Replies

which is relevant because you guys keep trying to claim that New York so dominated shipping that the south just HAD to secede.

Nobody said this.

Anywhere.

Ever.

Sorry, you don't get to make stuff up.

Okay, so I'm being hyperbolic and sarcastic, but that's the gist of it. All this talk about navigation laws and warehousing acts and who paid for dredging Charleston harbor is all in service of your side's position, which attempts to downplay the significance of protecting slavery in the decision to secede and emphasizes trade concerns.

And for the record, I'm not questioning that those concerns did cause some sectional friction. The Nullification Crisis shows that. But it wasn't enough to cause secession. Those tensions had been around for decades and the south was still getting richer. No, the overwhelming documentation of the time shows that protecting slavery after the election of LIncoln was the proximate cause of secession.

[Heyworth] The discussion is how busy was the port of New Orleans, which is relevant because you guys keep trying to claim that New York so dominated shipping that the south just HAD to secede.

[Gianni] Nobody said this. Anywhere. Ever. Sorry, you don't get to make stuff up.

[Pearidge] Post 803 New York shipping interests, using the Navigation Laws and in collaboration with the US Congress, effectively closed the market off from competitive shipping, and in spite of the inefficiencies, was able to control the movement of Southern goods.

[Pearidge] Post 823 With the control of the transportation trade business being dominated by Northern interests, and now being vastly aided by the Warehousing Act, southern planters began to complain. Many estimated that New York merchants were making 40 cents on every dollar, but being constantly in debt to the New Yorkers, they were hardly in a position to change this state of affairs. The Northerners were in full control of the market. This would eventually turn out to be a major cause of the secession.

Thats right Gianni YOU don't get to make stuff up. So please stop disrupting this debate by distracting attention away from the core subject. Pearidge made those absurd comments [among others]on this thread and both Heyworth and I challenged him on the issue. Heyworth from the New Orleans perspective and me from the Charleston perspective. Faced with a preponderance of sourced evidence to the contrary, Pearidge is now unable to competently defend his previous assertions. Hence your distracting presence..

You're starting to remind me of a rodeo clown Gianni, albeit a lousy one...