here. First, some things you probably didn't know.
Southern production amounted to 200 million dollars per year in export trade value to Europe in 1860. This constituted 73% of the total trade value for United States exports that year. *The laws of the United States had been rigged by the "Navigation act of 1817" and other laws such as the "Warehousing act" to funnel money into the pockets of New York, and through them, into Washington DC.
The end result is that about 60% of all money produced by Southern exports (which were fueled by slave labor) ended up in New York and Washington DC pockets, with only 40% left over to go to the people who actually ran the slavery.
By getting rid of the requirements of the Navigation act of 1817, and the high tariffs, the South would see a net gain of about 120 million dollars a year if everything else remained the same.
The effect would have actually been greater than this because the purchasing power would have increased simply because the duties on European goods would have been reduced. They could buy more for less.
This 120 million would have come out of New York and Washington DC's hide. They would have been the losers of this money.
And this is the smaller economic threat New York and Washington DC was facing. There was a much worse threat to them than just that European money heading south.
.
.
* This is what the territory fight was really about. The corrupt cartel of New York and Washington DC had managed to get 60% of the Southern production money flowing into their pockets, and if Southern states could get new allied states, they would be able to vote these unfair trade laws off the books, and recover a larger percentage of their production profits.
It wasn't possible to have any significant money making slavery in the territories, but if they would vote with the Southern block, the money would be made in the Southern states as a result of breaking Congress out of the control of the New York coalition.
NEW MEXICO The New Mexico Cotton Growers Association Conference provides an opportunity for cotton growers in New Mexico to update their knowledge on important production practices and to also learn about new technologies in cotton production coming out from the industry. New Mexico: Cotton Growers Conference, Ruidoso, Jan. 11 ... agfax.com/2016/12/01/new-mexico-cotton-growers-conference-ruidoso-jan-11/
Cotton growing has been a thing in the Southwest since prehistoric times.
I believe there was a pilot program in Arizona in the 1890s to grow cotton near a river, but it was nothing like the production of Southern states.
Trivial amounts. Certainly not enough for export production, at least not until they built irrigation systems, which were around the turn of the century.
This is both a logical error and a factual error. The document says that “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”.
That was Jefferson’s error. Are you saying that those idiots in Chop/Chaz get to have their country just because they think they should? How about the Ahwazi in Iran? They’re oppressed, their oil fields are being appropriated by their oppressor to spread terrorism and death throughout the world, and do you seriesly think they can just march up to the Ayatollahs and say “we’re entitled to our own country because you’re big fat meanies”? Bad thing to say to an evil dictator. How about Hong Kong? They want indepenence no less than Jefferson or Jefferson Davis. But to gain independence, you have to go through a crucible in order to earn it. Nobody’s “entitled” just because Jefferson said they are.
See there? It’s a right granted by God.
It’s a right to win your independence. The only people who did not have to do that were the Children of Israel in Egypt, because G-d stepped in directly. And that was just one time. Against the Greeks and the British, we had to fight and it was a near thing.
As for your logical error, if you have the power to win, you don’t have to iterate a right. You don’t need “rights” because you have power.
And how many times have powerless, weak people won against a mighty nation. The South might have won, but did not. The Maccabees were weak but beat the mighty Greeks, and their descendants beat the British. The American colonies were weak, but they beat the British. India beat the British—not with weapons—but with Satyagraha, which nullified their adversary’s considerable power. The British sure got beat a lot. But they had power.
“The whole threat of slavery in the territories was just an astro turf fake concern meant to panic people into voting against the Southern states in their representation.”
That is from the point of view of the territories. To the South, it wasn’t a threat but a promise. Perhaps a fatuous one, but try telling Don Quixote that he’s fighting a windmill. It was their hope, and you’re caught up on whether that hope was realistic or not.
” By getting rid of the requirements of the Navigation act of 1817, and the high tariffs, the South would see a net gain of about 120 million dollars a year if everything else remained the same.”
But everything else did not remain the same. The British decided to buy their cotton from Egypt, to help them repay their debt for the Suez Canal project, and to keep out of a fight between those barbarous yanks. They sold the CSA some ramming boats and other hardware, and that was it.
You might be interested to know that Lincoln put his signature on the Thirteenth Amendment, even though it wasn’t required. It was his sincere desire that his name be on it. Of course it was after his untimely demise that it passed, with his name on it.
This is incorrect. President Buchanan signed the Join Resolution of Congress called the Corwin Amendment. Lincoln signed a cover letter, attached it to the Joint Resolution, and sent it to the Governors of all of the States.
I just want to take this opportunity to tell you that your phony way of interpreting history is now officially rancid. You are as thick as a brick. My parting question to you is: Do you approve of taking down memorials to Lincoln? Yes or No.
Glad we cleared that up. Point being that neither man owned many slaves... certainly not on the level of those invested in large numbers. This is a point clearly considered by the whacko revisionists who want to tear down monuments. It has gone way beyond... ‘slaveholder’ all the way to Columbus, Stephen Foster and.. finally Abe Lincoln’s statuary (several times). This is an... erasure of history and whom will they replace them with? Stalin? No, not their hero, or Lenin? No way— inasmuch as the Lenin-Stalinist State enslaved millions and murdered even more.
One never hears communists talk about their enslavement of people. Never.
Under that clause, a state is only required to return a run-away slave. it does not prevent a state from making slavery illegal within the borders of that state.
Well said. I tried to tell him a long time ago that Article IV, Section 2, clause 3 had more to do with States Rights than it had to do with Slavery. Slavery was a given, having been foisted upon us by the British Monarchy. But some States had begun to abolish it and other Sates (S. Carolina and Georgia) doubled down on it. So, there were Slave States and there were Slave-Free States. What came to be referred to as the Fugitive Slave Clause really had to do with States respecting each other’s Rights. He doesn’t understand this any more than he understands the Corwin Amendment (which, btw, Buchanan signed). What the Corwin Amendment intended was that the matter of Slavery would thenceforth be a States Rights issue, and not something that the Big Bad incoming Administration would have any say in. This was a last gasp attempt to preserve the Union and allay the fears of the South. Of course the South would have none of it, and seceded and we all know how that turned out.
Thomas Jefferson’s five words were just that: five words.
Lincoln made them stick.
Both sides of obamaumao’s parentage had slave trading heritage-— his Kenyan tribe (huge slavers, it is what they did with defeated rival tribes) from his daddy’s side, and Stanley his white mom’s family generations back owned and traded slaves.
btw— so did John McCain’s family on a 2K acre Mississippi plantation (McCain always acted surprised when this was pointe out- like he didn’t know, despite having spent many days in his youth staying at the main house (antebellum).
Ignorant enough to be ignoring the current slave trade in Yemen... being conducted by.... muslims (Christian slaves). But then Kaine is too busy looking for victims and his son is a Communist Antifa member.
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.