Posted on 04/10/2025 2:41:26 AM PDT by Libloather
Ok…what were the death rates. Do you know? Was it really that bad?
I dont know about modern day comparisons to the civil war.
Today, we have a welfare state funded by borrowed money. It will end, probably sooner rather than later.
At that point any pre-conceived notions of what people will or will not do to survive in terms of work are meaningless.
There are jobs that people wont do today because its easier and more profitable not to work.
That doesnt mean that those jobs will not be done in the future when it is not more profitable not to work.
There wont be a return to slavery or uncontrolled immigration. It may seem like it to layabouts who are forced to work in order to eat, but thats another issue entirely.
I read recently the “slave” business in America began when a black man sued a black “indentured” servant and won, which gave him the right to “own” the black man. I also read a black man was the most prominent slave owner in Louisiana.
Is Crockett hoping these “immigrants” will turn us into slaves?
That’s the consequences of the coming industrial age on social/ labor conditions that did not exist before. The Britta only had modern labor law in 1830s and 1840s, around the same time Fair Labor Standard Acts in the US.
Don’t insult the confederates. They raped and enslaved only nlack folks.
Dems rape and enslave everyone.
Hitler killed jews and neighbors. Stalin killed everyone, like Mao.
NYC would have rapidly died out had it not been sucking in people from the outside constantly because the death rates were vastly higher than the birth rates. One of the big infrastructure projects paid for by federal money raised by tariffs overwhelmingly on Southern goods was the NYC Sewer system. It took quite a while to construct it and get all the sewage out of town so there wouldn't be quite as much disease. For example, NYC had big cholera outbreaks in 1832, 1849 and 1866. The story in other big cities in the North wasn't that different at the time.
This difference was Ellis Island and the fact the country had control over who was accepted and who wasn't.
With democrats it's always who's paying them off... The illegals didn't get here on their own. They were moved by global elites to undermine the country NOT to 'pick crops'.
That was a cover story.
Fewer than 3% ever picked crops. Most moved to large democrat cities and cashed in on benefits provided by corrupt democrat groups - NGO's nonprofits etc - - -and idiots like FEMA who took funds earmarked for American citizens and put illegals up in four and five star hotels...
I'm not saying its "the same as" chattel slavery. I'm saying those at the very bottom of the social order in the North at that time had living conditions that were at least as bad if not worse than chattel slaves had. Remember, a privately owned slave represents a big investment on the part of the owner. Slaves were expensive. Yet another peasant from Europe was cheap. Nobody owned them. Industrialists didn't much care if plenty of them died or got their arms ripped off by the machinery in their factories. There was plenty more of where that came from.
and hunger/poverty made people ripe for human trafficking in the sex trade back then too.
and the ships that came across were so stuffed to the gunnels with hungry/sick people that they were often called "coffin ships" due to all of those who were dying on the way over.
Think of what Dickens often described. Think of the horrible conditions Marx described. Much as I think Marx's proposed solution was a utopian fantasy that led to disaster, he wasn't making up his descriptions of the awful conditions the urban poor industrial workers lived in when describing Birmingham, England at that time.
You really did not want to be on the bottom of the social order up North at that time either. Being "free" to starve in a world with no social safety net and no laws designed to protect you or allow you to make a recovery for your injuries wasn't freedom as you or I would know it.
"Ah'm so glad to see our black sister taking up the Lost Cause! Damnation's not all drudge and torture as the Fallen One lets those of us who've served him well in life to monitor the current world. And what a world you have with most negroes voting firmly on the plantation despite generations of broken promises. Throwing so much taxpayer money at teachers' unions has paid off handsomely with legions of pickaninnies too clumsy for sports and too ignorant for productive work resorting to crime and welfare, perpetuating the cycle of Democrats getting elected.
Used to be we'd have the darkies working the fields, the lighter ones practicing low-skill tasks and the high yellows up at the Big House. You put a mixed-blood in THE Big House! Now those who used to pick the cotton are now in Congress saying that's an illegal immigrant's job. Ah'm so proud that the Party has proven it's capable of progressing with the times while simultaneously keeping the grand old traditions alive for future generations.
Now pardon me - it's my day to starch the rob...er, sheets for the brotherhood."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whew, that was horrible. Why do I have a hankering for a Mint Julip?
The Confederates made it clear on two occasions that they were willing — even eager — to give up slavery in return for being rid of Lincoln.
In February of 1861 (two months before the attack on Ft Sumter), US Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio proposed a constitutional amendment to protect slavery from congressional interference. The bill passed both houses by supermajority and was signed by President James Buchanan on his way out of the White House.
Ohio and Maryland voted to ratify the amendment but no Confederate state so much as put it up for a vote, despite the fact that it might lave led to constitutional protection for their “peculiar institution.”
Then in January of 1865, President Jefferson Davis sent Louisiana representative Duncan F Kenner to Europe as an envoy to solicit formal recognition of the Confederate States from the French and the British. Kenner probably was the largest slaveholder in the Confederacy and it was he who had approached Davis with the idea of courting the Europeans for their support in return for their pledge to end slavery.
Kenner first met with Emperor Napoleon III of France (nephew of Bonaparte), who agreed to Kenner’s terms, probably thinking that once freed from the war against the USA, the CSA could assist him in keeping the struggling Emperor Maximilian propped up in Mexico. Plus he thought the CSA could protect French Mexico from any intentions the USA might have had from continuing their expansion southward. But his support came with one proviso. France only would recognize the CSA if the British did as well.
After the Battle of Antietam there had been rumblings in Whitehall that they needed to intervene in the War Between the States for fear that the havoc it was wreaking on North America’s infrastructure could come to damage the European economy as well. This was reinforced after Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation because they viewed it as the act of a desperate man, a sign he must fear he’s losing the war.
So when Kenner traveled to England in March of 1845, he probably held out hope, which was dashed when British Prime Minister Henry John Temple Lord Palmerston refused to even meet with Kenner and his delegation. At the time there was much conjecture as to why but the truth finally came out in 1914 when a review of Palmerston’s personal letters found that he felt both the cabinet and the voting populace would take it badly if he moved to support the “slave-holding” Confederacy.
And thus fell the Confederate States of America, which hated Lincoln more than it loved slavery.
One Southerner made that argument to critize Borthern Capitalism, and he called slavery a form of Socalism, he name eas Fritzhigh, I belive.
But you still didn’t tell us what the death rate was.
Looks like the big growth came between 1890 and 1930. That would pretty much coincide with the immigrant growth in the rest of the nation.
One of the big infrastructure projects paid for by federal money raised by tariffs overwhelmingly on Southern goods was the NYC Sewer system.
So you are saying that the Feds charged tariffs on Southern exports not on imports like the rest of the known world does. And then they gave the money to New York City to build the sewers. Is that it?
The US largely shut the door to mass immigration after 1910.
So you are saying that the Feds charged tariffs on Southern exports not on imports like the rest of the known world does. And then they gave the money to New York City to build the sewers. Is that it?
No. I'm saying that at that time the exporters were the importers. The exporters had to charter the ships and pay the crews, the insurance, etc to ship their goods across the Atlantic. They then had to fill the holds of those ships with something to try to help pay for the return voyage across the Atlantic. So sellers of Cotton, Tobacco, etc (ie Southerners) used the money from selling their goods to buy manufactured goods in the the UK and France. Those manufactured goods then got hit by the import tariff when they returned to the US.
Northern manufacturers who could not really compete economically with Britain and France naturally wanted very high tariff barriers. This let them increase prices in the US and still gain market share. They got very high tariffs (called the Tariff of Abominations) in the 1820s and it was wrecking the Southern economy. Not only were Southerners now paying more for manufactured goods, but they were also having to pay this tariff on the goods they bought over in Europe for import. Even their exports were hit as the Europeans could not afford to buy as much of their goods now that they'd been squeezed out of one of their big export markets and had less cash themselves. This is what caused the Nullification Crisis in the early 1830s.
A generation later the Northern corporate interests were at it again pushing for a very high tariff again. This time it was the Morrill Tariff. It passed the House and was certain to pass the US Senate. All that was needed was to bribe one or two Senators from various border states. The South had seen this before and they knew that this time - thanks to faster population growth in the North due to immigration - they did not have the political power to stop high tariffs anymore. All they had to look forward to was watching Northern special interests line their own pockets while simultaneously wrecking the economy of the Southern states to do so. That's what caused them to secede. Slavery wasn't the issue. The Lincoln administration and the North was perfectly willing to protect slavery by express constitutional amendment effectively forever. The thing they would not compromise over was the Tariff. The Southern states rejected their offer to protect slavery but keep the high tariff.
Wrong. See the The Immigration Act of 1924
You really bought into the Lost Cause BS hook, line and sinker. I’d urge you to study some economics and US History not the neo confederate lies.
You really bought into the PC Revisionist lie hook, line and sinker. I urge YOU to study some economics and US history, not PC Revisionist lies. Read for example the Corwin Amendment. Read Lincoln's inaugural address. Read any of a number of editorials in Northern, Southern and English Newspapers at the time about what the real motivations for secession and war really were. Read Charles Beard. Read Charles Adams' When in the Course of Human Events, etc etc
OK. Allow me to rephrase. Immigration slowed dramatically after about 1910. First the First World War slowed immigration greatly. Then add in the Immigration Act of 1917 which added literacy tests that dramatically restricted immigration due to many of them not speaking English. THEN came the National Origin quota system in the 1920s.
I have read all of those, even the crypto socialist idiot Beard (you might guess that I have no respect for his economic determinism BS).
As to the Corwin Amendment that you keep citing, people like Lincoln had no problem with it because Constitutionally, it changed nothing. Slavery, where it then existed, could only be eliminated with a constitutional amendment. With the 3/4 state approval requirement, there was no chance then or now of it being eliminated. But where Lincoln and others refused to budge was on the issue of slavery in the territories. They were strongly opposed and believed that they had to constitutional rights to forbid it.
Lincoln's first inaugural address stated this clearly. Slavery where it existed was safe, but there would be no expansion.
The people who you claim were simply fighting tariffs, not only failed to mention tariffs, but knew intuitively that without new markets to sell their excess slaves to, they would soon be demographically swelled by the slave population. Finding new markets for slaves was of the upmost importance to them if they didn't want to end up dead like in Haiti.
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.