Replies

[Hey] You've talked about Warehousing Acts, Navigation Acts, and more. So I go off to learn more about those subjects. But what I find doesn't support what you claim they do. It only supports that the south didn't care to spend its capital on other things (imported luxury goods, perhaps) than on ships and harbor improvements.

[Pea] Somehow, I knew you would come around to arrogant bashing again. Let me give you an example again of what you don't know. In the earlier post on Charleston, you cut and pasted a quote from an author, P. C. Coker. He wrote a book entitled "Charleston's Maritime Heritage", and you pasted a paragraph from that book. Interestingly enough, elsewhere in the same book, he tells of the improvements in the harbor....particularly of a major dredging project that concluded in 1860. It was massive, and designed to develop a channel in the harbor to handle the newest and largest deep draft ocean going freighters. So, your contention: "...the south didn't care to spend its capital on other things (imported luxury goods, perhaps) than on ships and harbor improvements." ...is not only factually incorrect, but really arrogant bashing, Sir.

Actually South Carolina didn't mind spending FEDERAL dollars on deepening the Charleston Harbor. Those appropriations had been ongoing for almost a decade. H.R.585. Several decades if you go back to the FEDERAL appropriations to develop and improve a system of forts for the defense of Charleston Harbor. I haven't been able to uncover any evidence that those independent minded South Carolinians eschwed any of that FEDERAL largess however. State sovereignty has its limits...

Pea, rather than focusing you attention on what you perceive to be arrogant bashing , why don't you try presenting a cogent rebuttal to the charge that the South was in no way prohibited from any of the activities promoted by either the Warehousing Act or the Navigation Act. Failure to do so leaves a rather large hole in your 'unfair economic practices led the South to leave' paradigm [lol].

the South was in no way prohibited from any of the activities promoted by either the Warehousing Act or the Navigation Act. Failure to do so leaves a rather large hole in your 'unfair economic practices led the South to leave' paradigm

That's like saying the North was in no way prohibited from taking advantage of the cotton gin or the slave system, and their failure to do so left a rather large hole in the 'unfair economic practices led to separation' paradigm.

Tell me, is there anything, today, preventing North Dakota from taking advantage of coal subsidies? Or gaining benefit from a steel tariff? It seems those would be acts tartgeted to benefit states like West Virginia or Pennsylvania, regardless of where they apply.

"Actually South Carolina didn't mind spending FEDERAL dollars on deepening the Charleston Harbor. Those appropriations had been ongoing for almost a decade. H.R.585."

Coker stated that those appropriations were made. I do not have any information to indicate if the funds were spent or not.

However it is clear from Coker's work that the project was not completed with Federal Funds. In fact, Coker reported that city and state money had to be obtained for the completion of the project. See above post.

"...Several decades if you go back to the FEDERAL appropriations to develop and improve a system of forts for the defense of Charleston Harbor."

Yes, that came about as a result of the War of 1812, with the permission of the Constitution..."...to provide for the common defense..."

"I haven't been able to uncover any evidence that those independent minded South Carolinians eschwed any of that FEDERAL largess however."

Have you uncovered any evidence that the New Yorkers eschewed the Federal largess that built the Erie Canal?

"Pea, rather than focusing you attention on what you perceive to be arrogant bashing"

You mean perceptions such as this:

Mac truck post 80--"How dare you suggest that Southern gentlemen actually take responsibility for this sort of enterprise. Why that would require...hard work, sweat, and mingling with mud-sills. Not to mention, skill and ingenuity..."

"why don't you try presenting a cogent rebuttal to the charge that the South was in no way prohibited from any of the activities promoted by either the Warehousing Act or the Navigation Act."

Prohibition is your word. Protection is mine.

Beginning in 1789 American shipping companies in the Northeast were protected against foreign shipping competition by laws that required domestic importers and exporters to pay a fee to the Customs department if they used foreign ships for trade. These fees were then disbursed to private shipping companies as compensation

Other protectionist laws were arranged to the advantage of Northeastern shipping interests. To discourage competitive shipping, no person or company was permitted to purchase a fully rigged ship from foreign sources.