Why the South Lives On

Both of those things happened after the war. It was the war that destroyed their system, and you can't rationally claim their system would not have continued to work simply because it was destroyed by a war.

Sure, arguably if the Confederacy had gotten its way the cause of emancipation would have been set back decades, but the pressure would still be there. Agitation wouldn't stop because the slaveowners had their own country. Arguably it would have increased.

My other point was that free trade is not always a path to prosperity. It can just as easily be a road to dependency. Britain was on the downswing in the late 19th century. The idea that the Confederacy would be flooded with British imports and that this would make the CSA rich is seriously misguided.

Here you go again trying to claim that events which happened *BECAUSE* of a war, would have happened without a war. Those other countries growing cotton only happened because of the war. With the Union navy cutting off supply, the manufacturers had no other choice than to pay higher prices and promote cultivation elsewhere.

Nonsense. British workers, consumers, manufacturers and officials started looking for alternative sources of cotton when they realized that they'd have to do so or they'd have to tie themselves to a country dedicated above all to the defense and promotion of slaveowning.

It's also not at all clear that the costs of growing cotton in other parts of the world would be greater than they were in the American South, when you take currency values and standards of living into account. I believe small scale chocolate growers in Africa were more than able to compete with plantation owners. The same could have been true for cotton.

Well there you go. This was after the war started, and everyone was trying whatever they could to win the war. You tried to make this analogous to the South invading other states without provocation, but that is clearly not the case here.

You asked me in the other post to point out the fallacies and illogicalities in your arguments. This is a great place to start. Formal hostilities had started, but if it took time for Confederate forces to violate Kentucky's self-declared neutrality then obviously "everyone" had not "been doing whatever they could to win the war" before that. What you are saying is illogical and special pleading for your personal favorites.

You could lose everything if you tried to go around the US government's designated shipping companies.

There were no US government designated shipping companies. You could set up your own if you wanted to, and many people did. Why anyone would want to favor foreigners over their fellow citizens is beyond me.

Tariffs weren't the whole picture. Government forced patronage resulted in a great deal of money going into the connected Northern pockets.

What "government forced patronage"? Companies that had invested in trade and had experience in doing so got business. Those who wanted to set up their own businesses could do so and did so. An awful lot of cotton was shipped from New Orleans directly to Europe (bypassing the coastal trade and the Navigation Acts). If imports came in through other ports it's because there was more of a market for them in cities with larger populations.

I don't know how often stuff like that was purchased, but my understanding is that the dominant things bought by the South were metal items and machines. Engines for their ships and trains as well as steel rails could have come from England, but for the protectionist policies forcing them to come from the North.

Did the bad Yankees also make them build railroads of different gauges? There was a lot of incompetence in 19th century railroad building, especially in the South. Others have argued that railroads didn't matter much because the South relied on river transport. A lot of people thought that way at the time. That, and not the evil Yankees was a major reason why railroad construction lagged behind in the slave states.

If they could easily undersell British products, why did they need the tariffs? Why did they need the "navigation act of 1817"? Why did they need all those laws passed to help them compete and why did they need subsidies?

Notice that I mentioned "an independent South." My point was that companies protected by tariffs and other restraints of trade (German and American in the late 19th century, Japanese in the late 20th century) earn their profits in the domestic market and can therefore afford to "dump" or sell products cheaply in foreign markets. If the South were an independent country, Northern manufacturers would be able to "dump" goods there and undercut British imports (or Southern manufacturers if the CSA didn't adopt protective tariffs of their own). If you go back and read carefully you may find that's what I said. But it goes against your whole theory, so it's not surprising that you missed it.

Why did they need the "navigation act of 1817"? Why did they need all those laws passed to help them compete and why did they need subsidies?

Pretend that you are an American, a concerned citizen of the United States, if you can. Why don't we throw off all restraints to foreign traders? Why don't we let Chinese ships carry goods between American ports? Why don't we just let them do everything for us and control our entire economy? What could possibly go wrong there? It's not hard to come up with an answer if you actually care about America.

DiogenesLamp: "My recollection is that you were asserting things to be "facts" which were not actually facts, but were instead things you wished to believe."

Naw... everything I post is fact, while everything you post are just pro-Confederate fantasies.
And we know that for certain because you always run like h*ll whenever presented with facts inconvenient to your beloved fantasies.

Sure, arguably if the Confederacy had gotten its way the cause of emancipation would have been set back decades, but the pressure would still be there.

Agree. Charles Dickens notes on America said that he met many Southern slaveowners who wanted out of the business but could not develop what they considered a workable plan for getting out of it. His advice? Just quit.

Agitation wouldn't stop because the slaveowners had their own country. Arguably it would have increased.

I think the social pressure was always going to increase, and I have long said that when the social pressure equalized with the reduced economic value of slavery, then *that* is when slavery would have ended naturally.

But here we are talking about slavery again, which I consider to be a complete dodge of the real issue of the war which was Northern domination and control of Southern economic output. Remember, they didn't care about slavery when they passed the Corwin amendment. They cared about continuing to keep the Southern economic output under their thumb.

The idea that the Confederacy would be flooded with British imports and that this would make the CSA rich is seriously misguided.

There were large tariffs on British (and other European) imports specifically because they were a threat to the much more politically powerful Northern interests. If people had the choice, they would buy the cheaper European goods for things they needed instead of paying for the higher priced goods that were inflated due to protectionist policies.

Selling cheaper goods in such a market is very likely to create great wealth because it would be taking that wealth away from the Northeastern wealthy. It appears axiomatic to me that the Southern merchants selling these goods and thereby displacing the Northeastern "robber barons" products would guarantee wealth for those who did it.

Nonsense. British workers, consumers, manufacturers and officials started looking for alternative sources of cotton when they realized that they'd have to do so or they'd have to tie themselves to a country dedicated above all to the defense and promotion of slaveowning.

They could have objected to slave owning by refusing to buy the product. They didn't. Now you may think people are really motivated by the milk of human kindness and that the British set up cotton plantations in Egypt and India out of concern for the poor slaves, but *I* believe people (and especially the British given what they have done in China and in India) are greed driven @$$holes who do what they do because they expect an increase in their own wealth and power. They were concerned about their manufacturing output, not about slaves. If you think otherwise, you are being deliberately naive.

It's also not at all clear that the costs of growing cotton in other parts of the world would be greater than they were in the American South, when you take currency values and standards of living into account. I believe small scale chocolate growers in Africa were more than able to compete with plantation owners. The same could have been true for cotton.

This is you looking for a Unicorn. You aren't going to beat slave labor with paid labor no matter how your currency values fluctuate. The only way Egyptian plantations could be made profitable was the forcible holding back of the Southern plantations.

This is a great place to start. Formal hostilities had started, but if it took time for Confederate forces to violate Kentucky's self-declared neutrality then obviously "everyone" had not "been doing whatever they could to win the war" before that.

Union forces took control of Missouri before that. For that matter, they pretty much occupied Maryland to prevent it from going over to the South. Both of these events happened before and in the very early states of the war.

The South was playing catchup when it attempted to go into Kentucky.

There were no US government designated shipping companies. You could set up your own if you wanted to, and many people did.

In the same manner you can set up your own Internet, social media platform, payment processing and banking centers.

The establishment inertia of the existing structures was far too great for any outside company to penetrate. Now to be clear, the government did not say "These are our official shipping companies", they rigged the laws in such a way that it had the same effect.

What "government forced patronage"?

You had to use Northeastern shipping companies or pay huge penalties for using anything else. These companies set their prices to just below what it would cost you to pay all the fines and penalties for using foreign shipping companies. They had an artificially created captive market.

Companies that had invested in trade and had experience in doing so got business. Those who wanted to set up their own businesses could do so and did so. An awful lot of cotton was shipped from New Orleans directly to Europe (bypassing the coastal trade and the Navigation Acts).

All of that shipping was controlled by New York. We've linked to many articles in the past that demonstrate this to be true, and I think even BroJoeK might admit that New York controlled all the cotton trade.

If imports came in through other ports it's because there was more of a market for them in cities with larger populations.

Once again, you are espousing a breakdown in your understanding of economics. It doesn't matter how big is your population or how urgent is their demand for products, if they don't have the *MONEY* they aren't buying the products. It is the people who have the *MONEY* who buy products, and that *MONEY* was coming from Southern exports to Europe.

How New York was getting all those imports was because they were getting the money away from the Southern producers.

That, and not the evil Yankees was a major reason why railroad construction lagged behind in the slave states.

I learned something a few months ago. Apparently Lincoln, when he was a member of the Illinois legislature, had been involved in this massive scheme for funding a railroad project in Illinois. From what I recall, it involved 13 million dollars, and was a complete boondoggle with the stated railroad infrastructure not getting built but with the taxpayers of Illinois still losing the 13 million dollars. A lot of Northern railroads were subsidized and created as government (including the Federal government) funded projects. You might also look at the railroad act of 1862 which Lincoln advocated and signed. Big payoff to his corporate Railroad buddies.

It is my understanding that Southern railroads were predominately paid for by private businesses, not government funding.

If the South were an independent country, Northern manufacturers would be able to "dump" goods there and undercut British imports

I understood the idea the first time you mentioned it, but clearly this would have cost them dearly compared to the profits they were making with the Federal protectionist policies creating higher prices for their goods. Even with your "dumping" idea, this still results in a massive loss of money for the Northeastern manufacturers compared to what they would have made with British products kept out by high tariffs.

If you go back and read carefully you may find that's what I said. But it goes against your whole theory, so it's not surprising that you missed it.

I didn't miss it, I didn't consider it a significant response for the reason I just mentioned above. Your "dumping" theory still results in a massive money loss for the Northeastern power barons.

Pretend that you are an American, a concerned citizen of the United States, if you can. Why don't we throw off all restraints to foreign traders? Why don't we let Chinese ships carry goods between American ports? Why don't we just let them do everything for us and control our entire economy?

I fully grasp the reasons for protectionist policies, and I have pondered the issues over the years. I note that the most strident Union (labor Union) protectionists all still bought Japanese television sets back in the 1980s instead of the much more expensive American made television sets.

What part of America do you believe deserves the most support? The producers of products or the Americans who need products?

Giving the producers higher prices is simply taking that money out of the pockets of Americans who need the products. Are these Americans of lesser value than those other Americans?

Now while we are on this topic, I will say that my position on this idea of protectionism has shifted over the years. Back in 1996 when Pat Buchanan was running for the nomination, he pointed out that foreign companies are not bound by our environmental rules, by our workplace safety rules, by our companies threats from litigation and various other difficulties our manufacturers face in making products in the USA.

He said he would institute a policy of adjusting tariffs on companies so that American companies would have an equal chance to sell products with foreign manufacturers. He said it is not fair to put all these regulation burdens on our manufacturers and then allow foreign companies the ability to escape these same burdens and then sell their products in the USA as a consequence of their lower production costs.

I think he makes a fair point. Our companies should not have to carry a heavier load and then be expected to compete with foreign companies which do not have to carry this same load.

And we know that for certain because you always run like h*ll whenever presented with facts inconvenient to your beloved fantasies.

It has more to do with not wanting to go through another deluge of your massive walls of text.

Don't really care what is in them because when I see them, I usually don't read them.

I'll read your shorter messages, but not those long monstrosities you are fond of posting.

But here we are talking about slavery again, which I consider to be a complete dodge of the real issue of the war which was Northern domination and control of Southern economic output.

Of course you do. Most people think your view is the complete dodge. It is. It was even a century and a half ago.

Remember, they didn't care about slavery when they passed the Corwin amendment.

It's been pointed out a thousand times that the Corwin Amendment didn't work because the slaveowners cared too much about slavery. Congress was willing to give them a guarantee but it wasn't enough for them.

But I reject the fallacy that because Northerners were willing to give slaveowners that guarantee they "didn't care" about slavery. They cared about keeping slavery out of the free states and territories. They cared about keeping the union together. You may "care" about things yet be willing to compromise and unwilling to give up everything to get your way.

There were large tariffs on British (and other European) imports specifically because they were a threat to the much more politically powerful Northern interests. If people had the choice, they would buy the cheaper European goods for things they needed instead of paying for the higher priced goods that were inflated due to protectionist policies.

You don't know that. European goods weren't necessarily better or cheaper. There were tariffs to develop American industry, to create jobs and to make the country stronger and less reliant on foreign manufacturers. Industry was very feeble at the beginning and couldn't have forced tariffs on the country.

They could have objected to slave owning by refusing to buy the product. They didn't.

They did, but you weren't paying attention. Lancashire cotton workers suffered terribly from cotton shortages, but they held meetings and circulated petitions and manifestos saying that they wouldn't work with slave cotton. That took guts. Politicians, diplomats, businessmen and colonial administrators weren't as visible but they recognized that trade with the slavers was unpopular and sought to get around it.

Now you may think people are really motivated by the milk of human kindness and that the British set up cotton plantations in Egypt and India out of concern for the poor slaves

Says the fellow who's always mentioning Charles Dickens. Like Dickens, Englishmen were capable of being horrible mercenary imperialists in some situations and also wanting to be or be considered loving humanitarians when it came to other matters.

You aren't going to beat slave labor with paid labor no matter how your currency values fluctuate. The only way Egyptian plantations could be made profitable was the forcible holding back of the Southern plantations.

The average Indian salary now is about $5000. The average Egyptian salary now is about $7000. People were even poorer back in the 1860s and survived on a lot less.

You sound almost gleeful thinking that slavery would always be cheaper and more profitable than free labor. But labor in many poorer countries wasn't that free. People were very poor and desperate for work. Landlords didn't need to feed and clothe them all year round -- only when they needed their work -- and they didn't have to invest large sums in buying workers. I'm not sure whether you'll be happy or disappointed to find out that slave labor wasn't always going to outcompete its competitors.

Union forces took control of Missouri before that. For that matter, they pretty much occupied Maryland to prevent it from going over to the South. Both of these events happened before and in the very early states of the war. The South was playing catchup when it attempted to go into Kentucky.

The Confederates definitely were trying break off slave territories in the US. They attacked Sumter and started the war because they recognized that Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee would join them if there was a war. Maryland and Missouri were still part of the US and the American government had the right to take steps to protect them. Kentucky was different. There had been an informal agreement to stay out and the Confederates broke the agreement. Big difference.

In the same manner you can set up your own Internet, social media platform, payment processing and banking centers.

Southerners did set up their own shipping enterprises. I have mentioned Charleston's Trenholm firm many times. There were others.

It is my understanding that Southern railroads were predominately paid for by private businesses, not government funding.

The tiniest bit of research would have paid off. Five or ten minutes would inform you that Southern states chartered and often financed railroads. The main North Carolina railroad was 75% state owned. Virginia bought about half the bonds of the states railroad companies and owned the original Blue Ridge Railroad outright. Alabama railroads benefited from federal land grants, like those in the West.

I don't know if Southern railroads got more state funding than Northern ones, but it seems likely, since Southerners weren't investing as much. There's no shame in government involvement: governments have always been involved with railroads because it's hard to acquire the right of way. But it is embarrassing to make claims that may not be true. Add to that the fact that slave labor largely built the railroads and that was quite a subsidy in itself.

Even with your "dumping" idea, this still results in a massive loss of money for the Northeastern manufacturers compared to what they would have made with British products kept out by high tariffs.

Doubtful. British products weren't necessarily better or cheaper or produced in such large quantities. Dumping worked at least in the short and medium run in many parts of the world. It's only sensible that more Northern goods would have made the rail trip down from Chicago than would have made the long transatlantic crossing. Neither would encourage Southern industry or lasting prosperity, though.

Giving the producers higher prices is simply taking that money out of the pockets of Americans who need the products. Are these Americans of lesser value than those other Americans?

It's creating jobs for Americans. In any case this wasn't the major issue it's made out to be. Americans didn't have much trouble balancing the wishes of producers and consumers. What happened in the 1850s and 1860s was that wealthy cotton and slave interests seized on passing complaints to try to tear the nation apart and get a country of their own.

There is much scholarship now focusing on the complex economic relations in antebellum America. North and South were closely linked and there were few heroes among the big economic actors. There was a very bizarre situation in which wealthy Southerners glorified in their cotton wealth, but also complained about poverty and complained that Northerners were moving head (at the South's expense) and leaving the South behind. It was a strange notion and obviously not a very rational one. You seem to have taken every complaint of the slaveowners at face value and found them justified. That's a pity. You could learn a lot if you didn't just parrot long discredited theories.

The establishment inertia of the existing structures was far too great for any outside company to penetrate.

Sure, sure, that would have been true if the British who supposedly could undercut domestic producers and shippers had been let in. Good luck letting the British in and then trying to develop your own industries and shipping companies.

Most of the country doesn't make one part of the country into a permanent enemy. They recognize that businesses are very intertwined nationally and globally. They haven't fallen for the propaganda from slaveowning days.

I see the same couple of ahistorical fantasists are back to posting their usual nonsense. eg “British goods weren’t cheaper or better and it was it benefitted “the country” to erect massive tariff barriers....and besides Southerners were just greedy for complaining about the sky high tariffs and ummm since most ships landed at the port of New York that means New York paid the tariffs anyway because, ummm reasons....”

Its hilarious the lengths they go to in order to cling to the historical revisionism pushed by Leftists that they have such an emotional commitment to.

Of course you do. Most people think your view is the complete dodge.

Most people are taught "Slavery! Slavery! Slavery!" all their lives and never bother to look at the bigger picture. You see all the Covid 19 Maskholes running around saying "Listen to the government!"

Same phenomena.

It's been pointed out a thousand times that the Corwin Amendment didn't work because the slaveowners cared too much about slavery.

It hasn't been pointed out to me. That assertion doesn't even make sense. You are telling me that a Constitutional amendment which protects slavery forever was rejected because "the slaveowners cared too much about slavery"?

Silly claim on the face of it.

Congress was willing to give them a guarantee but it wasn't enough for them.

Because they cared too much about it? Here's another theory. They wanted something else. What was that something else? How about a 60% increase in profitability for their exports? (By cutting out the North and DC's tariffs.) How about an even bigger increase in their purchasing power because European products would no longer be marked up so high to prop up the connected Northern manufacturers?

They get huge benefits by getting out from under Washington's thumb. As for slavery, DC wasn't giving them anything they didn't already have.

But I reject the fallacy that because Northerners were willing to give slaveowners that guarantee they "didn't care" about slavery.

They certainly didn't care about the slaves. Guess who would bear the brunt of that Amendment? The slaves would. F**ing them over to maintain Financial control of the South indicates their concern was financial control, not the well being of the slaves.

They cared about keeping slavery out of the free states and territories.

Because they had been told that over and over again, but an actual examination of the reality demonstrates there never would have been any significant slave presence in the territories.

Also, there has been further clarification on this matter through quotes posted by others. It would appear that the biggest objection to slaves in the territories was because of the desire to keep black people out of the territories and to reserve it for white people only.

Their other concern was to make certain the South never got enough allies to override their rigged laws that funneled money into their own pockets.

Thus the fake "Slaves in the Territories" bullsh*t.

They cared about keeping the union together.

They cared about keeping a profitable Northern Thumb on the Southern export trade.

You don't know that. European goods weren't necessarily better or cheaper.

I've read it many times over the years, and if European goods were more expensive or of inferior quality, then why were protectionist tariffs needed to protect the domestic (Northern) industries from them? Hmmmm?

There were tariffs to develop American industry, to create jobs and to make the country stronger and less reliant on foreign manufacturers.

This is the claim, and it would not be so objectionable if it were true, but the reality was that these tariffs tended to favor Northern profits and had the effect of stuffing Southern produced money into Northern controlling pockets.

They did, but you weren't paying attention. Lancashire cotton workers suffered terribly from cotton shortages, but they held meetings and circulated petitions and manifestos saying that they wouldn't work with slave cotton.

And did they make this announcement after the blockade when they had nothing to lose, or before the blockade when it would actually have cost them something?

I'm guessing it was an empty gesture because they knew they weren't getting any more "slave cotton" anyway. If not, they would have shortly been destroyed by their competition that continued taking the "slave cotton" at the much cheaper price.

Hell, we're still taking slave labor products from China right now as opposed to refusing them.

Englishmen were capable of being horrible mercenary imperialists in some situations and also wanting to be or be considered loving humanitarians when it came to other matters.

Even the horrible mercenary imperialists wanted to be considered to be loving humanitarians. They wouldn't change, but they wanted other people to see them as good people even when they were not.

The average Indian salary now is about $5000. The average Egyptian salary now is about $7000. People were even poorer back in the 1860s and survived on a lot less.

Less than Zero? Now *that* I would like to see.

You sound almost gleeful thinking that slavery would always be cheaper and more profitable than free labor.

Realistic. The very notion that paid labor will be cheaper than unpaid labor seems nonsensical when it applies to simple things like cotton cultivation and harvesting.

But labor in many poorer countries wasn't that free. People were very poor and desperate for work.

A worse situation than slavery? So why then would anyone support a worse situation than slavery? It seems as if it makes slavery the lesser of the two evils.

I'm not sure whether you'll be happy or disappointed to find out that slave labor wasn't always going to outcompete its competitors.

I cannot wrap my head around such an idea. Telling me that paying people to produce a product results in a cheaper price than not paying people to produce a product just seems insane to me.

The Confederates definitely were trying break off slave territories in the US. They attacked Sumter and started the war because they recognized that Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee would join them if there was a war.

Well this claim has certainly been repeated over and over and over by people trying to justify an Army invading them, but I see little evidence for it beyond the "sprinkle a little blood" comment by someone or other.

Maryland and Missouri were still part of the US and the American government had the right to take steps to protect them.

They had no more right to tell them they can't leave than they had a right to tell the Southern states they can't leave.

The Declaration of Independence says they can leave, and nothing in the US Constitution says they cannot. The assertion that they cannot leave is bullsh*t made up by people who didn't want them to leave and is not supported by any significant evidence.

Kentucky was different. There had been an informal agreement to stay out and the Confederates broke the agreement.

There had been an informal agreement to keep men and munitions out of Fort Pickens and the Union broke that agreement. Since that is how one side played the game, the other side would not be far behind.

Southerners did set up their own shipping enterprises. I have mentioned Charleston's Trenholm firm many times. There were others.

There was shipbuilding in Charleston in 1807 because "the Horizon" was built there, but as Robert Rhett pointed out in his address from South Carolina, Southern shipbuilding had virtually disappeared, and now the trade was carried on almost exclusively by the same powerful companies in the North.

Their coastal packets (controlled in the North) were profitable partially because of federal subsidies to carry the mail.

The main North Carolina railroad was 75% state owned.

You make no mention of federal dollars. How many railroads in the North were built with federal money?

Doubtful. British products weren't necessarily better or cheaper or produced in such large quantities.

That's not the point with your "dumping" claim. Why would people "dump" products when they can command higher prices because of federally imposed tariffs on the competition?

If they have to "dump" products into the Southern markets, this means they are forgoing the higher profits they would have otherwise gotten through the protectionist policies.

Again, it equates to a large loss of money to these Northern manufacturers.

It's only sensible that more Northern goods would have made the rail trip down from Chicago than would have made the long transatlantic crossing.

Oh. That's why we buy stuff from Chicago instead of China. Clearly Chicago has a trade advantage over China, and nobody buys anything from China because of their high transport costs.

In reality, people will buy whichever is cheaper, and the Chicago products would have been forced to be cheaper because of the loss of the artificial price supports from the tariffs.

So again, losing the tariffs cost Northern manufacturers big bucks and it made the European goods much more competitive.

What happened in the 1850s and 1860s was that wealthy cotton and slave interests seized on passing complaints to try to tear the nation apart and get a country of their own.

If they were happy, why would they want a country of their own? You discount the money pipeline from Southern pockets to Northern pockets and you go out of your way to believe it's about morality and not money.

No, it's really about money.

There was a very bizarre situation in which wealthy Southerners glorified in their cotton wealth, but also complained about poverty and complained that Northerners were moving head (at the South's expense) and leaving the South behind.

Bigger populations tend to do that if useful work for their people can be found.

You seem to have taken every complaint of the slaveowners at face value and found them justified.

Hardly. I had never heard of their economic complaints until long after I had noticed there was something very wrong with how much they exported and how much came back into Northern pockets.

It was after I noticed this thing which didn't make any sense that I later ran across Robert Rhett's economic complaints, and later still before I ever saw subsequent examples of Southerners complaining about the economic losses they had from being part of the USA.

That's a pity. You could learn a lot if you didn't just parrot long discredited theories.

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

You keep repeating the discredited theory of "expansion of slavery", and "War was about Slavery", and "They only offered permanent slavery to preserve the Union."

You have your own share of theories that don't make any sense.

Most of the country doesn't make one part of the country into a permanent enemy.

Have you looked around lately? The Liberal enclaves in New York, Boston, etc still hate all of us out here in "flyover country" and want us dead.

They still think they are morally superior because they recognize f@ggots in dresses as "women" and that there are 57 genders, that women are better than men, and that black people are better than everyone else.

Different set of "moral" issues than 1861, but from the same nasty arrogant "elite" in exactly the same cities as hated the rest of the nation back in 1861.

The enemy of the Southern states is our enemy today.

They recognize that businesses are very intertwined nationally and globally.

Eh, Gab? Deplatformed, denied banking services, denied credit card services, denied servers and attempted to be ran out of business using any trick of which the Liberal elite could think.

Those bakery shops ran out of business for not baking F@ggot cakes? Gun manufacturers being ran out of business?

Yes, the corporate left is at war with the corporate right. All the entertainment companies have "wokeified" their entertainment, and nowadays it looks like the nation is 80% black judging by the commercials we are seeing lately.

I’ve put out a couple of responses that I regard as pretty good. You might find them interesting or amusing. :)

Same phenomena.

You are very adept at pulling stupid analogies out of your bunghole, but that doesn't make them accurate representations of anything.

You are telling me that a Constitutional amendment which protects slavery forever was rejected because "the slaveowners cared too much about slavery"?

They thought the proposed amendment didn't give them anything the constitution already gave them, and they wanted more than that. They wanted to live in a country where slavery would never be threatened, even indirectly.

They certainly didn't care about the slaves.

Very few people "cared about the slaves." Very many people cared about slavery.

Thus the fake "Slaves in the Territories" bullsh*t.

Slavery had done fine in a variety of environments and situations. It would have been protected and nurtured by the slaveowners of the South.

How many railroads in the North were built with federal money?

In the antebellum North very few.

Less than Zero? Now *that* I would like to see.

Without having to pay slaves, slaveowners did have to provide for them as well as spend money to keep them in bondage. They also had their own lifestyles to keep up. Such costs were not zero.

If they have to "dump" products into the Southern markets, this means they are forgoing the higher profits they would have otherwise gotten through the protectionist policies.

You have not understood anything I have said this month or anything that has happened in international trade in your lifetime or anything about economics.

You have bought into every idiotic lie that the slaveowners brought forward to justify their secession, and you think that other people are naive. You think you've seen the truth, but you've been played -- played by slaveowning secessionists from long ago and their flimsy excuses, and played by morons today who egg you on in your folly. You add to that a real hatred of one part of the country that leads you to overlook the faults of the Southern slaveowners even when they are similar to or worse than those of Northerners. You don't know basic facts and don't want to learn things that go against your own prejudices.

I can't claim to have everything right. I don't always put things in the right way. I'm still searching for answers and still learning, but I thought it was possible to have a rational conversation with you and examine various historical and economic questions. It's obvious by now that you are too far gone down your rabbit hole of fantasy for that. Actually, that was obvious from the beginning, but for some reason I persisted thinking that there was some point in the conversation. It's clear now that there isn't. I leave you now. Wallow in your own putrid excrement.

DiogenesLamp: "But here we are talking about slavery again, which I consider to be a complete dodge of the real issue of the war which was Northern domination and control of Southern economic output."

x: "Of course you do. Most people think your view is the complete dodge.
It is. It was even a century and a half ago."

Our Lost Cause defenders could easily figure this out for themselves if they'd just read all the several "Reasons for Secession" documents produced by Confederates at the time.
Careful study would reveal that not even one of them complained, as DiogenesLamp alleges here, about "Northern domination and control of Southern economic output."

Here is a summary of reasons in the first seven* (including Alabama) "Reasons for Secession" documents:

"Reasons for Secession" Documents before Fort Sumter

Reasons for Secession	S. Carolina	Mississippi	Georgia	Texas	Rbt. Rhett	A. Stephens	AVERAGE OF 6
Historical context	41%	20%	23%	21%	20%	20%	24%
Slavery	20%	73%	56%	54%	35%	50%	48%
States' Rights	37%	3%	4%	15%	15%	10%	14%
Lincoln's election	2%	4%	4%	4%	5%	0%	3%
Economic issues**	0	0	15%	0%	25%	20%	10%
Military protection	0	0	0	6%	0%	0%	1%

* Alabama listed only slavery in the "whereas" section of its Ordinance of Secession.

** Economic issues include tariffs, "fishing smacks" and other alleged favoritism to Northerners in Federal spending.

DiogenesLamp: "Union forces took control of Missouri before that.
For that matter, they pretty much occupied Maryland to prevent it from going over to the South....
The South was playing catchup when it attempted to go into Kentucky."

All those states -- Missouri, Maryland & Kentucky -- voted against secession, but were invaded by Confederate forces hoping to conquer militarily what they could not win by elections.
In Missouri & Kentucky during the war's first year Confederates won almost as many battles as they lost:

Missouri 1861 - 1862 Engagements

Date	Engagement	Military Units	Losses	Victor
May 10	St. Louis Riots, MO	Union forces vs secessionist crowd	4 Union soldiers killed, 3 prisoners, 28 civilians killed	USA
June 17	Boonville, MO	Union Western Dept (Lyon) -1,700 vs. MO State Guard (Marmaduke) ~1,500	Union: 12-total (5-killed); MO Guard 22-total (5-killed)	USA
June 18	Camp Cole, MO	Union Home Guards (~500) vs. Confederate State Guards (~350)	Union: 120-total (35 killed, 60 wounded 25 captured); CSA: 32-total ( 7-K, 25-W)	CSA (CSA outnumbered)
July 5	Carthage, MO	Union Department of the West (Sigel) -- 1,000 vs. Confederate Missouri State Guard (Jackson) -- 4,000	Union: 44-total; CSA 200-total	CSA
July 5	Neosho, MO	Union 3rd Missouri vs. Confederate cavalry	Union: 137-total; CSA zero total	CSA
July 22	Forsyth, MO	Union Department of the West vs. Confederate Missouri State Guard	Union: 3-total ;Confederates: 15-total	USA
Aug 2	Dug Springs, MO (leadup to Wilson's Creek)	Union Department of the West (~6,000) vs. Confederate Missouri State Guard (~12,000)	Union: 38-total (8 killed ); Confederates:84-total (40 killed)	USA
Aug 3	Curran Post Office, MO (leadup to Wilson's Creek)	Union Department of the West (~6,000) vs. Confederate 1st Arkansas Rifles	Unknown	inconclusive
Aug 5	Athens, MO	Union 21st MO Infantry, Home Guards (~500) vs. Confederate Missouri State Guard (~2,000 + 3-cannons)	Union 23-total (3-killed); Confederate 31-total	USA (USA outnumbered)
Aug 10	Wilson's Creek, MO	Union Dept of the West (Lyon -5,430)vs. Confederate MO State Guard, Dept 2 (Price -12,120)	Union 1,317-total (285-killed incl Gen. Lyon); Confederates 1.232-total (277-killed)	CSA
Aug 10	Potosi, MO	Union Home Guard (~75 troops) vs. Confederate cavalry (~120 troops)	Union 5-total (1-killed); Confederates 5-total (2-killed)	USA (USA outnumbered)
Aug 17	Palmyra, MO	Union 16th Illinois (entrained) vs. Confederate guerillas	Union 2-total (1-killed); Confederates 5-killed	USA
Aug 29	Morse's Mills near Lexington, MO	Union MO Home Guards vs. Confederate cavalry	Union unknown; Confederates unknown	CSA
Sep 2	Dry Wood Creek, MO	Union Dept of the West (Lane ~1,200) vs. Confederate MO State Guard (Price ~12,000)	Union 25-total (2 killed); Confederates 14-total (5 killed)	CSA
Sep 17	Blue Mills Landing, MO	Union 3rd Iowa & MO Home Guard (Scott ~800) & Confederate 4th Div Missouri Militia (Atchison ~3,500)	Union 99 (19-killed); Confederates 21-total (3-killed)	CSA
Sep 13-20	Lexington, MO, 1st battle, aka: "Battle of the Hemp Bales"	Union Illinois 23rd Irish Brigade + 27 & 13th MO Infantry (Mulligan ~3,500) & Confederate Missouri Militia (Price ~15,000)	Union 3,000 surrendered (36-killed); Confederates 150-total (~30-killed)	CSA (Union surrender)
Sep 26	Hunter's Farm, MO	Union Dep of the West (Steward under Grant ~200 & Confederate MO State Guard (under Thompson ~40)	Union none; Confederates 10-total (10-killed)	USA
Oct 21	Fredericktown, MO	Union Ill & MO Infantry, IN cavalry (Plummer ~3,500) & Confederate Missouri State Guard (Thompson ~1,500)	Union 67-total (7-killed), Confederates 145-total (25-killed_	USA (Union defeated Confederate ambush)
Oct 25	Springfield, MO	Union: Fremont's scouts (Zagonyi -326) & Confederate MO State Guard (Frazier ~1,500)	Union 85-total (48-killed), Confederates 133-total (unkn-killed)	USA (USA outnumbered)
Dec 28	Mount Zion Church, MO	Union Birge's Western Sharpshooters, 3rd MO Cav(Prentiss ~400) & Confederate MO State Guard (Dorsey ~235)	Union 70-total (3 dead), Confederates 235-total (25-killed)	USA
Jan 8	Roan's Tan Yard, MO	Union MO & OH Cavalry (Torrence ~500) & Confederate MO State Guard (Poindexter ~1,000)	Union 27 total, Confederates ~80 total	USA

Kentucky 1861-'62 Engagements

Date	Engagement	Military Units	Losses	Victor
Sep 19	Barbourville, KY	Union KY Home Guard (Black ~300) & Confederate Dept 2 (Zollicoffer ~800)	Union 15-total (1-killed); Confederates 7-total (7-killed)	CSA
Oct 21	Camp Wildcat, KY (near Cumberland Gap)	Union IN & KY Infantry, KY Cavalry (Schoepf ~7,000) & Confederate TN Infantry (Zollicoffer ~5,700)	Union 25-total (5-killed), Confederates 53-total (11-killed)	USA
Nov 8-9	Big Sandy-ivy Mountain, KY	Union: Dept of Ohio (Nelson ~5.500) & Confederate 5th Kentucky (Williams, ~1,010)	Union 62-total (12-killed), Confederates 235-total (41-killed)	USA
Nov 20	Skirmish at Brownsville, KY	Union Dept of Cumberland (~115) & Confederate Cavalry (Morgan ~200)	Union 14-total (6-killed), Confederates 1-total (1-killed)	CSA
Dec 17	Rowlett's Station, KY	Union 32nd Indiana (Willich ~500) & Confederate 8th Texas Cavalry, 1sT Ark. (Terry ~1,350)	Union 46-total (13-killed), Confederates 91-total (33-killed, including Terry)	inconclusive (outnumbered Union forces held the field)
Dec 28	Sacremento, KY	Union cavalry (Murray ~500) & Confederate Cavalry (Forrest ~250)	Union 23-total (10-killed), Confederates 5-total (2-killed)	CSA
Jan 10	Middle Creek, KY	Union KY&OH Inf (Garfield 2,100) & Confederate KY Inf & VA Art+Cav (Marshall 2,500)	Union 27 total, Confederates ~65 total	USA
Jan 11	Lucas Bend, Columbus, KY	Union gunboats Essex, St. Louis (Foote, Porter) & Confederate Gunboats Jackson, Ivy, Polk, N.O. (Holland, Rogers)	Union none, Confederates unknown	Inconclusive
Jan 19	Mill Springs, KY	Union KY, IN, OH, Mn, TN Inf, Cav & ART (Thomas ~4,400) & Confederate MS, TN, KY, AL Inf, Cav & Arty (Crittenden, Zollicoffer ~5,900)	Union 246-total (39 killed), Confederates 529-total (125 killed incl Zollicoffer)	USA

Confederate forces also invaded Union New Mexico and Oklahoma, where in the war's first year Confederates won two battles for every one they lost.

New Mexico 1861-'62 Engagements

Date	Engagement	Military Units	Losses	Victor
July 25	Mesilla, New Mexico	Union Department of the New Mexico (~300) vs. Confederate 2nd Texas Mounted Rifles (~380 +artillery )	Union: 9-total (2-killed); Confederates: 19-total (13-killed)	CSA
July 27	Fort Fillmore, NM	Union Department of the New Mexico (~500) vs. Confederate 2nd Texas Mounted Rifles (~300)	Union: 500-total (surrendered); Confederates: none	CSA (CSA outnumbered, Union surrendered)
Sep 25	Alamosa, NM	Union Dep of NM (Minks ~100 cavalry)& Confederate cavalry (Coopwood ~112)	Union 33 (4-killed); Confederates 9-total (2-killed)	CSA (Union surrendered)
Sep 27	Fort Craig, NM	Union Haspel's cavalry ( ~100) & Confederate cavalry	Union 10-total; Confederates 10-total	CSA
Sep 27	Pinos Altos, NM	Union allied Apaches (Cochise ~300) & Confederate Arizona Guards (Mastin ~15 +cannon)	Union Apaches 30-total (10 killed); Confederates 14-total (7-killed, incl. Mastin)	CSA (CSA outnumbered)
Feb 21, 1862	Valverde, NM	Union Dept of NM (Canby, McRae ~3,000) & Confederate Army of NM (Sibley, Green ~2,290)	Union 432-total (68-killed), Confederates 187-total (36-killed)	CSA (CSA outnumbered)
Feb 22	Socorro, NM	Union 2nd New Mexico & Confederate 5th Texas	None	CSA
Mar 26-28	Apache Canyon, Glorieta Pass NM	Union US & CO Infantry (Slough ~1,300) & Confederate Texas cavalry (Slurry ~1,100)	Union 147-total (51-killed), Confederate 222 total (50- killed)	USA strategic, tactical draw
Mar 30	Stanwix Station, AZ	Union CA cavalry (Calloway -272) & Confederate AZ Rangers (Swilling -10)	Union 1-total (0-killed), Confederate none	USA
April 14	Las Padillas, NM	Union NM militia, Confederate Army of NM	unknown	USA
April 15	Peralta, NM	Union NM & CO Inf., Confederate Texas Cav (Green	Union 4-total (1-killed), Confederate 30-total (5-killed)	USA
April 15	Picacho Pass, AZ	Union CA cavalry (Carleton -13), Confederate AZ rangers (Henry -10)	Union 4-total (1-killed), Confederate 30-total (5-killed)	CSA

Oklahoma 1861 Engagements

Date	Engagement	Military Units	Losses	Victor
Nov 19	Round Mountain, OK	Union: Creeks & Seminoles (Opothleyahola ~1,700) & Confederate Cavalry (Cooper, ~1,400)	Union 110-total (unkwn-killed), Confederates 10-total (6-killed)	CSA (CSA outnumbered)
Dec 9	Chusto-Talasah, OK	Union Creek & Seminole allies (Opothleyahola ~2,500) & Confederate Texas cavalry + Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek & Cherokee allies (Cooper ~1,300)	Union 500-total (9-killed), Confederates 467-total (30-killed)	CSA (CSA outnumbered)
Dec 26	Chustenahlah, OK	Union Creek & Seminole allies (Opothleyahola ~1,700) & Confederate Texas Cavalry (McIntoxh, Stand Watie ~1,380)	Union 430-total (2,000 later starved), Confederates 49-total (9-killed)	CSA

DiogenesLamp: "Giving the producers higher prices is simply taking that money out of the pockets of Americans who need the products.
Are these Americans of lesser value than those other Americans?"

What Republicans wanted in 1860 was exactly what Republicans like Donald Trump want today -- to Make America Great and Put Americans First.
That's why we favor protecting American manufacturing against cheaper foreign imports.
"Progressive" Democrats like DiogenesLamp, then and now, want to Break America Greatly, and Put Working Americans Last.
That's why Democrats have always favored the lowest possible tariff rates, and the highest levels of foreign imports.

And Democrats are usually the majority, and so then & now had reduced tariffs to their lowest historical rates, resulting in great losses of American manufacturing jobs.
And then when Democrats threatened Northerners -- via the SCOTUS Dred Scott language -- with making slavery lawful in the North, that's when Northern workers flipped from voting for Democrat slaveholders to anti-slavery Republicans.

And the most curious thing is that our FRiends DiogenesLamp & FLT-bird know all this, but absolutely refuse under all circumstances to acknowledge it.

You are very adept at pulling stupid analogies out of your bunghole, but that doesn't make them accurate representations of anything.

I am very adept at identifying analogies you don't like because they contradict what you would prefer to believe.

They thought the proposed amendment didn't give them anything the constitution already gave them, and they wanted more than that.

Since this is your theory, perhaps you can explain what this "more" thing is that they wanted. I'm not sure where you go from "Permanent" slavery in the USA versus the status quo in the CSA. It seems as though slavery would still be confined to the Southern states, and still not "expanded" into the territories, so what could they have gotten in terms of "more slavery" in the CSA that they would not have gotten in the USA?

It looks to me like on the issue of "more slavery" they would have gotten nothing more in the CSA than the USA, but on the issue of profits, they would have been massively better off in a CSA than a USA. But I have your assurances that what they wanted was "more slavery" and that they were totally unconcerned about doubling their incomes.

Very few people "cared about the slaves." Very many people cared about slavery.

Tiny little minorities of kooks predominately in Massachusetts cared about "slavery" as a morality issue. Everyone else hated it because of threats to their wages and a general hatred of black people. Also, your effort to try and separate the slaves from slavery is silly.

Slavery had done fine in a variety of environments and situations. It would have been protected and nurtured by the slaveowners of the South.

It would have continued on exactly as it had been in the USA for "four score and seven years." It would have never expanded into the "territories" because the profits were in the Southern cotton growing regions.

Without having to pay slaves, slaveowners did have to provide for them as well as spend money to keep them in bondage.

So it's more expensive to provide food and housing to slaves than it is to pay workers in Egypt and India to toil in the fields? Why do I not believe you?

They also had their own lifestyles to keep up. Such costs were not zero.

The cotton exporters lifestyle has nothing to do with the costs of labor they employ. Their employment costs whether it will be slaves or paid labor, will remain the same regardless of how opulently they wish to spend their money.

You have not understood anything I have said this month or anything that has happened in international trade in your lifetime or anything about economics.

You are correct. I do not understand your theories as to how the Northern manufactures come out ahead by "dumping" into Southern markets as opposed to having protectionist laws propping up their prices and thereby give them heavier profits.

You are somehow asking me to believe they would have made more money from "dumping" than by the use of protectionist laws giving them higher profits. Again, I do not understand this theory of yours. It appears to make absolutely no sense to me.

You have bought into every idiotic lie that the slaveowners brought forward to justify their secession,

You've said that before, and it was incorrect the first several times you have said it, and I will tell you why.

I did my own research to come to my conclusions. I have no knowledge of what "slaveowners" said on the matter because I have not bothered to research any of that. I noted that 72% of the total European trade came from the South, yet 90% of the money ended up in New York and Washington DC.

Slaveowners saying things have nothing to do with this clearly odd situation. If they complained about it, I don't blame them at all for doing so. I complain about Washington DC getting my money every year while parasites get free money from these same @$$holes in DC.

Do you like sending your money to DC to be used for things you abhor? I don't.

You think you've seen the truth, but you've been played -- played by slaveowning secessionists from long ago and their flimsy excuses

Because I haven't been reading anything "slaveowning secessionists" have been saying, I can hardly be influenced by what they've said. You don't like it, but I started out with numbers that didn't make any sense. I didn't start out reading what "slaveowners" said. From what I gather from reading what you and your cohorts say they said, it was all about slavery and how they wanted to "expand" it into the territories.

I later ran across Robert Rhett making an economic argument, but by that time, I had already realized something was very wrong and it smelled very corrupt.

You add to that a real hatred of one part of the country that leads you to overlook the faults of the Southern slaveowners even when they are similar to or worse than those of Northerners.

Well that's just it. When you look at it deeper, you realize they were no worse than the Northerners profiting from slavery, and especially those who manipulated the government to guarantee money flow into their pockets, which is more of the exact same problem *WE* are dealing with today in modern America.

Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, and Moderna, (New York, Boston and New Jersey) have made tens of billions of dollars from government mandated "vaccines."

DC steers money into the pockets of the connected. This was the problem in 1861, and it is still the problem today.

I can't claim to have everything right. I don't always put things in the right way. I'm still searching for answers and still learning, but I thought it was possible to have a rational conversation with you and examine various historical and economic questions.

It is. You just have to be more objective and willing to understand I don't share your assumptions or premises.

I am looking for corruption, and you are looking to avoid seeing it.

It's obvious by now that you are too far gone down your rabbit hole of fantasy for that.

That's funny coming from you. :)

I leave you now. Wallow in your own putrid excrement.

And this is how to tell that you are arguing from emotion, and not reason. I can't recall ever saying anything nasty about you.

Stop posting to me. I’ve had it with your BS.