Virginia’s Black Confederates

CNS News ^ | 11/4/2010 | Walter E. Williams

[rockrr]

You wouldn’t understand or appreciate a Jeffersonian Republic if it reached out and smacked you with a cluebat. Your exaggerations are so extreme that they are beyond comical.

You are pathetically delusional.

[NTHockey]

>>You say that like that would be a bad thing.<<

Just saying, just saying. Prolonging a verbal battle will surely ignite a real war.

[central_va]

Nice come back Potsy.

A Lincoln Coven member chastising me for not appreciating a Jeffersonian Republic, priceless.

[TheBigIf]

You have a lot of nerve accusing Lincoln supporters of being a part of a coven considering that it was your confederate democrats that formed the KKK coven.

Look at the names of the confederate democrat KKK leaders: “Cyclops,” “Wizard,” “Grand Dragon.” The Imperial Wizard meets with “klaverns,” which sounds a lot like “covens.”

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>... if you’re referring to the fact that upwards of 90% of all tariff revenue was collected in Northern ports, indicating that the overwhelming majority of all imports were destined for Northern consumers then you are correct and there was an imbalance. The North paid the bulk of taxes on imports.<<<

Approximately 80% of tariff revenues fell on the South, while about 80% of the expenditures of the revenues benefited the North.

Some good articles on the Morrill Tariff:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo17.html
http://www.ashevilletribune.com/archives/censored-truths/Morrill%20Tariff.html

There was also a FR article/discussion at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1069109/posts

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Sorry, but you don't know much about old Abe

I know enough about Abe to know that his administration was light as a feather compared to Jeff Davis's regime. Widespread suppression of domestic dissent does not bode well for the success of what was supposed to be a revolution of independence.

[Smokin' Joe]

How about the rushing of troops to Kentucky before to war to preempt them from succeeding?

Not to mention the invasion of Maryland and the placing of the legislature under house arrest at Fort McHenry--also before a vote on secession could be made.

[Smokin' Joe]

Cotton was a hand labor-intensive crop, and it wasn't automated until the 1940s

As was tobacco, which to my knowledge was never automated.

[Non-Sequitur]

Approximately 80% of tariff revenues fell on the South, while about 80% of the expenditures of the revenues benefited the North.

If 80% of the cost was born by the South then why was well over 90% of all tariff revenue collected in the North? In the year prior to the rebellion why did a single Northern port, New York City, collect 17 times as much in tariff revenue that did the busiest Southern port, New Orleans?

Some good articles on the Morrill Tariff...

You are aware that the Morrill tariff wasn't passed until after the South seceded aren't you?

[Non-Sequitur]

Johnson was so mean to his slaves that one of them ran away and asked the white neighbour to let his stay with him. It was that time that Johnson went to court and had slavery legalised.

A neat story, but like so many Lost Cause stories it's inaccurate.

"Whereas Hugh Gwyn hath . . . brought back from Maryland three servants formerly run away . . . the court doth . . . order [that] the first serve out their times with their master according to their indentures, . . . and that [the] third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere." A Virginia Court Decision (1640) from Virginia Magazine of History and Biography (January 1898), vol. 5, no. 3, p. 236.

Hugh Gwyn was white. In addition, Massachusetts was the first colony to legalize slavery in 1641, 9 years before your story. But 15 years after the Dutch had legalized slavery in New Amsterdam.

[Non-Sequitur]

Not to mention the invasion of Maryland and the placing of the legislature under house arrest at Fort McHenry--also before a vote on secession could be made.

False.

[Sherman Logan]

Approximately 80% of tariff revenues fell on the South, while about 80% of the expenditures of the revenues benefited the North.

I've seen similar claims made many times. I've never seen any real quantification. If you have some I'd really like to see it.

The closest I have seen confuse the trade deficit or surplus with the tariff taxes. Prior to the war, by far the largest export item from the USA was raw cotton. But the US has never had any taxes on exports.

[mac_truck]

If 80% of the cost was born by the South then why was well over 90% of all tariff revenue collected in the North? In the year prior to the rebellion why did a single Northern port, New York City, collect 17 times as much in tariff revenue that did the busiest Southern port, New Orleans?

It is quite possible that goods destined for the South were delivered by smaller coastal vessels after first clearing the custom house in NYC. This would be a decision of the ship owner and not necessarily the customer who's goods were subject to the tariff.

Do you have a breakdown of where the goods subject to the tariff ended up, or some other methodology?

Port of entry seems insufficient to determine who's ox was being gored by the tariff.

[Smokin' Joe]

Hahahahaha! Denial won’t change the facts. If Virginia hadn’t pissed around so long, the invasion would have been a different story.

[Non-Sequitur]

It is quite possible that goods destined for the South were delivered by smaller coastal vessels after first clearing the custom house in NYC. This would be a decision of the ship owner and not necessarily the customer who's goods were subject to the tariff.

So if 80% of your goods are destined for Southern consumers then how much sense does it make to take those goods to a port hundreds of miles away, take them off the ship, tax them, put them on another ship, and send them to their ultimate consumers? Wouldn't it make more sense to take them directly to Southern ports if so much of it was going to wind up there anyway?

Do you have a breakdown of where the goods subject to the tariff ended up, or some other methodology?

Thomas Huertas did a 1979 study on how much money a confederate tariff would collect. In order to calculate that he examined Southern purchases of goods from overseas and from the North. The results are below:

The fact of the matter is that the South did pay a disproportionate percentage of the tariff. A disproportionately SMALL percentage.

[LS]

I have not clue why you think I am under an “illusion.” You obviously, and I mean OBVIOUSLY, have not read a thing I’ve ever written and frankly owe me an apology. If you read one paragraph of “Patriot’s History of the United States,” you will see ZERO defense of Confederate democracts, then or now.

[PeaRidge]

On 3/4/1861, as Lincoln took office, the US Treasury had on deposit $6,000,000.

This was enough to finance the government for a month and a half.

Over 90% of Federal revenue came from tariffs.

Tariff revenue from the imports of goods purchased with the proceeds of the sales of Southern cotton were about to cease.

Direct trade with Europe was about to produce millions of dollars annually that would not pass through Union custom houses.

The people of the North were about to experience a major downfall. That is why a number of state governors were pushing Lincoln to attack the South.

[TheBigIf]

Well I apologize for stating what your belief may be or not be based upon your post to me. I should have just stated that there are many who hold that illusion, in my opinion.

[Lee'sGhost]

GRITS!!!!!

Now that’s the truth.

[Lee'sGhost]

Thanks for posting. The inability of some to acknowledge the simple truth Williams has written is exactly the same as liberals who will not acknowledge the truth about...anything.

It is sad that so many good FReepers lose the ability to acknowledge truth when it comes to this one topic.