Not so long ago, an even larger percentage of South Carolinians in both parties probably thought that way. Not so very long ago there wasn't even a Republican party to speak of in South Carolina.
Posted on 02/16/2016 9:42:51 AM PST by zeestephen
A new poll shows 38 percent of Donald Trump's supporters in South Carolina wish the South had won the Civil War...Seventy percent of Trump backers also believe that the Confederate battle flag should still be flying over their state capitol.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
At least you escaped the Peoples’ Republic of Austin (PRA).
That doesn't matter. This is about making people think that almost half of Trump supporters are dumb, ignorant, racist rednecks.
See the following post and many others that followed on this old thread: [Link]
I should have pinged you to my previous post because it turns out that a large number of posts following the one I linked to were by you. The posts were from an old argument with non-seq.
Wow, I think you are on to somthing there.
Well your identification is all wrong, your dates are all wrong, and the gender is wrong. Other than that if you want to think I’m someone else then go right ahead.
Honestly, if you asked the Cruz supporters, I'd venture you'd get similar results. So how somehow this anti CBF New Yorker got this support is beyond me.
"The total amount of imports at the port of New York for the week ending on the 18th, was $2,328,479; for the same week in 1860, $5,517,58 . This was a decrease of 57%.
"Since 1st January, $66,424,138; for the same period last year, $91,215,143. The decline was 30% at that point."
I’m going to take the chance on replying, even though it apparently causes me to be confused with someone else, because I’m really interested in answers to what seems to be a disconnect between what you are saying and what the records show. In December 1864 wasn’t Lincoln reporting tariff revenue of over $100 million for the fiscal year that ended in June or July? And isn’t that amount greater than it was prior to the war? And wasn’t all that tariff revenue generated without Southern consumers?
that number is low:
I would think more folks would be for states rights and limited Government.
Funny, that's exactly the same argument made by Non-Sequitur in the past. Here was part of my response to him/her in the past (linked to above):
After applying the tariff rates to the revenue to determine the value of the imports, I then adjusted the number by the inflation figure. I find that the value of imports to the North relative to the total 1860 import value was:
1860: 1.00
1861: 0.82
1862: 0.50
1863: 0.52
1864: 0.54
1865: 0.38
Don't you understand inflation, Doodle? An 1864 dollar was not worth near what it was worth in 1860 because of wartime inflation that the North underwent. The true value of 1864 imports went down in 1860 dollars compared to what it had been in 1860. If your savings are largely in money markets these days, you probably have more money now than than you did before because your money earned a little interest. But because the true inflation rate is higher than what the government says (though nowhere what it was during the war above), your money market savings will purchase fewer goods than they used to.
Let's look at what happened in 1861 with no inflation applied (from another old post of mine to Non-Sequitur):
Here's data on the change in the value of imports at the Port of New York from 1860 to 1861 on a monthly basis [Source of the data that went into my calculation: the 1865 Appleton's "Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events"]:
Month ... % change from 1860 to 1861
Jan ..... 23.5
Feb ..... -15.6
Mar ..... -22.8
Apr ..... -12.3
May ..... -11.5
Jun ..... -34.0
Jul ..... -40.0
Aug ..... -65.7
Sep ..... -55.1
Oct ..... -49.2
Nov ..... -37.5
Dec ..... -54.8
Hey, this is going to be easy. I can recycle all of my old responses to Non-Sequitur.
Tariff revenue for the years you mention is not germane to my comments.
I was pointing out the conditions between December 1860 and April of 1861 to demonstrate the reasons behind Lincoln's orders to send US Navy warships and civilian steamers loaded with troops to Charleston and Pensacola.
What may seem logical to you is not the fact of the time.
An article in the March 27, 1861 Charleston Mercury described the early effects of secession on the business interests:
'The business men of Charleston are already beginning to reap the advantages of the independent position which the South has taken, in consequence of the refusal of the North to grant her constitutional rights.
'The results of the last few weeks have demonstrated conclusively that the commercial prosperity and political equality which THE MERCURY for years predicted, were not vain boasts. Business of all kinds has increased at an amazing pace; customers are thronging the city from all quarters of the South, and the indications are that Charleston is destined to become the commercial metropolis of the Confederate States.
'In dry goods and fancy goods the operations have been very large, and the purchasers, we are informed, are principally composed of those who used to patronize New York.
'One house alone, the business of which heretofore was chiefly confined to Georgia, has sold heavy bills to merchants from Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas. In shoes alone, the sales of the last two seeks have amounted to upwards of $200,000.
'In short, the prospects of Charleston never were more bright than at this season. It would be impossible to furnish at this writing details of the great increase of business which has taken place, and which is but a small part of what may be expected in the future. Suffice it to say that it is enough to stimulate the energies of our business men.
'So serious has been the effect of this rush of trade to Charleston, that Northern merchants engaged in Southern trade have circulated the report that Charleston traders have increased their prices by adding on the duties under the recent tariff charged on all good from the Northern States,,,,,in other words, that the business men of Charleston have determined to take an undue advantage of their customers.
'This is manifestly so untrue that is hardly deserving of notice, and yet it is by such means that the attempt is made to obtain Southern patronage. Not a merchant that we have visited has made any such addition to his prices. All the goods received before the tariff went into operation, are disposed of at the usual rates.
'Of course, when the merchant pays the duty, it will also be charged to the purchaser; and this is a fair business transaction. But even supposing such to be the fact, which we positively deny, would it amount to a reason why Southern merchants should buy at the North? We think not.
Clearly they would be compelled to pay a duty there, and another duty on bringing their goods across the line. where then would be the advantage?
'The end of all this will be the establishment of direct trade with Europe. A Memphis paper truly remarks:
'The establishment of the Government of the Confederate States of America, with a tariff operating upon the importations from the non-seceding States, must have the effect of driving to the seaports of the South all the trade of the cotton States, and make them great depots for foreign importation as well as the markets of purchase for the country merchants.
'The final arrangements for a line of steamer between Liverpool and this port are nearly completed now and our business community is ready to support it. This pioneer line, we confidently believe, will be followed by others in a very brief time.
'Our largest houses have looked into the future, and they are taking measures accordingly. The hardware dealer have always imported the bulk of their stock, but in the future they have determined to import more largely.
'The same remark will apply to all the other branches of trade. One of our largest drug houses has already issued a circular to its patrons on the subject, a brief extract to which is subjoined:
'As we shall hereafter import our European, Mediterranean and East India Drugs and Chemicals direct to Charleston, we omit all such from the list, and until our arrangements are completed, we will procure them on the best possible terms.
'But there is a want to be supplied. We want more houses and more capital. There is room for enterprise and money in Charleston. We feel satisfied that it will be forthcoming. The vast capital of the South will centre at this point and her energetic business men will aid in the development of our trade and commerce.
Every known freeper on the opposite side of the Yankee and Reb fights here except for two are vile Trump haters
The two exceptions are a venerable American manufacturing institution and a well known academia writer
From what can tell all the others hate Trump
Dixie loves Trump cause we appreciate moxie when we see it
Not so long ago, an even larger percentage of South Carolinians in both parties probably thought that way. Not so very long ago there wasn't even a Republican party to speak of in South Carolina.
It’s the nasty season....what can I say?
I am not familiar with USA commercial laws in 1860-61.
Was there any statutory reason why South Carolina goods and financing had to pass through Northern ports before the War?
In other words, why did South Carolina business interests wait until after secession to arrange contracts and exchange goods directly with foreign nations when it appears they could have done all of that before the War?
And why were tariffs different in different cities? Did some states and local ports charge additional tariffs?
You said: “Thanks for the Charleston Mercury article. It's interesting, but it reads more like a pro-secession pep rally than a newspaper.”
The data that supports the success of the port trade is in post 128.
You said: “Was there any statutory reason why South Carolina goods and financing had to pass through Northern ports before the War?”
Would take too much space on this thread to fully explain. Do your own research using the term ‘warehousing laws USA’.
You said: “And why were tariffs different in different cities? Did some states and local ports charge additional tariffs?”
More research for you.....use the term Morril Tariff.
The Morrill Tariff, which you misspelled, went into effect after Secession.
Thus, the Morrill Tariff had no legal impact on Charleston's failure to negotiate directly with foreign shippers and foreign businesses before Secession.
The Warehousing Act of 1846 applied equally to the Port of New York and the Port of Charleston.
Before Secession, there was no legal reason why a foreign ship could not sail into Charleston Harbor and deposit its cargo into a bonded warehouse in Charleston.
So, my original conclusion stands. If the Northern states and Lincoln had allowed the South to peacefully secede, business commerce between the North and South would have continued normally.
The reason Charleston did not negotiate shipping and trade agreements with foreign nations before Secession was because - economically - it made more sense to negotiate those agreements with the Northern shippers, Northern traders, Northern bankers, and the Northern textile industry.
Charleston had a non-slave population of 26,000 in 1860, and it was surrounded by rural farmland.
New York City had a non-slave population of 800,000, and was within one day of travel of another 1 million non-slave consumers.
Before Secession, it appears to me that Charleston made a completely rational, unforced, economic decision to do business with the great population centers of the North.
Why would that have changed after a peaceful Secession?
That was not an assertion of mine. You asked: "And why were tariffs different in different cities? Did some states and local ports charge additional tariffs? That was the reason for the difference.
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.