Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Heyworth
Hey, good info, thanks!

I knew Minnesota had limited mining, but was not aware that it was widespread in the NoDak. Unfortunately, as I said, I don't think that one mine really counteracts my point, since North Dakota falls in this coal production breakdown in "Other States" which total roughly that of W. Virginia.

So... hopefully now that we've established that what I said was 100% correct, and certain states are geographically predisposed to take advantage of certain laws, and certain states have established industries which allow them to do so, are there any other distractions prior to addressing how improvements to shipping and favorable trade laws were more beneficial to those with established shipping industries, geographically located in an ideal position to carry it out?

927 posted on 10/10/2005 6:49:05 PM PDT by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 921 | View Replies ]


To: Gianni
are there any other distractions prior to addressing how improvements to shipping and favorable trade laws were more beneficial to those with established shipping industries, geographically located in an ideal position to carry it out?

"Geographically located"? That might apply if the south didn't have a coast, but last time I looked it did.More than the northeast, it looks like.

But I'll grant that some government laws favor some more than others. Sugar subsidies don't do much for me, personally, since I don't grow sugar. That doesn't mean that I think I can secede over it. And I think that in the case of the navigation laws (which were modeled on Britain's similar laws), there's a greater national good to be obtained. The encouragement of a vigorous trading fleet is a good thing, and after a period of protection it might stand on its own. The development of domestic industry is a good thing over a reliance on foreign imports for manufactured goods in a world that can quickly turn hostiile. Don't forget that in 1860, the French were throwing their weight around in Mexico and Canada was still part of the British Empire--an empire with whom we'd fought two wars in our brief history and some members of which still had at least dreams of reclaiming us (e.g. Cecil Rhodes).

In the end, this comes down to a free trade absolutism vs. some degree of protectionism, and I come down on the protectionist side. With the benefit of hindsight, I think it's clear that an industrialized, post-slavery United States was much better positioned to become a world power than it would have been if the south had had its way.

And besides, it's not like the south was being impoverished, as the previously stated statistics about average income and wealthiest men show. Ultimately, if this debate is going to come down to northern greed vs. southern greed, each cloaked in some version of idealism, I'll take the northern variety.

946 posted on 10/11/2005 9:42:10 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 927 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson