Lincoln holiday on its way out (West Virginia)

West Virginia Gazette Mail ^ | 9-8-2005 | Phil Kabler

[mac_truck]

[mac] "If the City of Charleston was funding the dredging project in 1857 [as you have claimed] and had purchased the General Moultrie from New York for that purpose, why was the dredgeboat charging 66cents per cubic yard for the work, and who was paying the bill?"

[pea] Well, since I already gave you the direct quote which does not prompt your question...

...and since you were presented with Coker's quote and you state it was my claim..

And since you still want to continue this argumentative line of questioning...

..it is finally time for you to admit that your reference to H.R. 585 was invalid, and that you have no evidence to refute Coker's statement that Charleston underwrote the project.

It looks like you have your patented Weasel Dance down pretty good, but you still managed to avoid answering the question...Who was paying the bill?

[mac_truck]

In case you did not see it, among the many sources I have provided to our friends on the great success of New York for the clarification of their errors is this piece from Harvard, address below.

Here is one of my favorite passages from the Harvard Address you referenced.

"Despite these advantages, the growth of New York during its first 130 years was relatively modest. Generally, New York was America’s third or fourth busiest port. In tonnage, it lagged behind Boston and Charleston in the early 18th century and behind Boston and Philadelphia in the late colonial period."

In 1786 Charleston alone shipped 1.5 million lbs. of cotton overseas. Those who claim the South didn't have an established shipping business when the First Congress of the United States enacted protective laws toward domestic shipping are either being sloppy or willfully deceptive.

[Gianni]

From Europe, sure.

For international shipping to and from Europe, that seems significant.

[Gianni]

"Despite these advantages, the growth of New York during its first 130 years was relatively modest. Generally, New York was America’s third or fourth busiest port. In tonnage, it lagged behind Boston and Charleston in the early 18th century and behind Boston and Philadelphia in the late colonial period."

Does "busiest port" mean, "leader in international shipping?"

[Heyworth]

And for southern exports and imports, and for access to the west via the Mississippi, much less so. And since the tables Pea gives us in the #779 link show that 1,918 ships visited New Orleans in the 12 months prior to August 31, 1860 ( a figure that doesn't include steamboats, btw), it's pretty clear that New Orleans was a thriving, major port.

[Heyworth]

Those who claim the South didn't have an established shipping business when the First Congress of the United States enacted protective laws toward domestic shipping are either being sloppy or willfully deceptive.

But you also keep telling us that the reason New York became preeminent was because of its superior location, superior harbor depth, superior transportation links to the interior and capitalists who were willing to take more risks. And that they had warehouses. Add up all of those and the navigation laws seem pretty small potatoes, especially since there was nothing in them that would have prevented southern business interests from taking advantage of the same laws, had they cared to so invest their capital. But they didn't. Instead they concentrated on agricultural production and enjoyed the highest per capita income in the country because of it.

[Gianni]

But they didn't. Instead they concentrated on agricultural production and enjoyed the highest per capita income in the country because of it.

Did you guys forget why we were talking about this?

The whole point of this was that Southern investments were turning away from plantations and slave labor, and serious improvements were being introduced to allow them to compete with Northern shipping.

[Heyworth]

The whole point of this was that Southern investments were turning away from plantations and slave labor, and serious improvements were being introduced to allow them to compete with Northern shipping.

So then what did navigation laws and warehousing acts have to do with secession? If those were no longer going to be issues, what was?

[PeaRidge]

Since the H.R. 585 you brought up was not put in the budget, meaning that the Federal Government was not funding anything in Charleston, then Mr. Coker must have been right after all...Charleston dredged its own channel, and moved into the group of harbors now able to process deep draft ocean going vessels.

[PeaRidge]

And by the way, that was not a claim. It was a quote.

[PeaRidge]

Ah, yes, the old you are "sloppy or willfully deceptive" tactic.

Good for you, Gianni. You finally got him to read something for a change. This has got to have a major impact on his I.Q.

Oops, I mis-spoke. Look at this from our old pal:

"In 1786 Charleston alone shipped 1.5 million lbs. of cotton overseas."

Then his next sentence begins with "those who claim the South didn't have an established shipping business".

He has quoted a statement that alone sounds impressive, and would lead to all sorts of conclusions, including the wrong ones.

Mac, you are quoting a volume shipped, but offer no evidence on what it was shipped. Therefore that quote only has relevance on some amount of cotton shipped, and not the shipping business.

So, how about some truth. According to Coker, Charleston shipped its first load of cotton to Liverpool in 1785.

"But a second shipment arrived in Liverpool the following month via New York, and that was the beginning of the roundabout trade that was to swell to such tremendous proportions in the next century...By 1822 some 55 percent of New York's exports to Liverpool were Southern products, most notably cotton and naval stores."

Then you say:

"Those who claim the South didn't have an established shipping business when the First Congress of the United States enacted protective laws toward domestic shipping are either being sloppy or willfully deceptive."

It would seem that you are the one being sloppy.

[PeaRidge]

"And since the tables Pea gives us in the #779 link show that 1,918 ships visited New Orleans in the 12 months prior to August 31, 1860 ( a figure that doesn't include steamboats, btw),"

If you reread the tables, the 1,918 number does include steam boats.

[MayflowerMadam]

Dems must be in a quandry: Villify Abe for being a Republican, or pay tribute to him for freeing the slaves? (When will they check the facts and find out that it has ALWAYS been the Republicans making law to advance civil rights?)

[Gianni]

So then what did navigation laws and warehousing acts have to do with secession? If those were no longer going to be issues, what was?

Free shipping at low tariff rates into Southern Ports after secession. That's where this all started, remember?

[PeaRidge]

"Did you guys forget why we were talking about this?"

They are so used to using "extremes" to try to refute a point, that their convoluted logic has caused them to go into reverse gear. And they will reverse again, thus completing a circle of logic. Reminds me of that early 70s song, "You Got Me Going in Circles".

"The whole point of this was that Southern investments were turning away from plantations and slave labor, and serious improvements were being introduced to allow them to compete with Northern shipping."

That is exactly right. These guys look as if they have never read anything on the South of the 1850s. Shipbuilding and warehousing were on the increase. Banking and finance were becoming competitive. The South was turning more toward their own manufacturing.

And with secession, all of these industries would no longer be regulated by Federal Laws. The South would direct export and import with no taxes or tariffs. Newly dredged Charleston would compete with New York, and the New Orleans--Mississippi trade to the West would siphon off traffic on the other side of New York.

They were in a bad fix.

[Heyworth]

And despite all that, South Carolina didn't think to mention it in their declaration, and instead just keeping talking on and on about slavery. Ultimately all of the south's objections to the tariff can be seen as merely another aspect of their defense of an economic system that hypocritically trumpeted the virtues of free trade while standing on the backs of slave labor.

It's interesting, for example, that the rising price of slaves ( at a time when it's claimed the institution was on its last legs) led the Southern Commercial Convention to adopt a resolution calling for renewing the slave trade, maybe on those new ships Charleston was building.

[mac_truck]

Add up all of those and the navigation laws seem pretty small potatoes, especially since there was nothing in them that would have prevented southern business interests from taking advantage of the same laws, had they cared to so invest their capital.

Agreed, and to a certain extent early Charleston residents did just that. Prior to the invention of the cotton gin, Charleston exported corn, rice, indio, & timber among other things. Foreign flagged ships from all over Europe made regular stops in Charleston harbor bringing in finished goods, cloth, and a surprising [to me anyway] amount of hard liquor. I've got some numbers that I'll post later that details the Charleston planters thirst for imported booze. It explains much about their incoherence when it came to matters of developing an internal infrastucture or internal improvements.

[Gianni]

And despite all that, South Carolina didn't think to mention it in their declaration,

And once again... we're not talking about Southern motivation for secession, but Northern objection to it.

This is the third time I've had to remind you of the basic subject, meaning you're trying to pull what we call a "Non," where you start discussing a point, get to the bottom-level detail, then integrate the smallest factoid back up into something that was never discussed in the first place.

[Gianni]

[Heyworth] Add up all of those and the navigation laws seem pretty small potatoes

[mac] Agreed,

The heavyweights of econ have weighed in against us. Perhaps it's time to throw in the towel.

[Non-Sequitur]

And you pinged me why?