Um, I don’t think the New York Times supports the business class. Nor does Obama. What does the Obama Administration supply the Times other than perhaps talking points and possibly leaked classified information?
If the South had been successful, the British saw the opportunity to refold them into their empire to again become colonies, and very profitable ones at that.
Good heavens, the South would have switched from being treated like a colony by the North to being treated like a colony by the British? Nearly 40 cents of each dollar of cotton revenue was already taken by Northern fees, freighting charges, taxes, etc. [Sources: “God Knows All Your Names: Stories in American History” by Paul N. Herbert, page 148 Link and according to PeaRidge, Kettell’s “Southern Wealth and Northern Profits” Thanks, Pea.].
The colony status of the South was illustrated by an editorial in the Daily Chicago Times on December 10, 1860 [as reported in the New Orleans Picayune]:
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.
Keep in mind that the significantly higher Morrill Tariff had not yet passed the Senate when that was published. If the South had stayed in the Union, the Morrill Tariff would have had the effect of increasing the transfer of wealth from the South to the North beyond that resulting from the tariff mentioned above.
So what does that have to do with the London Times in 1863?
And I would say today that the NY Times and just about all of the mainstream media side with the biggest business in the US. Not Apple or Microsoft or General Electric --- they are small businesses.
There is only one Big Business and that is this thoroughly corrupt Federal Government we have today. $4 Trillion year -- and GROWING!
NT Times... London Times... 150 years difference... textiles --- corrupt government... big money... what's the freaking difference?
Money is money and people are people. 150 years does not change that.
I'm a little confused as to what Herbert is trying to say here. On page 148, after detailing the huge difference between the tariff collections in New York and the Southern ports, he says, "And a massive amount of the exports going out of New York were from Southern plantations." Is he saying that the reason for the tariff collections was because of the export of Southern goods? That doesn't make any sense. Or is he saying that all that cotton and rice was shipped to New York and other northern ports for export? That is contradicted by the records of the time that show well over 90% of all cotton was exported from Southern ports. I imagine that the percentage for rice was the same.