Replies

I raised the issue on a prior thread. You were unable or unwilling to substantiate your claim then either. You can rest assured that every time you claim Government subsidization of Northern railroads or shipping activity, I will ask for the legislation that authorized that action.
I will also continue to use the statistics on the slave trade from “slavevoyages.org” every time you make the claim that Northern ships carried all the slaves to the Western Hemisphere.

“I’d like to hear this one” Because the Confederacy lost the war and ceased to exist. Any nattering about what the Confederacy might have done if they had not lost the war is in the realm of pure speculation. I can speculate that if they went their own way. that the 200,000,000 would have been spent to buy more slaves and land to grow more cotton and tobacco. That money would not have been spent to improve harbors, expand the railroad system, build steel mills, textile factories or shipyards. Chattel slavery would have continued on until into the early twentieth Century.

” Chattel slavery would have continued on until into the early twentieth Century.”

In the North too, because the North had slaves at the time of the war they started. They even started the Jim Crow laws in New York.

I raised the issue on a prior thread. You were unable or unwilling to substantiate your claim then either. You can rest assured that every time you claim Government subsidization of Northern railroads or shipping activity, I will ask for the legislation that authorized that action.

Having previously seen the proof of it, I am a lot less anxious about finding it than you. I am confident that I will eventually run across it again, but I don't feel motivated to look for it right now. I much prefer the back and forth in which I am currently engaging.

I also perceive you really don't care about the proof, you just want to challenge everything and slow down the discussion by insisting on proof of which you already should be aware.

I will also continue to use the statistics on the slave trade from “slavevoyages.org” every time you make the claim that Northern ships carried all the slaves to the Western Hemisphere.

That's fine. Clearly Northern US ships only carried slaves after 1776, and therefore they are obviously not responsible for all the slaves carried prior to that.

I can speculate that if they went their own way. that the 200,000,000 would have been spent to buy more slaves and land to grow more cotton and tobacco.

Well there's actually proof that they wouldn't have done that. I've also shown it to you before, and since it is easy to find, here it is again.

Nothing to the west of Mid Texas could have been plantation farmed in the 19th century because cotton only grows there through modern irrigation practices. So no, they couldn't have grown any more than they were already growing. There was no land or climate that would support it.

To RinaseaofDs. Here is a graphic I use a lot. It proves that it was impossible to have plantation slavery in any of the territories because Cotton won't grow (much) in any territory north of Oklahoma, and it can't grow in West Texas or further west without modern irrigation.

The point here is to demonstrate that the concern about expanding slavery to the territories was probably astroturn nonsense created by a propaganda organization created in New York (of course) called "The free Soil Party."

You couldn't have any significant plantation farming in Kansas because you can't even do very much cotton farming in Kansas today.

The "expansion of slavery in the territories" appears to be made up astroturf intended to keep the Northern coalition of states in control of Congress.

They were using that majority in congress to make sure legislation kept money coming out of the South into their pockets. That's why they were so adamant about keeping control of Congress. They didn't really give a crap about the slaves.