Posted on 09/10/2005 4:46:12 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
Bwahahaha!
I just quoted Pearidge directly on what the core subject was clown-boy, remember? Right after you told Heyworth that...
" Nobody said this. Anywhere. Ever."
After making such an uninformed mis-statement, I'd say your ability to define what we're debating here is..zilch.
Now run along and get lost would ya...?
If that's the case, then you and Pea haven't come close to making it. The fact that New Orleans and Charleston saw a busy international trade, and that no laws specifically prevented the south from participating in the shipping business makes the position untenable. Moreover, those tensions had existed for decades, but it was only with the election of Lincoln that the south seceded, endlessly citing the protection of slavery and rarely mentioning these other factors that you champion. Apart from a couple of NY newspaper editorials, you haven't shown anything about the north fearing southern competition in commerce and international trade. Pea's whole discussion of the dredging of Charleston harbor somehow panicking New York interests, for example, is utterly without support other than his say-so.
Heyworth (1076) argues that "busy" is somehow a measure of international trade, to the point where it requires inclusion of intra-continental shipping of goods upriver from New Orleans - also a non-sequitur.
No, quite the opposite. I excluded the 3000+ steamboats docking in N.O. in those years. It's Pea who insisted that the number presented included those arrivals. But his argument only makes sense if you believe that only 300-some steamboats docked at New Orleans in 1859-60. And yeah, I think that a busy port is a pretty good indicator that it's doing well. When close to 2000 ocean-going ships are coming in and out of a harbor in a year (not to mention those steam boats), I think that any argument that southern ports were somehow not involved in international trade because they were being crushed by the New York capitalists kinda falls apart.
And you pinged me why?
It's not uncommon, but if you'd like I will stop.
[Heyworth] you guys keep trying to claim that New York so dominated shipping that the south just HAD to secede.
I'll stand by what I said. The tariff was a major cause of secession. Slavery was a major cause of secession. Geography was a major cause of secession. Economy was a major cause of secession. Constitutional interpretation was a major cause of secession. The election of Lincoln was a major cause of secession. Formation of the invasion force was a major cause of secession (THE major cause, for 4 states).
Claiming the two are equivalent is the typical hyberbole we expect from mac_truck.
And.... What's up with your phobia of rodeo clowns?
Okay, so I'm being hyperbolic and sarcastic,
And mac_truck is taking the bait.
I have always said that slavery was the primary wedge issue, but abuses on both sides with respect to slavery made it easy to look for others and cry foul. That the national landscape was dominated by discussion of slavery and its surrounding issues does not render all other problems illegitimate, or even minor. People vote with their wallets.
Pea's whole discussion of the dredging of Charleston harbor somehow panicking New York interests, for example, is utterly without support other than his say-so.
We do, however, have Lincoln's say-so.
And yeah, I think that a busy port is a pretty good indicator that it's doing well. When close to 2000 ocean-going ships are coming in and out of a harbor in a year (not to mention those steam boats), I think that any argument that southern ports were somehow not involved in international trade because they were being crushed by the New York capitalists kinda falls apart.
I don't know enough about it to extrapolate a small fact (# of ships) into the larger conclusion, and (beg your pardon for this, but) I don't trust the conclusions when others make the leap (thank Non for that). Without comparative data from other ports, the 2k figure tells me little.
Trying something new, are we? While you're at it try not putting words in my mouth.
"Okay, so I'm being hyperbolic and sarcastic,"
LOL! Here's what Heyworth really said:
"Okay, so I'm being hyperbolic and sarcastic, but that's the gist of it."
Whatsa matter clown-boy, can't you at least quote the full sentence? Talk about attempting a deliberate misrepresentation. You're pathetic.
And mac_truck is taking the bait.
I don't take bait from trolls like you, especially the weaka$$ stuff you serve up, Beppe.
It's allright to cry.
It's pretty clear that the confederacy thought itself indespensible to the rest of the world. They couldn't have been more wrong.
Exactly! It's very similar to today's self deluded, 'neo-confederates' actually believing their single issue, cultish obsession with re-fighting the Civil War for the pro-slavery side, in 2005, is somehow vastly more important then the global war against Islamic terrorism, plus scores of other pressing issues threatening this nation.
Where does Lincoln say that the dredging of Charleston harbor is panicking the New York shipping and commercial interests? Saying that he's going to try to ignore secession and keep the federal government functioning in the south by collecting tariffs and delivering mail is far from the same thing.
Without comparative data from other ports, the 2k figure tells me little.
Fair enough. How about this, then? According to the 1878 edition of the US statistical abstract, in the table "Tonnage of American and Foreign Vessels entered at the principal and other seaports of the United States from Foreign Countries, from 1853 to 1878, inclusive", in 1859, 1.8 million tons of shipping entered New York harbor. In third place, (just behind Boston) with 659,000 tons, was New Orleans. Charleston had 129K tons, Savannah 86K, Mobile 131K, and Galveston 24K.Baltimore, whose status as northern or southern port is debatable, I suppose, had 189K.
It's interesting to note that the list of "principal seaports" includes five from the south and four from the north (not counting Baltimore in either).
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/
page 140
Good data, totalling the 8 mentioned ports, NYC accounted for almost exactly half! Amazing by any standard, the Southerners would have done well to use it as a model in developing their own shipping (were it not for the whole blockade thing).
Another interesting table can be found on page 139 of the same source, showing the countries of origin of ships entering US harbors from foreign countries (and thus excluding the coastal packet traffic). For 1859, foreign ships account for almost exactly one-third of the total tonnage arriving from foreign countries (1,583,033 out of 4,913,031). This would seem to somewhat undermine the claimed importance of the navigation acts.
Reading your stuff generally makes me want to laugh, not cry. Though it also tends to trigger the barf reflex.
free dixie,sw
The only source of data that I referred to was produced by the US Treasury, based on data from the US Customs that came from logs at the Tariff House in New Orleans. Perhaps you have more accurate data.
"you guys keep trying to claim that New York so dominated shipping that the south just HAD to secede"
No one is saying that. What is being said is that the Northeast was so fearful of the power of the Mississippi that politicians and media were urging Lincoln on to blockade the ports.
"Pea said that the number included steam boats/river traffic, implying that ocean shipping out of N.O. was less"
I made no such connection.
"s. boats" column is something unknowable."
That is, unless, you have some other data.
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.