Posted on 03/02/2020 3:07:25 AM PST by Bull Snipe
I've quoted from it. Please point to the article that makes a slave-free state a possibility?
I did not say the goods were destined for Southern consumers. I said the goods were owned by Southerners.
Ah yes, the barter economy you seem to think existed. Still the question remains - if the goods were owned by Southerners then why didn't they land in Southern ports?
Oh and yes, the goods landed in Long Beach are destined for consumers all over the country. Of course, it comes as no surprise that economics is yet another area you know nothing about.
Just for the record Rufus King was the delegate from Massachusetts for the continental congress and Philadelphia convention and one of the signers of the United States Constitution.
Of course as FLT-Bird said about Madison, he was not a party to the constitution. So what would he and Madison know about it, they just created it is all.(Do I really need a sarcasm tag?)
Rufus was probably a “PC revisionist”...lol
LOL! From what I've read from you about all you seem to know about economics is how to spell it.
Surely you realize that there is a considerable difference between the transportation links available today as opposed to that available in 1860? The 1860 importer couldn't just load his goods on a covered wagon and send it south on I-95 to the ultimate consumers. Good moved by water or they really didn't move south at all. And if all those goods were destined for Southern consumers then why didn't they go directly to their nearest port?
How many British military units do you see waving the U.S. flag?
Its plain you don’t have the first clue about economics....or much of anything else. Where goods arrive says nothing about who owns the goods and thus who pays any tariffs on those goods. Similarly, it doesn’t matter who the goods were intended to be sold to. I used to think you were being deliberately obtuse in order to just argue for arguments’ sake. Now I think you really are just that ignorant.
Obviously some don’t get the whole concept of who the parties to a contract actually are. Hint, its not the guy who drafted the contract. Its the people who signed it. Those who have rights and duties under the contract. In this case it is the sovereign states. They were the signatories.
Because you said so? After reading your stuff I'm not overly impressed with your opinion of me.
Now I think you really are just that ignorant.
You think it was a barter economy and I'm the ignorant one? Really?
Who signed for South Carolina? Who signed for Virginia? Who signed for Pennsylvania?
Because your ignorance shines through in your posts.
And no, I did not say it was a “barter economy”. That’s just one of your typical strawman arguments.
We’re talking about the constitution. The states ratified it. They (the states) acting in their sovereign capacity, were the signatories.
Oh that's right. According to you the planters baled their cotton, loaded on a ship, rode the ship to Europe, sold the cotton, bought foreign goods, and came back to the states. And I'm the ignorant one.
Are strawman arguments all you’ve got? It would appear so judging from your posts.
The "black slave owners" in New Orleans were in fact overwhelmingly Creole--mixed black and French--who might have only 1/8th black blood, but were still classified as black under the "one drop" rules of the time.
Yes, some of the blacks were Creole and French, so? They were black and they were slaver owners. There were thousands of blacks all over the south, some owned large plantations, some were slave breeders.
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.