Posted on 01/11/2019 5:16:40 AM PST by TexasGunLover
AUSTIN, Texas — A historically inaccurate brass plaque honoring confederate veterans will come down after a vote this morning, WFAA has learned.
The State Preservation Board, which is in charge of the capitol building and grounds, meets this morning at 10:30 a.m. to officially decide the fate of the metal plate.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
According to Porter in his memoirs, he personally convinced the President to give him secret orders taking command of the ship, and the implication was that they were written in Lincoln's own hand.
Porter advised him to give him a hand carried order because if it went through the Navy department, the information contained therein would be "flashed across the wires" to the South.
I believe the order relieving Captain Mercer of command has been made public, because I think I've read a copy of it sometime in the last year.
The fact that officials in Charleston knew about the details of the resupply mission, that seems to have been the case.
You may be shocked to learn the Confederates knew the gist of the mission back in early March.
WAR DEPARTMENT, C. S. A., Montgomery, March 9, 1861.
"...There is information at this Department–not official, it is true, but believed to be reliable–that five or six United States ships are in New York Harbor all ready to start.The United States steamer Pawnee has left Philadelphia suddenly for Washington, fully provisioned and ready to go to sea, and it is probable that the effort to re-enforce Sumter may be made by sending in men in whale-boats by night. Should this plan succeed and the garrison be re-enforced sufficiently to stand an assault the attempt may be made to fight their way up by five or six war vessels.
Yes, they had spies everywhere, and the only way that Powhatan trick could have been pulled off was with hand carried secret orders.
The Confederates were expecting it to show up and lead the attack against them. The only way they were taken by surprise was this oddity of Porter making off with the ship by the authority of orders that did not come through official channels.
Like I said, the luckiest mistake Lincoln could have possibly made. A miraculously "lucky" mistake.
So why was Porter flying the British flag? What need had he for deception if it was all just a "mistake"?
Which is why it initially passed with support from the Southern states. It wasn't till later that they discovered how it was to be used to rack up profits and control for the same North Eastern headquartered businesses.
Nothing in the Navigation act requires the use of New York or Northeastern shipping companies.
You should read how William Willberforce cleverly tricked the Slave side into accepting proposed legislation that had no obvious threat in it when it was passed.
They didn't see the threat in it, and in so many years, that legislation utterly destroyed the slave trade.
They all believed that cotton was essential to the wealth of the world and that civilization itself was based on cotton and slavery. None of them thought that cotton prices would go down. Few of them had much interest in industrialization. Jefferson Davis said as much in his Boston speech, just as Wigfall did in the interview.
Most Southern secessionists liked living in an agrarian society and thought they would make out well as a plantation economy that provided raw material for foreign industries. They did not like the factory system of the North. They had contempt for Northern society, See Hammond's "Mudsill" speech or the Muscogee Herald newspaper which wrote:
Free Society! we sicken at the name. What is it but a conglomeration of greasy mechanics, filthy operatives, small-fisted farmers, and moon-struck theorists? All the Northern men and especially the New England States are devoid of society fitted for well-bred gentlemen. The prevailing class one meet with is that of mechanics struggling to be genteel, and small farmers who do their own drudgery, and yet are hardly fit for association with a Southern gentleman's body servant. This is your free society which Northern hordes are trying to extend into Kansas.
Once the war started and things went badly for the Confederacy, they realized the importance of industrialization, but apart from a few latter-day Hamiltonians, like Trescott, few secessionists thought that way before the war. If you want to believe that secessionists thought the Cotton Kingdom would come to an end and wanted to industrialize, you have to ignore what most prominent secessionists said. You have to assume that they had knowledge and opinions that they didn't express. And if you focus on those very few secessionists who really did want to industrialize, you get people who wanted the Confederacy to have high tariffs, government subsidies, high taxes, and government-funded factories and public works - all the things that Confederates and neo-Confederates claim to be against.
But I don't think you will convince Birdman. He's working from the top down, starting from general beliefs and assuming that the facts and historical texts will support the way he thinks the world works, rather than from the bottom up, starting from the historical record and working up to the generalizations. And the Northern economy was based on slavery while Southerners barely thought about slavery at all. It's hard to know what to do with that, but people have to believe what they want to believe.
The funny thing is, we spend years trying to convince Diogenes that eventually cotton prices would come down as more countries and colonies got involved and now we have FLT-Bird saying that of course everybody knew that all along. Funny world.
Which United States law required ships from Europe to unload their cargos in New York or other Northern ports. Still waiting for the answer.
The law of economics, to which US law must also bow. The Navigation act of 1817 made it uneconomical for them (foreign ships) to visit Southern ports, because they could only visit one. (for profit.)
You ignore my point that the blockade boosted the world wide competition to a level it would not have achieved without the blockade.
Foreign cotton farms could not match the production advantage of slave plantations unless they too were slave plantations.
The Slave plantations would have always been able to sell cheaper product, and so they could always undercut any foreign competition so long as they wished to do so.
Sure, eventually foreign cotton producers could get market share, but it would have been a long hard slough without the blockade giving them an instant market.
This seems like simple economics to me. Why can you seemingly not see it?
So the navigation act of 1817 was the only reason in the world, that Europeans shipped to New York or other Northern port. Has nothing to do with the fact that New York had more capacity for ships than all Southern ports combined, that it was two day closer sailing. none of these factors applied, only the Navigation act of 1817. So the millions of bales of cotton that left New Orleans, Mobile, Charleston, Savannah between 1817 and 1860, were all hauled out by Northern ships.
You are ignoring the value of money and the living standards of various regions. Perhaps a poor peasant living in Turkey or China or India or Ethiopia or Brazil could grow cotton more cheaply than a slaveowner in Mississippi because of his low cost of living and low standard of living and the differences in the value of various currencies. But if you are still interested in this topic you can take it up with FLT-Bird.
No, it wasn't. New York was 800 miles closer than Charleston, it had better harbors, better docks, warehouses and every other sort of facility. New York had plenty of natural advantages to induce traffic to go there. The laws just made it so that other ports couldn't compete with their natural advantages.
The only thing that could have induced people to carry shipping traffic 800 miles further to the South was a greater profit, but so long as the Navigation act was in effect, It was hard for foreign ships to make profit going an extra 800 miles to have to pay the same tariff duties.
With Foreign ships effectively kept away from visiting these other port cities, American ships could use their monopoly to price gouge way above the market value of the free market.
Change the cost of the tariff duties, or allow foreign ships to visit more than one port, and suddenly it becomes very profitable for them to go that extra 800 miles.
From who? Her father survived the war.
Cheaper than a slave? A slave that could be forced to work all day long? It is my understanding that the slave plantations grew their own food, and so the monetary cost was effectively non existent.
I am having difficulty grasping how a group of poor peasants living in Turkey or China or India or Ethiopia or Brazil can produce a cheaper product than a slave plantation. (Weren't they using slaves in Brazil at this time?)
Other than shipping costs, I don't see a lot of variability, and that's *IF* shipping costs from Egypt were cheaper.
What were the British tariff rates?
They were also far higher than the tariff rate the Southern states would set if free to set their own rates....which is why they specified in the Confederate Constitution that only a revenue ie max 10% tariff would be allowed rather than a protective tariff.
Which makes those 25% and 20% and 15% Confederate tariff rates so puzzling. I forget. They were a war measure, or so you claim.
I've asked before, and I'll ask again because watching you refuse to answer is so much fun, but what clause in the Confederate Constitution prohibited tariffs higher than 10%?
Meanwhile some guy in China or Turkey lives very frugally, so his costs are less. I think something similar happens with coffee or rubber or tea. The small peasant proprietor could actually produce more cheaply than large scale operations because his costs are less since he needs less to get by.
Now take the value of money into account. If foreign currency is cheap enough and people only need to earn a fraction of the money value that they need to survive in America, they may be able to undercut slave operations in our part of the world. Why do you think countries devalue their currencies? It makes their products more competitive on the world market.
But you really should take this up with the other guy. Two minuses might make a plus and one or the other of you might actually see the light.
The fact that you actually believe the crap you post has always be a source of amazement to me.
So let me see if I have this correct. Ships come from Europe bearing imported goods, sail into New York, unload, pay the tariff, load onto a different ship, sail to the Southern ports, and unload again. In the mean time those European ships, having unloaded in New York, then sail to southern ports empty in order to load up with cotton and sail back to Europe. And that makes sense to you?
Who hauled 75% of the cotton crop to England and France.
The navigation act of 1817 made it unprofitable for foreign ships to go to Southern ports. That's why getting out of the deal would have been such an economic boon to the Southern port cities. It would have also reduced shipping prices between ports because north eastern owned shipping companies could no longer gouge because they had a monopoly.
From who? Her father survived the war.
Look it up. I could embarrass you with this but just as before, I’m simply not going to do your research for you.
What were the British tariff rates?****
Look them up and report back to us - with a link to a credible source.
Which makes those 25% and 20% and 15% Confederate tariff rates so puzzling. I forget. They were a war measure, or so you claim.*****
Nothing puzzling about it. They were fighting for their freedom and needed all the resources and money they could get.
I’ve asked before, and I’ll ask again because watching you refuse to answer is so much fun, but what clause in the Confederate Constitution prohibited tariffs higher than 10%?*****
It specified Revenue Tariff which by definition meant a maximum of 10%.
Especially since there was no demand for the imported goods.
The navigation act of 1817 made it unprofitable for foreign ships to go to Southern ports.
Then who took the cotton from Southern ports to Europe? U.S. ships?
I have. So feel free to try and embarrass me. This should be fun.
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.