Posted on 12/24/2003 10:30:18 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan
Abraham Lincoln, with his son Tad in tow, walked around Richmond, Virginia, one day 138 years ago, and if you try to retrace their steps today you won't see much that they saw, which shouldn't be a surprise, of course. The street grid is the same, though, and if you're in the right mood and know what to look for, the lineaments of the earlier city begin to surface, like the outline of a scuttled old scow rising through the shallows of a pond. Among the tangle of freeway interchanges and office buildings you'll come across an overgrown park or a line of red-brick townhouses, an unlikely old belltower or a few churches scattered from block to block, dating to the decades before the Civil War and still giving off vibrations from long ago.
From 1846 to 1860 the average US tariff rate either remained the same or decreased from one year to the next. There was not a single tariff hike in this period, thus trade was not stifled. Before 1846 tariffs were significantly higher and still protectionist, but even they showed a downward trend from the peak rates in 1828 save a few intermittent hikes. When taxes on trade go down at a near-continuous rate it is not at all surprising that trade will also grow at a near continuous rate. All that changes though when you take a low tax rate and triple it overnight, which is exactly what the Morrill Act did in 1861.
As has been asked of you many times, on that point may we safely conclude that Bentonville, Arkansas consumes more Wal-Mart goods than any other town in the nation?
Bentonville is Wal-Mart's largest distributorship meaning Wal-Mart goods ship through Bentonville than any other place in America. Yet one could drive for 100 miles or more in practically any direction from Bentonville and see nothing but chicken, corn, and cattle because it is in the middle of nowhere. Your logic, if true, would have us believe that so many of Wal-Mart's goods go to Bentonville because Bentonville is where the consumers are. And don't give me your usual crap about regional distribution centers. For over a decade Bentonville was the only Wal-Mart distributorship in the nation and it still serves as the distributorship for significantly more populated cities throughout the south central united states.
For example, if 80% of the imports are destined for southern consumers the it makes more sense to send those goods directly to southern ports like Charleston and Mobile and New Orleans.
Not necessarily. Warehousing in NYC could, for example, be cheaper and more widely available than in New Orleans. Similarly, NYC may be better geographically suited as an import hub than New Orleans, which requires navigation into the Gulf of Mexico instead of being directly accessible from the Atlantic coast. Or it could simply be the case that inland railroads and waterways are cheaper means of mass transportation than seabound vessles. In 1860 there was not a single major southern city to the east of the Mississippi that was not accessible by rail from virtually any point on the east coast, making inland shipping an easy task.
As a further deviation from your little "rule," one may conclude that it is sensible to ship over land to regions that are not accessible or at least not easily accessible by sea. How do you suppose people in Indiana and Tennessee got their goods, non-seq? Since neither has an ocean port it would be impossible other than an inland road, railroad, or waterway.
Ports closest to the consumers and which would ensure the consumers would receive their goods without any unnecessary additional costs.
Not necessarily. It is almost always cheaper today to buy an airline ticket that stops over in a hub city than a direct flight, even if the hub is hundreds of miles out of the way. The same has always been true of shipping - it is normally cheaper to ship indirectly through one common location then distribute outward from it than to go from each individual point on one end to each individual point on the other end. If your rule were true, which it is not, it would have been cheaper prior to the Panama Canal to sail a ship from Europe around cape horn to San Francisco since that was technically the "direct" route of doing things. Instead they either went to Panama and shipped inland across the isthmus to another ship on the Pacific side or, after 1869, stuck it on a train in the east shipped it inland across the continent.
Simply put, for your little "rule" to be true so must each of the following conditions:
1. Transport by sea must always be cheaper than any other method of transport
2. Direct transport to any given location must always be cheaper than indirect transport to that same location
3. Locations with no access to a seaport must be assumed not to consume imports for reason of that seaport's absence.
Each of these assumptions is not simply demonstrably false - they are all demonstrably absurd as well, and the collapse of any one of them makes your little "rule" collapse as well.
Madison did no such thing, Walt.
Yes he did; from a letter to George Washington:
"To give a new system its proper validity and energy, a ratification must be obtained from the people, and not merely from the ordination of the Legislatures. This will be the more essential, as inroads on the existing Constitutions of the States will be unavoidable."
April 16th, 1787
Washington had written Madison:
"Let prejudices, unreasonable jealousies, and local interest yield to reason and liberality. Let us look to our National character, and to things beyond the present period. No morn ever dawned more favourably than ours did; and no day was ever more clouded than the present! Wisdom, and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm. Virginia has now an opportunity to set the latter, and has enough of the former, I hope, to take the lead in promoting this great and arduous work. Without some alteration in our political creed, the superstructure we have been seven years raising at the expence of so much blood and treasure, must fall. We are fast verging to anarchy and confusion! ... What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our governments than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man for life, liberty, or property? To you, I am sure I need not add aught on this subject, the consequences of a lax, or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen Sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the foederal head will soon bring ruin on the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched, to prevent incroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim, and the brightest prospect of attaining."
The framers clearly wanted a more powerful government. President Lincoln had nothing to do with it.
How'd your Vols do?
They lost their poise and were humiliated.
Walt
Only if you can safely show how 95% of all Wal-Mart goods pass through Bentonville. You claim over and again that it's the largest distributorship of all the hundreds of Wal-Mart's distribution centers. How much of Wal-Marts goods pass do through there? 25%? 30%? 5%? 1%? Does that single distribution center support a disproportionate number of Wal-mart stores? Does it support 80% of them? 70% of them? 1% of them?
Bentonville is Wal-Mart's largest distributorship meaning Wal-Mart goods ship through Bentonville than any other place in America.
Don't tell that to the people in Georgia. They think that their's is. Link
Not necessarily.
Yeah, OK. You have ports capable of handling almost all your cotton exports but can't handle any more than 3% or 4% of your imports. All those ships coming to load cotton come empty after having dropped all their southern-bound imports in New York. By your reasoning it would make more sense to send the cotton to New York, Boston, and Philadelphia for export.
Similarly, NYC may be better geographically suited as an import hub than New Orleans, which requires navigation into the Gulf of Mexico instead of being directly accessible from the Atlantic coast.
How? Hub implies a central location. Why not Mobile or Charleston as a hub? They are more centrally located for the area consuming 80% of all imports than New York was. They had rail lines built to get the cotton to the ports, why not use those lines to get the imports to the consumers? And why not New Orleans? By far the largest percentage of cotton exports left from there. It was the gateway to the rest of the south via the Mississippi River. Steaming to the Gulf of Mexico to pick up cotton didn't seem to be a problem, why would steaming to the Gulf of Mexico to drop off all those imports destined for southern consumers be?
Or it could simply be the case that inland railroads and waterways are cheaper means of mass transportation than seabound vessles.
What inland waterways and/or rail lines provided direct and easy connection between New York and Alabama or Mississippi or Louisiana?
It is almost always cheaper today to buy an airline ticket that stops over in a hub city than a direct flight, even if the hub is hundreds of miles out of the way.
Delta Airlines used to have a lock on air travel in the south. Everything flowed through their Atlanta hub. The old joke was that if you died in Alabama you would have to change in Atlanta on your way to heaven. But for your analogy to be applicable, Delta would have built it's first hub in New York. After all, three large air ports already existed. It was centrally located to Europe. Why build or expand an airport in Atlanta when New York was already there?
The same has always been true of shipping - it is normally cheaper to ship indirectly through one common location then distribute outward from it than to go from each individual point on one end to each individual point on the other end.
I'll grant you that. It would be much more efficient to send imports to Mobile or Charleston or New Orleans for distribution than directly to individual towns and villages in Alabama, South Carolina, or Louisiana. But if 80% of your goods are destined for consumers in one area then it makes no sense to send them a thousand miles away first.
1. Transport by sea must always be cheaper than any other method of transport.
In the first half of the 19th century that fact was still true.
2. Direct transport to any given location must always be cheaper than indirect transport to that same location.
Not always true but not really relevant. Still, given prevailing winds and currents, sailing to the southern and central U.S. was often an easier trip than to New York or Boston.
3. Locations with no access to a seaport must be assumed not to consume imports for reason of that seaport's absence.
I haven't a clue how you managed to stumble onto that conclusion.
Affirmative Action, legalization of sodomy, constant pro-abortion pandering, and the establishment of "diversity" as a legal principle...yeah, Sandra Day O'Connor sure sounds like a great conservative to me....NOT.
And I truly could care less if Reagan appointed her. It was without doubt a mistake. Remember it was Dwight Eisenhower who appointed the most liberal justice this century, Earl Warren. Ike later said it was one of his biggest mistakes but the fact is that being appointed by a Republican does not make you a conservative. Several of those 9th circuit Jacobins were appointed by Nixon for example. John Paul Stevens was appointed by Ford and David Souter was appointed by Bush Sr. Would you dare to call any of those men conservatives? I think not.
I suppose if a hostile nation set up a base on Ellis Island, we would just politely ask them to leave and then ignore them if they didn't. Lincoln was spoiling for a fight and used Sumter to get things started. Sumter resulted in 0 casualties and the surrendering Union garrison was treated with utmost respect by the Confederates. This was played up back in the North to get political support for Lincoln's war.
Nope. The average tariff rate trend from roughly 1832 to 1860 was consistently downward save one large hike that lasted about two years in the early 1840's. 1861's Morrill tariff was the first large tariff hike in over 30 years.
This is the same babe who gave us McCain-Feingold and affirmative action for university admissions (but only for 20 years because any longer would be a violation of the Constitution). I think you would be well served in finding another source.
Very typical of a republicrat. They have been trying to convince the populace that they are the lesser of two evils, which of course still makes them evil. The fact is that the legislatures of those states approved of succession. What happened after that was for the Confederates to sort out, not Lincoln.
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.