Confederate plaque in Texas Capitol to come down after vote

WFAA ^ | January 11, 2019 | Jason Whitely

[TexasGunLover]

AUSTIN, Texas — A historically inaccurate brass plaque honoring confederate veterans will come down after a vote this morning, WFAA has learned.

The State Preservation Board, which is in charge of the capitol building and grounds, meets this morning at 10:30 a.m. to officially decide the fate of the metal plate.

[FLT-bird]

Your repetitive responding to respond in order to waste as much time as possible while failing to read and/or just claiming any source that is inconvenient for your arguments is automatically untrue, has likewise come to an end. Buh Bye.

4th attempt.

[FLT-bird]

Your repetitive responding to respond in order to waste as much time as possible while failing to read and/or just claiming any source that is inconvenient for your arguments is automatically untrue, has likewise come to an end. Buh Bye.

5th attempt.

[BroJoeK]

Diogeneslamp: ***”And here is another bit of idiocy. NO ONE SAID THAT!”***

Oh, but they did, you guys just can’t keep your lies straight, that’s a problem when you work in a fact free zone — no way to look up facts that don’t exist.

I’m on the road today, will point out where you guys said tariffs were the reason Lincoln “attacked” Charleston when I get home.

[FLT-bird]

Bingo. He simply ignores all the voluminous quotes FROM NORTHERN SOURCES saying exactly what we’ve been saying...ie that the North suffers a major financial loss if the Southern states go independent, ignores tax experts who have written on the subject and said the same thing, ignores foreign sources who said the same thing, ignores Southern sources who said the same thing, comes up with his own fantasy numbers and then posts that.

Incessantly.

Anybody who read just say Rhett’s address can see the Southern states were losing out 4 ways....firstly the tariffs hurt their sales since the English and others could not buy is much when their own income was hurt by high American tariffs. Next, the Southern states lost again when they were forced to pay the cost of those tariffs most of which they could not pass on to customers. Next all Southerners were stuck paying higher prices for manufactured goods (and Northerners too but it hit the South harder since they did not get the benefits of manufacturing growth/higher profits and increase in jobs due to not having much manufacturing). Finally, the money that was raised from the high tariffs was spent overwhelmingly in the North.

Just like people have always done, Northerners saw fit to vote themselves other people’s money. Yes, that includes Northern Democrats. They too voted to line their voters’ pockets in order to keep getting elected.

If the Southern states left and adopted low tariffs, all 4 of those ways in which money was squeezed out of the South and flowed North due to politics instantly vanish. On top of that, the Southern states would start servicing their own exports via banking, shipbuilding, shipping, insurance etc. That’s more money that stays at home. In addition to that, plenty of foreign manufacturers would simply import goods into the South knowing they’d flow North since there was effectively no way to stop them coming in when talking about a border that long.

This is why everybody on all sides pointed out why it would be of huge economic benefit to the Southern states to leave and why it would be economically costly for the Northern states if the Southern states did leave.

[DoodleDawg]

Charleston charging 10% tariff and getting rid of the ban on foreign ships carrying cargo between ports, would have resulted in an ENORMOUS diversion of traffic from New York to Charleston.

Why?

[FLT-bird]

Yep. He was very clear about that.

“If I do that, what would become of my revenue? I might as well shut up housekeeping at once!” ~ Lincoln, in response to the suggestion by the Virginian Commissioners to abandon the custom house of Fort Sumter. (Housekeeping is a euphemism for federal spending.)

“But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?” ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

[FLT-bird]

Correct again.

…To Northern manufacturers a free-trade South spelled ruin. Imports would be diverted from Baltimore, New York, and Boston where they faced the Morrill Tariff to Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans where they would enter duty-free. Western states would use tariff-free Southern ports to bring in goods from Europe. So would many Northerners. On the very eve of war, March 18, 1861, the Boston Transcript wrote: “If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon the imports, no doubt the business of the chief Northern cities will be seriously injured thereby. The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union and that of the Confederated States, that the entire Northwest must find it to their advantage to purchase their imported goods at New Orleans rather than New York. In addition to this, the manufacturing interest of the country will suffer from the increased importations resulting from low duties….The…[government] would be false to all its obligations, if this state of things were not provided against.”

[demanding a blockade of Southern ports, because, if not] “a series of customs houses will be required on the vast inland border from the Atlantic to West Texas. Worse still, with no protective tariff, European goods will under-price Northern goods in Southern markets. Cotton for Northern mills will be charged an export tax. This will cripple the clothing industries and make British mills prosper. Finally, the great inland waterways, the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio Rivers, will be subject to Southern tolls.” The Philadelphia Press 18 March 1861

[the North relied on money from tariffs] “so even if the Southern states be allowed to depart in peace, the first question will be revenue. Now if the South have free trade, how can you collect revenues in eastern cities? Freight from New Orleans, to St. Louis, Chicago, Louisville, Cincinnati and even Pittsburgh, would be about the same as by rail from New York and imported at New Orleans having no duties to pay, would undersell the East if they had to pay duties. Therefore if the South make good their confederation and their plan, The Northern Confederacy must do likewise or blockade. Then comes the question of foreign nations. So look on it in any view, I see no result but war and consequent change in the form of government. William Tecumseh Sherman in a letter to his brother Senator John Sherman 1861.

“Down here they think they are going to have fine times. New Orleans a free port, whereby she can import Goods without limit or duties, and Sell to the up River Countries. But Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore will never consent that N. Orleans should be a Free Port, and they Subject to Duties.” William T. Sherman

Like most wars, this one too was all about money.

[BroJoeK]

Diogeneslamp: ***”Charleston charging 10% tariff and getting rid of the ban on foreign ships carrying cargo between ports, would have resulted in an ENORMOUS diversion of traffic from New York to Charleston.”***

But Charleston never charged 10%.
The original Confederate tariff was simply the Union’s pre-Morrill tariff with a few minor changes, said to average 15%.

On May 21, 1861, two weeks AFTER declaring war on the United States Confederates passed a new set of tariffs which charged 30% on some items down to 5% on others.
That tariff was said to average 10%, but based on what, exactly?
Based on what some Confederates thought imports MIGHT be.
In other words, they had no real clues what their tariffs might average.

And since they’d already declared war and wars NORMALLY included blockades, the whole thing was an exercise in fantasy.
In reality Confederates collected virtually no tariffs of any percent.

That makes your hypothetical a huge stretch — if Confederates had not declared war and had somehow negotiated peace, how much competition would they be?
The answer is that depends on how the Union responded with their own new tariffs.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: ***”5th attempt”***

Typical Democrat, born & bred, you love to repeat you own lies endlessly, but just can’t bear to see them refuted with facts, so you try to shut up your opposition.

Not today, thanks.

[FLT-bird]

Your repetitive responding to respond in order to waste as much time as possible while failing to read and/or just claiming any source that is inconvenient for your arguments is automatically untrue, has likewise come to an end. Buh Bye.

6th attempt.

[rockrr]

“If I do that, what would become of my revenue? I might as well shut up housekeeping at once!”

Lincoln never said that.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: ***”Bingo. He simply ignores all the voluminous quotes FROM NORTHERN SOURCES saying exactly what we’ve been saying...ie that the North suffers a major financial loss if the Southern states go independent,,,”***

Nobody disputes that some Northerners said such things, the issue is whether it was true?
My answer is events proved loss of Confederate exports did indeed reduce Union exports in 1861, by 35%.
That’s significant & important, but it was far from the disaster you people claim it would be.

FLT-bird: ***”...ignores Southern sources who said the same thing, comes up with his own fantasy numbers and then posts that.”***

No “fantasy numbers” — all my numbers are sourced and the sources posted here.
Those numbers show which of the quotes you post are real (very few) and which just somebody’s overactive imaginations (most).

[FLT-bird]

According to Baldwin, he did.

[FLT-bird]

Your repetitive responding to respond in order to waste as much time as possible while failing to read and/or just claiming any source that is inconvenient for your arguments is automatically untrue, has likewise come to an end. Buh Bye.

7th attempt.

[DoodleDawg]

According to Baldwin, he did.

According to R. L. Dabney he did, and Dabney attributes the source as A. H. H Stuart and not John Baldwin. He also didn't write down the account until after the rebellion. Try and get it right, please.

[DiogenesLamp]

First you claimed I misrepresented your posts, and called me all kinds of nonsense, “cognative dissonance”!, then you repeated what I said only in stronger terms.

This is what I mean when I say your brain deliberately misinterprets what you read when it is something you don't want to hear.

It wasn't the LOSS of the South that was going to collapse the Northern Economic system. If the South just disappeared into the Ocean, it would have had much less impact on the North Eastern economy.

No, the economic *THREAT* was the fact the South wasn't going to go away, but would instead be setting up competing industries and distribution systems for European products as well as the ones they would eventually be manufacturing. They would not only take over the European money streams going into the North, they would take over the market for the products the North East was manufacturing and distributing by way of the Great lakes and Railroads.

This would have been the South's distribution network for products that would have competed against the artificially inflated prices of the North Eastern manufactured products.

Thanks for the map, by the way. :)

[FLT-bird]

According to R. L. Dabney he did, and Dabney attributes the source as A. H. H Stuart and not John Baldwin. He also didn't write down the account until after the rebellion. Try and get it right, please.

This quote about the tariff is from C R Vaughan, DD, Editor, Discussions by Robert Dabney, DD, LLD, Volume IV, Hamsburg VA Sprinkle Publications, 1979, pp 87-100 quoting the memoirs of Col John B Baldwin, a member of the VA Peace Commission.

You just can't help yourself can you?

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: ***”Anybody who read just say Rhett’s address can see the Southern states were losing out 4 ways....firstly the tariffs hurt their sales since the English and others could not buy is much when their own income was hurt by high American tariffs.”***

Remember, Rhett wrote in 1860, when US tariffs were as low as they’d ever been, and were roughly the same as tariffs charged by Britain & France.
Those rates were considered low & reasonable and no Brit or French seriously claimed the US should charge less than they themselves did.

FLT-bird: ***”Next, the Southern states lost again when they were forced to pay the cost of those tariffs most of which they could not pass on to customers.”***

So here we go yet again: “states” paid no tariffs, merchants paid after landing, warehousing & selling.
Those merchants might be Americans or Brits, their customers might live anywhere but Federal tariffs were paid when product left the warehouse wherever that might be, most often in New York.
Southerners only paid tariffs on what they themselves bought, arguably a small percentage of the total imports.

FLT-bird: ***”Next all Southerners were stuck paying higher prices for manufactured goods (and Northerners too but it hit the South harder since they did not get the benefits of manufacturing growth/higher profits and increase in jobs due to not having much manufacturing).”***

But aren’t you the one who’s told us the South was rapidly industrializing in 1860?
Doesn’t that mean Southerners would also soon benefit from US protective tariffs?

Flt-bird: **”Finally, the money that was raised from the high tariffs was spent overwhelmingly in the North.”***

Regardless of how often repeated, that’s still a lie.
Unless you define “the North” as everybody north of South Carolina, actual numbers show the South (slave states) got its “fair share” of Federal spending and then some.

FLT-BIRD: ***”Just like people have always done, Northerners saw fit to vote themselves other people’s money.
Yes, that includes Northern Democrats.
They too voted to line their voters’ pockets in order to keep getting elected.”***

For many years Southern Democrats were the majority of their majority party, and so ruled in Washington DC.
They set the agenda, they controlled spending.
Even in 1856 2/3 of Democrats’ winning electoral votes came from the South.
So Southerners got what they wanted from Washington — the 1857 Dred Scott decision, for example.
Even in their losing 1860 election, where Northern Democrats got more votes, Southern Democrats still provided 85% of Democrats electoral votes.
So Southerners always dominated Democrats and Democrats usually ruled in Washington DC.
It’s pure nonsense to claim otherwise.

FLT-BIRD: ***”This is why everybody on all sides pointed out why it would be of huge economic benefit to the Southern states to leave and why it would be economically costly for the Northern states if the Southern states did leave.”***

None of the Deep South’s “Reasons for Secession” documents said what you claim here.
All of them did give slavery as their major issue, if not only issue.

[rockrr]

Ah, the patron saint of lost causes. Baldwin was wrong (I suspect deliberately).

[BroJoeK]

Diogeneslamp: ***”No, the economic *THREAT* was the fact the South wasn’t going to go away, but would instead be setting up competing industries and distribution systems...”***

Sure, I “get” all that, am only saying you’re exaggerating the “threat” based on any number of bad assumptions, the chief one being that, absent war, the North would not respond effectively to whatever “threats” it saw.

Seriously, this is the realm of hypotheticals on top of more hypotheticals, none of it tied closely to what was happening or said.