Posted on 09/10/2005 4:46:12 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
How is it cheaper to ship goods to New York, land them, load them on a coastal packet, then ship them to New Orleans rather than ship them direct. Wouldn't that be the shortest route?
Additionally, New York had the deepest harbour, Charleston being only 12 feet deep large ships could never enter the harbour unless it was dredged - which was contemplated circa 1860 to attract trade.
Charleston harbor - which is located where two tidal rivers, the Ashley and the Cooper, meet - is actually quite deep. The channels that lead into the harbor are what needs care, but even in 1860 one of the four channels was 17 to 22 feet deep and the shallowest two were 11 feet deep.
And lastly, with the secession of the states, Southern exporters would see a rise in revenues and profits, and as a consequence, agricultural interests would seek more mechanical means of increasing production.
How so?
"Whatever role tariffs had, and I won't deny that they were an additional cause of friction, was a mere sideshow to the cornerstone issue."
Bingo, spot on! Every leading 'normal' American historian have honestly attributed the origins of the Civil War has having its root triggering cause deeply based in the Confederates die-hard insistence on expanding their Cotton Empire, which was based on the demonic, barbaric, Nazi-like system of forced labour of over three million souls who languished in the sweltering heat & humidity - as slaves.
Notice this Howell Cobb referred to the Confederate insurrection as the revolution and he is not the only spokesman for the Rebellion Inc who utilized the term the revolution. What you stated he is totally correct as well. "If the fight was about tariffs, why would the white soldiers lose faith in the rebellion? It seems that the white soldiers of the Union didn't have such a problem with black soldiers fighting for the United States."
Notice how all the neo-confeds have a self-convicting habit of going out of their minds, viciously attack anyone & everyone who worked for abolition of slavery (abolitionists), which begs the question, if one is/was so vehemently against the abolition of slavery in 'Confederate' states, in the identical way this very same backward element is/was against abolishing Southern state mandated forced racial segregation, (Jim Crow "laws") the only logical conclusion is the "tariff" counter attack is nothing more then another smoke screen attempting to remove the main focus off their phobias & hatred.
There might be medical cure for your advanced stages of Continuous-Rebellionmania & Debilitating-Redneckism. The problem IS, can you locate a medical specialist willing to risk going off the deep end himself while trying to treat your case? lol
In terms of someone "hating America". Was it not you who stated on numerous occasions your willingness to force a so-called "pro-Confederate, Dixie Republic" on the American public, in the near future, by whatever means necessary?
One of my minors is in Economics, but it's not a subject that one can understand in a few sentences. A trip to your local library should allow you to find a beginner's book on economics - the laws of supply and demand, Laffer curves, etc are not complicated. International economics & tariffs are only slightly more difficult, but a tax on imports IS an indirect tax on exports. Alternatively, you can learn online 'Mises Institute Home Study Course in Austrian Economics' for $350. Your study can also explain how economies of scale work to reduce costs by shipping > trans-shipment and the role of warehousing, and how tariffs are passed on, and the advantages of open markets which raise the standard of living in all participating countries. When higher profits are realized, they are almost invariably followed by investment in some means of mechanization - where possible - to futher reduce costs and increase profits.
If you don't "accept" it means that you do not believe or do not want to believe the records.
What is the point is the following comment from Grand Old has been completely refuted:
To: 4CJ
Tariffs collected at southern ports were nil, because southern imports were nil.
611 posted on 09/27/2005 7:48:11 PM EDT by Grand Old Partisan
Now, that is a comment from someone who is ignorant of his ignorance. Some people do not realize what they do not know, yet sit around making commentary that is totally absurd, while oblivious of the truth.
This request has been fulfilled:
From Grand Old Partisan:
"You were going to post a link to a source other than MSN, remember? You said the figures were from the U.S. Treasury, so post the link."
"and $31 million in northern imports only coincidentally adds up to the $362 million in foreign imports stated in the Treasury Report"
Where in the Treasury Report do you find $362?
in all too many cases, the members of the DAMNyankee coven are TOO DUMB to understand such concepts, so your work is likely in vain. PITY.
free dixie,sw
"it still means that if $31 million in imports was consumed by the north, the other 90+% consumed by the south and it again fails the common sense test."
You are quoting incorrect data.
free dixie,sw
"But according to Encarta, the number was $31 million."
You will have to ask them about that number.
It's like teaching a pig to sing.
You accomplish nothing, and it really pisses off the pig.
"The only possible, reasonable explanation is that there was, in fact, little demand for imported goods in the south."
The data shows that your statement is a contention and not a fact.
Bingo. Their mindset is that ALL imports arriving in New York are for Northern consumers, ALL cars imported into Jacksonville are for Floridians, and ALL TV's from Japan entering into Seattle are for Washingtonians. Anyone living in Iowa NEVER purchases an imported product </sarcasm>
I guess they also think that it's cheaper for the same ships - instead of delivering to Seattle - to sail up the Mississippi to deliver products to Illinois.
And yet it's from a source that you directed me to and cited approvingly.
I posted the Treasury Report in post #700. You'll find the information halfway down the third column of the first page. "The exports of the last fiscal year reached the enormous sum of $400,122,296 and the imports for the same period were $362,163,941, yielding a revenue from customs of $53,187,511.87."
You are quoting incorrect data
"And yet it's from a source that you directed me to and cited approvingly."
"it still means that if $31 million in imports was consumed by the north, the other 90+% consumed by the south and it again fails the common sense test."
90+% consumed by the south? No source that I provided said that. You and your pal 'non' conjured up that data as an illogical straw man argument, threw it out, and wanted to argue its fallacy.
Since you were so hell bent to have the data, you are now either wanting to change the subject or playing little "blemish" games rather than discuss it. So, it appears that you have no personal or scholarly interest in the truth. So be it.
Hey guys, you were right. They won't consider anything except their little arguments.
I stuff mine with croutons and seasoning.
Must be an Iowa thing.
This is a strange conclusion.
Through the normal Constitutional Political process, maintenance of slavery was the one thing that was undoubtedly and rigidly safe within the Union. It would appear as though the Radicals were the ones who used the war to circumvent the process.
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.