Confederate plaque in Texas Capitol to come down after vote

WFAA ^ | January 11, 2019 | Jason Whitely

[FLT-bird]

BroJoeK: Only even potentially true if by "the North" you mean all non-cotton states, then sure. But if you're dividing line is slave-states vs. free-states, then your argument is not true except in one limited sense.

Nope!

BroJoeK: Federal spending from 1789 to 1860 totaled about $66 million on "disbursements" as Calhoun called them, including fortifications, internal improvements, light houses & hospitalization. Of that money over 71 years, 52% = $34 million = $2 million more than free-states, went to slave-states, sounds pretty fair so far, right? Where Calhoun in 1850 had a point was in the one category of "internal improvements" for the period 1838 to 1850 (the Whig years). Over those 12 Whig years, "internal improvements" in free states exceeded slave states by $1.5 million, or about $100,000 per year, on average. In the Democrat dominated years before, from 1834 to 1837 "internal improvements" favored the South and in the Democrat years after 1850 they were pretty much even, but there was a $1.5 million discrepancy in the Whigs' 1838-1850 which Calhoun could legitimately complain of. On the other hand Federal spending for fortifications in the South exceeded the North by $10.5 million in Democrat years 1834 to 1837 and by smaller amounts in some years after. Point is: there no legitimate way to exaggerate $1.5 million over 12 years in "excess" Northern disbursements into a generalized complaint against Federal spending. It wasn't true.

I provided very different figures from a variety of sources. Seems odd those Northern Newspapers would, when trying to argue for war to their Northern readers, emphasize how much they benefited from infrastructure projects paid for by the federal government which got most of its money from taxes paid by Southerners....if your figures were remotely accurate.

BroJoeK: Except the facts show that's not at all what happened in the period 1789 to 1860.

Oh but they do show exactly that.

BroJoeK: Instead, Southern Democrats like Calhoun complained when Whigs didn't give them their "fair share" and that share was quickly restored when Democrats again came to majorities in the 1850s.

false

BroJoeK: A total hypothetical because, for one, Confederates never had "free trade" or anything close. Instead they originally adopted the pre-Morrill US tariff rates. Depending how you calculate, those were about 15% overall. In May 1861 (two weeks after declaring war on the USA) Confederates set their own rates, from 30% on some items to 5% on others, those are said to have averaged just 10% but within just a short time the Union blockade took hold and Confederates collected virtually no tariffs from then on. My point is: here Sherman and elsewhere others exaggerated economic dangers from Confederate "free trade" which was never proposed nor practiced there.

The Confederate constitution set a maximum of 10% ie revenue tariff instead of protective tariff. As I have shown repeatedly, Northern business interests and their political pawns like Lincoln were terrified of this. They knew there was no way they could sell their manufactured goods to the South if they had to compete against foreign goods which had very low tariffs on them. This is part of what Sherman pointed out to his brother the US Senator. The CSA imposed higher tariffs only due to them being plunged into a war of self defense very soon after Lincoln came to office.

We've gone over and over and over this before. Just repeating ourselves is tiresome and a waste of time.

BroJoeK: So again, Sherman hypothesizes that war must inevitably result from tariffs & economics. But in fact, neither of those were at stake at Fort Sumter in April 1861. Instead the issues involved Confederate "integrity" if "assailed" and "aggression" or "rebellion" to start war. Of course economics were involved, but not as the immediate issue at Fort Sumter.

False. This is exactly what was at stake. Lincoln started the war due to his insistence that the Southern states pay TAXES. It was about money.

BroJoeK: I don't necessarily dispute total tariff revenues of $927 million over 54 years. But the North-South splits are totally bogus except if by "the South" you mean every region outside New England. Even then, "paid for" refers not to actual import tariffs, but to the value of exports, especially cotton. This graph shows that cotton never rose above 50% of total US exports and for the decade of 1851-1860 averaged only 41%.'

Yeah as we've gone over already, the numbers you claim are totally bogus. Not only the sources I posted but also Northern Newspapers and politicians as well as Southern politicians and newspapers as well as foreign newspapers all back up the numbers I posted.

BroJoeK: Again, only valid if by "the South paid" you mean exports from all regions outside New England, and if by "the South got" you mean Federal spending in only the cotton states. Otherwise, it's pure nonsense.

Again, your numbers are bogus.

BroJoeK: Utterly completely bogus fantasies unsupported by any honest data. The only possible way to get there is to massage, gigger and manipulate the data beyond all recognition of truth. It begins with flexible & dishonest definitions of "the South" and "the North" and proceeds from there.

False. Charles Adams is a well known tax expert....though numerous other sources I cited from the time all say the same thing. You have nothing credible to back up your bogus numbers.

BroJoeK: Those numbers are totally bogus, but the sentiment might have some validity if you only look at Deep South cotton states, which did produce roughly 50% of US exports. It might even help explain why Fire Eaters had better luck selling secession in cotton states than in the Upper South & Border States.

False. Your numbers are totally bogus. As I said before, your argument based on nothing more than your fantasy numbers is getting really boring.

BroJoeK: Those numbers are still bogus, regardless of how often repeated.

Yet another Northern source from the time which backs up what I've said. I posted several of them. Your denials are nothing more than burying your head in the sand at this point.

BroJoeK: In fact, actual tariffs collected at Confederate state ports in 1860 totaled only 6% of total tariffs!

Irrelevant for reasons I've explained at least a dozen times already. Where the goods enter a market or exit a market is not indicative that the port of entry either generated all those goods or consumed all the imported goods. Its merely a port.

BroJoeK: Still, endlessly repeating lies in no way makes them true. The sentiment is only potentially valid if by "the South" you mean only cotton states and if by "the North" you mean everywhere else.

I wish you'd take that sentiment to heart and quit repeating your unsubstantiated lies.

BroJoeK: But when those Deep South cotton states decided to declare secession, did they blame tariffs & spending? Yes, a little, here & there. But the larger focus in every document was on Northern opposition to slavery, so that is where we have to think their true hearts lay. The 4 states which issued declarations of causes did list Northern refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution which was of course a violation of the compact. That they bothered listing their economic grievances even though these were not unconstitutional is a dead giveaway to how much it did bother them. The fact that they turned town the North's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment tells us that slavery was obviously not their main concern. This is what....the 50th time we've gone over this?

BroJoeK: The data shows that's still total lies, except if you mean by "the South" just cotton states and by "the North" everywhere else.

Nah. The data shows that your claims are total lies.

BroJoeK: Sorry, but your numbers began as fake news, Democrat propaganda, which you now hope to insert into your fake history, the Lost Cause Myths.

Sorry but your numbers are fake news and have been all along. The fact that your fellow Leftists in Academia started spewing this BS again a generation ago does not make it so. This is just part of the standard Leftist PC Revisionist dogma. Like the rest of the Left's BS, it is also nothing more than a pack of lies meant to serve their politics.

[DiogenesLamp]

They rebelled to restore their rights as Englishman, not to perpetuate a system of chattel slavery for all time.

At the time they rebelled, every state was a slave state, so stop trying to spin it as they weren't trying to perpetuate a system of chattel slavery for all time. That so happened to be one of their rights as Englishmen.

You people simply do not want to believe that the Confederates had just as much right to leave as did the Colonists. You don't want to believe it, because you very much want to believe that the people who stopped them from having independence, were the good guys, motivated by a noble cause.

The truth is, the people who invaded the South were puppets of big money and corrupt government in Washington DC, and they were invading the South to prevent economic independence for the South, because they wanted to control the money the South was producing, and they wanted to make certain that the South wouldn't compete with them in supplying goods and services to the Northwest territories.

Power and control. Not about slavery *AT ALL*. About who would control the money, and who would dominate and rule all of the USA.

And these people are the same enemy we are fighting today. The New York/Washington coalition is the exact same group oppressing us today.

[DiogenesLamp]

Ding! Exactly correct. The parallel would be today claiming that NY generates some large percentage of GDP. No it doesn't. They money flows through there. A lot is collected from the banks via various taxes and fees. They didn't generate that wealth.

I keep trying to wake people up to the fact that the New York/Washington DC spending cartel is an enemy of the people.

I first started realizing something was wrong back in 1995, when Republicans had first taken over the congress. One of the things the new Republican congress was trying to do was balance the budget.

Now any rational person believes that balancing the budget is a sensible thing to do. Most people cannot long continue with a budget that isn't balanced, and this is just common sense.

But watching the talking heads on ABC news, I was utterly astonished to see every one of them claiming this was a foolish idea, and claiming it was irresponsible to try to balance the budget. All I could think at the time was, "What the h3ll is wrong with these people? It's almost as if they are making money off of government spending, because I can think of no other reason why anyone would be against balancing the budget."

Years later I finally realized, that the powerful corporate and banking interests that are the defacto power in New York, very likely control the media, and use it to advance what is in their best interests.

Of COURSE excessive government spending is in the best interests of the Plutocrats from New York! Of course their media lapdogs will advance positions that benefit the Plutocrats who make money from government spending.

What these silly people with whom we argue cannot seem to grasp is that the Money powers of this Nation who are fighting against us today, are the exact same money powers of 1860, that went to war to prevent the South from challenging their income and dominance in American economic control.

[DiogenesLamp]

What Madison or anybody else said AFTER ratification is irrelevant. He was not a party to the contract. The states and the federal governments were. What the states actually agreed to prior to/at the time of ratification is what matters. Nobody can legally alter a contract unilaterally after it has been signed.

Correct, and also ignored is the fact that Madison made his comment to Nicholas Trist, 15 Feb 1830.

Let's see, that's 41 years after the ratification of the US Constitution, and 54 years after the Declaration of Independence. Madison was 79 years old when he said that, and so this greatly reduces it's credibility as being an accurate representation of the dominant position of the Founders.

Had they something he said around 1789, then that would have more credibility, but an old man saying this 41 years later in his dotage? Not so much.

[FLT-bird]

I hate to cite him because he’s a hardcore Leftist and otherwise lines right up with the PC Revisionists, but Howard Zinn noted the same thing:

“it was not the anti-human immoral aspect of the institution which brought all the weight of national power against it, it was the antitariff, antibank, anticapitalist, antinational aspect of slavery which aroused the united opposition of the only groups in the country with the power to make war: the national political leaders and the controllers of the national economy.” Howard Zinn

[DiogenesLamp]

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile.

Howard appears to have got that one right.

[DoodleDawg]

Yet there were some rail lines that could be used and were used to distribute goods.

For example? I have seen no indication that there was a railroad grid that connected north with south, and southern railroads sole purpose was to connect the inland part of the state with a seaport.

...and of course when trans-shipped from NYC via the coastal trade, those rail lines from ports into the hinterland could be used and were used to distribute goods.

True. But does nothing to answer the question I've been asking all along.

Just the Mississippi. That's all. LOL!

Yep. So how did the goods get from New York, Boston, and Philadelphia to the Mississippi?

Show me where I said "vast majority".

Is it not your contention that the South paid the large majority of tariffs? "Vast amounts" is the term I believe you used. How did they pay it if they did not consume the vast majority of imports?

You obviously have no idea how the shipping lines and the package trade worked at the time.

And you do? LOL!

Ah so a book written by Tax expert Charles Adams is just not good enough of a source.....you say so.

I'm saying that Adams makes the same kind of unsupported claims that you do, apparently offering opinion as fact.

Yep. You're a complete ignoramus about history/economics here. Yes, there was a distribution system. There were shipping lines. Read about them some time.

Answer the question. If there was a distribution system why was it one way?

Clearly neither do you.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The graphic shows which cities were *COLLECTING* the money, but the South was paying 75-85% of it."

Sorry, but that is simply a lie, regardless of how often you repeat it.
You have no data -- none, zero, nada data -- to support it and there's lots to refute it.

Your argument here might make a smidgen of sense if you talked about cotton as roughly 50% of US exports, about $200 million in 1860.
But even then it falls apart from the fact that the South also imported $200 million -- from Europe?
Noooooo, from the North.
So effectively everything they earned from exports, they soon spent in the North.
This gave the North, not the South, money to pay for imports.

Finally, there's the matter of Confederate debts to the North repudiated in early 1861.
It was supposed to help finance the war, but didn't work out because the debtors had lost their income sources, manly cotton.
Well, there are no reliable figures on how much debt Confederates repudiated, but the number out there is $300 million, an interesting number beside $200 million in cotton exports and $200 million in imports from the North.

Point is that Northern banks contributed a lot to Southern prosperity.

DiogenesLamp: "As I keep telling you, the laws were jiggered to funnel almost all import traffic into New York where the Robber Baron crony capitalists who controlled Washington DC could get their cut.
The South was paying for the vast bulk of the European trade, but the money was funneled into New York."

But nothing was "jiggered", it was simple economics:

1. It cost a lot of money to buy and build a cotton plantation, money planters largely borrowed from Northern banks -- up to $300 million.

2. It cost more money to run a plantation, money for imports of Northern manufactured goods, about $200 million per year.

3. Once such expenses were paid, Southern planters had little to no money left for luxury European imports.
   That's one reason tariffs from Confederate state ports in 1860 totaled less than $3 million.

4. So how much of circa $400 million in total 1860 imports were bought & paid for by cotton exporters?
   Certainly not more than the 6% which arrived in cotton state ports, about $24 million.

So why did so much of imports come through Northeastern cities?
Because after "exporting" $200 million in manufactured goods to the South, that's where nearly all the buyers were.

FLT-bird: "The parallel would be today claiming that NY generates some large percentage of GDP.
No it doesn't.
They money flows through there."

The New York metropolitan area has about 7% of the US population and produces about 8% of our GDP, giving them a per capita income roughly 15% higher than the national average.
That 15% average higher income doesn't seem so much when you consider the overall higher prices people pay to live there.

As for how much of New York's income comes from manufacturing, how much from trade, transportation, finance, media & communications, technology, fashion, entertainment & tourism, etc., etc., there's certainly a mix and all of it economically legitimate, much as some people don't like it.

FLT-bird: "A lot is collected from the banks via various taxes and fees.
They didn't generate that wealth.
Take them away and a new finance center could be erected fairly quickly.
Take away the vast vast hinterland that generates all that economic activity and NY would have its balls chopped off and would never recover."

Now you sound like Barrack Obama: "you didn't build that!".
So why are we getting Leftists propaganda on a conservative site?

Anyway, the same is true of any city -- large, medium sized or small -- not just New York.
Every city can be like a large tree with roots growing deep & spread wide in the ground.
At the top, in spring you see pretty flowers, fruit in the fall, all seeming graceful & effortless, but just under the leaves & bark is an incredibly hard working machine.
The US has dozens of large metropolitan areas, of which about 1/3 are in the Old South, especially Texas.

FLT-bird: "The PC Revisionists never have a good answer for that one.
'Tariffs were collected in NY'.
LOLOLOL!!!!
Does anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of economics think New York paid those tariffs?
If Wal-Mart has a ship full of goods land in the busiest port in America, Long Beach California, does anybody think the city of Long Beach or the state of California pays the tariff? "

Now you guys are waging fierce battles against straw men, and winning!
Amazing!

Your Walmart container landing in Long Beach is a pretty good example -- who exactly do those goods belong to?
Do they belong to cattle ranchers in Texas who shipped beef to China & Japan?
Noooo… those ranchers were paid for their beef at the stockyards where they sold them.
So ranchers don't own Walmart's containers, Walmart does.
So who owns Walmart?
Well, pretty much everybody who has a retirement plan or has a stake-holding there -- employees, customers, suppliers, banks, sub-contractors, neighbors, etc., all have at least some interest in that Walmart container.
But the fact is ownership of a Walmart container is so diffuse there's no single person or even interest group who can lay claim to having "paid for" it.

Just as in 1860, Southern planters cannot claim to have "paid for" US imports with their exports.

[DiogenesLamp]

Republican party which supported it, so they started to downplay slavery's role in the earlier national conflicts.

What was slavery's role in the earlier national conflicts?

They both disliked Northern corporations and capitalists and the Republican Party. They both looked to a more powerful federal government that would take on the powerful industrial and financial interests of the North and East.

Which is a position that I have been slowly coming around to in the last three years. Not just the North East nowadays. I am also quite alarmed about the outright Fascism and Tyranny coming out of the Tech Oligarchs in San Fransisco.

What do you think about these powerful corporations and their tendency to censor speech they don't like?

[x]

What was slavery's role in the earlier national conflicts?

"Earlier" meaning the Civil War and the years leading up to it. 50 and more years after the war, Beard and the progressive historians and others of their generation so hated industrial capitalists and the Republican Party that they sought to remove slavery from the Civil War.

Not just the North East nowadays. I am also quite alarmed about the outright Fascism and Tyranny coming out of the Tech Oligarchs in San Francisco.

What do you think about these powerful corporations and their tendency to censor speech they don't like?

The technology makes your worldview archaic. What you don't like about New York City or San Francisco is to be found in Atlanta or Charlotte or Nashville or Houston or Phoenix or Salt Lake City. And in the future, things will be even more mixed up. So whatever you or I think about Facebook or Google or Twitter, it's not going to provide you with a soap box to go on attacking New York City.

[DiogenesLamp]

I see. So when those goods were landed in New York they loaded them on wagons, sent them down I-95 to their ultimate destination down south?

Good went to the port closest to their intended customers. If the majority went to New York and Boston and Philadelphia then that's where the consumers were.

You clearly do not understand what was going on. "Coastal Packet." Do you speak it?

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "There are several quotes from various Founding Fathers prior to ratification of the Constitution that all say it was a VOLUNTARY act."

Voluntary meaning by mutual consent.
So all Founders did practice "secession" from necessity as in 1776 or from mutual consent as in 1788, but no Founder ever proposed or supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.
For the full explanation, see Madison's letter to Trist, 1830.

FLT-bird: "...they did not set out any specific list of conditions that had to be satisfied before exercising the right of secession..."

Of course they did.
First, they acknowledged no unlimited "right of secession".
Instead they did define "necessity" in their 1776 Declaration.
And they defined "mutual consent" in their 1788 ratifications of the new Constitution.

FLT-bird: "They CERTAINLY did not say that anybody but each state itself had any right to sit in judgment as to whether those "conditions" were satisfied"

Perhaps not, but they did clearly define "treason" and they provided for Federal responses to rebellions, insurrections, "domestic violence" and invasions all of which happened in 1861.

FLT-bird: "Here are the express reservations of the three states... "

Virginis: "...may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression..."

That is not "at pleasure", but rather for material breach of compact.

New York: "...may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness..."

"Necessary" refers us to the 1776 Declaration which clearly spells out what that word implies.

Rhode Island: "...may be resumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness..."

There again, "necessary" as in 1776.

FLT-bird: "Nobody at the time of ratification said this was a partial ratification of the constitution..."

Right, because no state then ever demanded an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
All understood that necessity and serious breech was required for disunion, just as they experienced in 1776.

FLT-bird: "There was no implied grant of all sorts of extra powers to the federal government....such as the power to prevent secession."

So Federal government took no actions to stop secessions in 1860 or early 1861.
Federal government was, however, granted powers against rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", invasion and treason.

FLT-bird: "What Madison or anybody else said AFTER ratification is irrelevant. "

Hardly, since Madison's words clearly spell out Founders' Original Intent, which is a First Principle of conservatism.
Of course, as a devoted Democrat you may not comprehend such a thing, but here's what you might "get": no Founder, not even Jefferson, ever wrote words which expressly contradicted Madison's to Trist.

FLT-bird: "He was not a party to the contract.
The states and the federal governments were."

So you deny that Madison is our recognized Father of the Constitution, whose opinions on what it means matter a lot?
If so, that will be a huge disappointment to our FRiend jeffersondem, who holds Madison in the highest esteem, especially regarding the word "interposition".

As already shown, no Founder ever directly contradicted Madison's 1830 words to Trist.
And every Founding President dealt with issues of rebellion, insurrection, treason, "domestic violence", invasion or secession.

FLT-bird: "Bottom line: … We have no express delegation of power by the sovereign states to the newly created federal government that it would have the power to prevent any state from leaving what everybody understood to be a voluntary union based on consent."

That's why there was no military action taken by either of Presidents Buchanan or Lincoln to stop secession or forming the Confederacy.
Hostile Union military response only became possible when Confederate actions were matters of rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", invasion and treason.

The issue was permanently decided, sealed and closed once Confederates formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran: "I would agree with you that the Republicans were the conservatives.
For proof I offer this quote from the great George Washington in a letter to Mr. Mercer;

'It being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by law.
- Letter to John Mercer, September 9, 1786"

Thanks for a great post so, much as it annoys FLT-bird, let me say again, "me too"!

[x]

New York and Brooklyn, then a separate city, were major manufacturing cities in 19th century America. Plenty of wealth, apart from shipping and finance, was generated there, and the large population provided plenty of consumers.

And yes, New York was the center of a distribution network, but it's easy to forget how much of that network was clustered around New York. Hartford, New Haven, Springfield, Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Elmira, Paterson, Newark, Trenton, Scranton, Allentown, Reading: all were manufacturing centers which generated their own share of the country's wealth and bought much in imports, whether for business or for household use. New York was a major distribution center in good part because it was so close to so many industrial cities, and those cities were successful because they had access to the consumers and transportation facilities of New York City.

Actually, there was direct transportation of cotton from Charleston and New Orleans directly to Britain and Europe. Fraser and Trenholm or John Fraser and Company or Trenholm Brothers was a major Charleston shipping firm with branches in Liverpool and New York City. But there were limits to how much in imports Charleston and other Southern cities could absorb, so it made sense that much business was done through New York.

BTW I just found Ezekiel Donnell, Chronological and Statistical History of Cotton (New York: J. Sutton & Co. printers, 1872) online. He says that in 1853-1855 fully half of all cotton exported to Britain was shipped from New Orleans. The book gives statistics for other years. It looks like most of the cotton trade did not go through New York City. Most of the cotton from smaller ports, like those in Florida, made its way up the coast, most likely to New York, but New Orleans definitely was the major player, and became more dominant over time. So have we been arguing about nothing all this time?

[DiogenesLamp]

it was valuable to Lincoln because it started the war he wanted. Without that, Sumter would have been handed over peacefully, the original 7 seceding states would have gone their separate way peacefully and there would have been no war.

...

Oh and Fort Pickens sits on Santa Rosa Island which is controls access to Pensacola. That was a much more important port at the time than it is now.

I keep mentioning this, but no one seems to grasp the significance of it. Lieutenant David Porter had taken command of the Powhatan, and then proceeded to do everything he could to start a war in Pensacola.

He says in his own memoirs that he was heading to Fort Pickens, and was going to engage the Confederate gun batteries on the coast, and was only stopped from attacking them because Captain Meigs placed his ship directly in the path of Porter's ship. Porter goes so far as to say he seriously considered ramming Meigs, but finally decided to stop.

Meigs informed him that he D@mn near started a war right then and there.

Porter goes on to talk about how he wanted to fire shells and grapeshot at the Confederate gun emplacements, and he later deliberately fires at some Confederate ships, who then move away. He believed at the time that he had fired the first shots of the war.

Porter was acting on secret orders from Lincoln himself, and he behaved exactly like a man who was deliberately trying to start a war. I have long said that Porter was Lincoln's backup plan to start the war, and Porter's own description of his actions reinforces this perception.

[DiogenesLamp]

We've gone over and over and over this before. Just repeating ourselves is tiresome and a waste of time.

Which is why I often just skip over what BroJoeK and others write. They don't listen, and they don't learn. They simply regurgitate what they want to believe, and they dismiss any information that conflicts with what they wish to believe.

[DiogenesLamp]

Earlier" meaning the Civil War and the years leading up to it.

What was slavery's role in the Civil War? It had been going on in the USA for "Four Score and Seven Years", and nothing about it was going to change at the beginning of the war.

What you don't like about New York City or San Francisco is to be found in Atlanta or Charlotte or Nashville or Houston or Phoenix or Salt Lake City.

Virtually total control of the internet also occurs in Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, Houston, Phoenix and Salt Lake City? I'm not sure we are communicating properly here.

The multi-trillion dollar tech oligarchs which are currently manipulating search results, censoring speech they don't like, selling personal data, and assisting China with their Big Brother monitoring of their people, are all occurring in the Tech Corporations of Silicon Valley. (Effectively San Fransisco.)

I do not grasp what the H3ll you are talking about when you say this same threat to us exists in those other cities you named. No it does not. The *THREAT* exists in San Fransico. I regard these corporations as deadly dangerous, and apparently you do not. I can only attribute what appears to be your position, to a lack of knowledge about what has been going on in the world of the internet.

So whatever you or I think about Facebook or Google or Twitter, it's not going to provide you with a soap box to go on attacking New York City.

And you conspicuously failed to mention what that was. One can only think that you feel the answer would support what I am saying, or else you would have simply came out and said what you think about these monster tech corporations.

[DiogenesLamp]

all were manufacturing centers which generated their own share of the country's wealth and bought much in imports, whether for business or for household use.

Exported a lot of stuff to Europe, did they? What exactly were they exporting to pay for their imports?

He says that in 1853-1855 fully half of all cotton exported to Britain was shipped from New Orleans. The book gives statistics for other years. It looks like most of the cotton trade did not go through New York City.

The exports left from Southern Ports, but the *MONEY* came back through New York. New York had virtually total control of all Southern exports. BroJoeK posted a link a long time ago in which it explained that virtually all the export traffic was controlled by New York.

[jeffersondem]

“If so, that will be a huge disappointment to our FRiend jeffersondem, who holds Madison in the highest esteem, especially regarding the word “interposition”.”

That is an interesting comment.

Can you cite a post of mine where I have used the word “interposition?”

[DiogenesLamp]

I've read Washington's diaries about slavery. He gradually grew to believe that it was wrong and needed to change, but he didn't see any simple way to solve the problem. I recall him saying that he always had to figure out ways to make enough profit to take care of everyone, and he was not always able to do so.