Posted on 06/23/2016 2:04:08 PM PDT by ColdOne
Then you don’t know where “The Red Badge of Courage” was first published.
Those businessmen with strong economic interests in the South were all Democrats.
They hated abolition, they hated Republicans and they hated "Ape" Lincoln.
They were partners economically and politically with Southern Slaveocrats.
When secession was first threatened these Democrat businessmen favored granting whatever concessions on slavery secessionists might want.
Once secessions were declared, these Democrat businessmen favored the most congenial relations possible with the Confederacy.
By sharp contrast, only some Republicans demanded the President and Congress take a hard line with secessionists, grant them no demands, don't let them seize Federal properties in the South.
And when the Confederacy launched war at Fort Sumter, those Republicans demanded rebellion must be defeated.
but even amongst Republicans, the majority had counselled surrender of Fort Sumter.
So Lincoln's choice of action there was his own, not Republicans generally and certainly not Northern business Democrats just recently divorced from their Southern Democrat political spouses.
Cleveland’s Daily National Democrat November 20, 1860.
“The entire amount, in dollars and cents, of produce and of manufactured articles exported to foreign countries from the United States for the year ending June, 1858, was $293,758,279, of which amount the raw cotton exported alone amounted to $131,386,661. . . taking the estimate of the cotton used [in the] North . . . and adding it to the worth of the cotton sent abroad, and we have over one hundred and fifty-eight million dollars[’] worth of cotton as the amount furnished by the South.Deduct from the exports the silver and gold and the foreign goods exported, and the cotton crop of the South alone exported exceeds the other entire export of the United States, and when to this we add the hemp and Naval stores, sugar, rice, and tobacco, produced alone in the Southern States, we have near two-thirds of the value entire of exports from the South.
Let the States of the South separate, and the cotton, the rice, hemp, sugar and tobacco, now consumed in the Northern States must be purchased [from the] South, subject to a Tariff duty, greatly enhancing their cost. The cotton factories of New England now, by getting their raw cotton duty free, are enabled to contend with the English in the markets of their own Provinces, and in other parts of the world. A separation would take from us this advantage, and it would take from the vessels owned by the North the carrying tradeof the South, now mostly monopolised by them.”
In other words, *we* are correct, and BroJoeK is absolutely wrong. This statement was contemporary and from OHIO, a Northern state.
It also points out that the North had monopolized the shipping trade, just as we've been saying.
Discontinued publication in 1851.
PeaRidge: "~~Philadelphia Press, March 18, 1861"
No record of such a publication.
PeaRidge: "~The Living Age, Boston, March 23, 1861."
Still no record of such a publication.
PeaRidge: "Still no mention of slavery as a cause for the blockade. ONLY MONEY."
FRiend, any child in school learns that slavery was the cause of secession and rebellion the cause of blockade.
How did you manage to forget that?
“With her immense staples, [the South] has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two per cent. Of the whole . . . It is almost impossible to estimate the amount of money realized yearly out of the South by the North.It, beyond all question, amounts to hundreds of millions. By the present arrangement, also, we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor,of millions annually. The result would follow any tariff, for revenue or otherwise.”
States rights
What “States rights” specifically?
Money alone was not justification for war.
That's why in his Inaugural Address on March 4, 1861 Lincoln told secessionists they could not have a war unless they themselves started it.
Which they soon did.
Why are you so intent to confuse yourselves on these matters?
I think we've now established beyond reasonable doubt that all such quotes are deeply suspect and should not be accepted at face value, until strong confirmations received.
DiogenesLamp: "...Northern Apologists wonder why the South didn't like the idea of a Federal fort overlooking the entrance to their port city."
No, of course they didn't like it, just as the Commie Cubans don't like our base at Guantanamo Bay, and the old Soviets didn't like our outposts in West Berlin.
Tough.
But if they assault those troops then they start a war, just as Confederates did at Fort Sumter.
Why are you so, so confused about that?
No, there was no "argument".
Instead there was rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", invasion of Federal properties and eventually war against the United States, meaning treason for those who supported the Confederacy.
"Progressive South" in those days was a contradiction in terms, unless you wish to define protecting slavery as "progressive".
If so, it simply proves beyond reasonable doubt how much of a Democrat you really are.
Hyperbole & propaganda comes 100% from you Lost Causers, no Unionist Republican is sitting around concocting nonsense when actual history doesn't serve.
Lincoln well understood that war over money could not happen, indeed should not happen.
But war over rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", invasion and treason were much different matters.
So Lincoln first warned secessionists, and then waited.
He did not have long to wait.
Up and until December of 1860, the political disagreements and Congressional battles were about the balance of power between the agricultural South, and the Mercantilist North and Midwest.
"Mercantilist North"? Yea, off by a hundred years or so!
argument was now between the establishment Union and a progressive South on the verge of economic explosion.
The only reason the south ventured into anything beyond cottage industry was because they had foolishly committed themselves to a disastrous course of action and too late realized that they lacked the capacity to support themselves and their would-be confederacy. Up until 1860 they were happy to outsource virtually every commodity they needed.
From the Treasury records of 1861 http://constitution.org/uslaw/treas-rpt/1861_report_secretary_treasury.pdf
UNITED STATES EXPORTS for 1860
NORTHERN ORIGIN.
Products of the sea . . . . . $ 4,156,180
Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,368,917
Provisions . . . . . . . . . . 20,215,226
Breadstuffs . . . . . . . . . 19,022,901
Manufactures . . . . . . . . . 25,599,547
Total Northern Origin . . . . .$77,363,070
SOUTHERN ORIGIN
Forest . . . . . . . . . . $ 6,085,931
Breadstuffs . . . . . . . . 9,567,397
Cotton . . . . . . . . . . 191,806,555
Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . 19,278,621
Hemp, &c. . . . . . . . . . . 746,370
Manufactures . . . . . . . .10,934,795
Total Southern Origin . . . . . $238,419,680
Total exports . . . . . $335,782,740
Not only is his history skewed, so is his math.
They way I calculate it, the Southern (5 million people) portion works out to 71% of the total.
The North (22 million people) were only producing 29% of the total trade revenue.
PeaRidge: "~~Philadelphia Press, March 18, 1861"
[BroJoeK] No record of such a publication.
BJK, you are up to your usual standards, such as they are. Did you check Wikipedia? The New York Times?
From Wikipedia:
The Philadelphia Press (or The Press) is a defunct newspaper that was published from August 1, 1857 to October 1, 1920.
In 1861, the New York Times even quoted articles from your non-existent Philadelphia Press: [Link]
I may even have posted information from your non-existent Philadelphia Press in the past, even from the issue in question March 18, 1861.
Philadelphia Press, March 18, 1861 (from "The Causes of the Civil War" by Kenneth M. Stampp, my paperback copy of the book, page 92):
One of the most important benefits which the Federal Government has conferred upon the nation is unrestricted trade between many prosperous States with divers productions and industrial pursuits. But now, since the Montgomery Congress has passed a new tariff, and duties are extracted on Northern goods sent to ports in the Cotton States, the traffic between the two sections will be materially reduced. … Another, and a more serious difficulty arises out of our foreign commerce, and the different rates of duty established by the two tariffs which will soon be in force. …
The General Government, … to prevent the serious diminution of its revenues, will be compelled to blockade the Southern ports … and prevent the importation of foreign goods into them, or to put another expensive guard upon the frontiers to prevent smuggling into the United States.
Here's the data from the US Treasury for 1860:
IMPORTS..............Specie.........Goods...........Total.
.............. $8,551,135 ...$353,645,119 ...$362,166,254
Can somebody run the numbers and give him the percentage of specie to imports so that he can see what the actual number is???
You said: “Near as I can tell, none of those are legit, certainly not important enough to be recorded in histories of newspapers.”
OK, here we go.
The Philadelphia Press
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Philadelphia Press (or The Press) is a defunct newspaper that was published from August 1, 1857 to October 1, 1920.
The paper was founded by John Weiss Forney. Charles Emory Smith was editor and owned a stake in the paper from 1880 until his death in 1908. In 1920, it was purchased by Cyrus Curtis, who merged the Press into the Public Ledger.
Before being published in book form, Stephen Crane's 1895 novel The Red Badge of Courage was serialized in The Philadelphia Press in 1894
Notable contributors
Thomas Morris Chester, African-American Civil War correspondent
Benjamin De Casseres, proofreader, theatrical critic and editorial writer
Elisha Jay Edwards, investigative journalist
John Russell Young, chief Civil War correspondent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Philadelphia_Press
NEW ORLEANS DAILY CRESCENT: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82015378/
Union Democrat
https://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/teaching-resources/sixteen-months-to-sumter/newspaper-index/manchester-union-democrat/let-them-go
I hate to use the term lying, so I won't, but you continually make things up.
Remember your "Harriot (sic) Lane" debacle from last year? You went on and on for days in spite of irrefutable proof of you ignorance. Just can't man up and tell the truth?
I would think even rockrr and the rest would get fed up at some point.
The Boston Evening Transcript was a daily afternoon newspaper in Boston, Massachusetts, published from July 24, 1830, to April 30, 1941.[2]
Look it up.
.............. $8,551,135 ...$353,645,119 ...$362,166,254
Can somebody run the numbers and give him the percentage of specie to imports so that he can see what the actual number is???
Well, if the specie is $8,551,135 and the Total is $362,166,254, then specie is 2.4% of the total.
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.