Posted on 03/10/2019 7:34:32 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
no argument from me.
We’ve walked this piece of the property so much there’s a trench.
DegenerateLamp wants to impute motives so that he can substantiate his delusion. Unfortunately his imputations too often conflict with the actual history of events. That he obdurately continues after being corrected is a genetic flaw.
Which is why I've pretty much stopped visiting these threads. After a dozen years of having pretty much the same arguments with pretty much the same cast of characters, I decided that I had better things to do with my time.
The idea that the New York coalition had gamed the congress into passing laws that destroyed Southern shipping and ship building industries for the benefit of the New York controlled coalition, wasn't worthy of consideration, because it's just too easy and too satisfying to malign people you don't like anyways.
Not objective, but completely understandable from a human emotion sort of perspective.
Oh, and of course we trot out that Wigfall commentary. Another example of the preference for Union apologists to let one man speak for everyone else, simply because what that man said reinforces the narrative they wish to project; that slavery was the only thing people in the South wanted.
New York still ran the industry, and this allowed New York robber barons to basically control 230 million dollars of income in 1860. Control of money that would be removed from their grasp if the South became independent and was no longer constrained by laws favoring New York.
The same people who are *CONTROLLING US TODAY* were the same people who would have lost a huge amount of money back in 1860.
The United States stands thus: New York and Washington DC against all the rest of "Red State" America. The enemy conservatives face today, is the same enemy the confederates faced in 1861.
20 trillion in national debt. Who profited? Who lost?
New York and Washington DC profited. The rest of us still have to pay that money.
Not at all. You keep trying to claim Lincoln wasn't supporting the Corwin Amendment. You simply bend your interpretation of facts until they align with what you wish to believe, and this business with the Corwin amendment is a clear example of that.
Yours are the ravings of a loon.
“laws that destroyed Southern shipping and ship building industries.”
If you were referring to the Navigation act, (you usually do) which sections of the law discriminate against Southern ship owners from transporting cargo from any port in the United State to any other port in the United States.
The Southern ship building industry did not die due to legislation it died due to a reluctance on Southern capital investors to invest in the technology to build ships with iron hulls and steam power. The Southern shipbuilding industry was competitive with Northern shipbuilding through the 1840s. As long as ships were wood hulled and sail powered. The South had bountiful resources in oak timber for hulls and tall straight pine for masts and spars. Their shipyards could build coastal ships as well as any in New England. But the ship building scene was changing, iron framed and plated hulls and steam power (either side-wheel or screw propeller)were replacing ships of wood and sail.
The South lacked the resources nearby such as iron ore, anthracite coal, iron foundries and machine shops to produce the structural shapes, plating, boilers and machinery that the new ships were being built out of.
Southern investors and entrepreneurs simply were unwilling to spend the money to build the foundries and mills to meet the needs for their ship building industry. It had absolutely nothing to do with any legislation out of DC
There was no southern shipping or shipbuilding industry to destroy. The south NEVER developed one.
Another example of the preference for Union apologists to let one man speak for everyone else, simply because what that man said reinforces the narrative they wish to project
It must be easy to make an argument when you simply wave away things you don't like, whether it be a southern politician and secessionist leader's statements, or the southern Declarations of Causes. .
Just to be clear, which statements by historical figures will you allow and which will you not allow?
I'm not going to get into it again. A year or so ago, I had the good fortune to have someone detail all the various ways in which the Navigation act of 1817 caused destruction to Southern shipping, and it wasn't just the Navigation act that handed an effective monopoly to New York shipping interests. The Federal subsidization of fishing and mail carrying also strengthened the bottom line of these industries while no such consideration was being provided to help prop up Southern based shipping companies.
The warehousing act also benefited New York more so than Southern ports.
Suffice it to say, *I've* seen sufficient evidence and arguments to convince me that the Navigation act of 1817 and the Warehousing act of 1846 both contributed to boosting New York industry, and damaging Southern shipping interests.
But the ship building scene was changing, iron framed and plated hulls and steam power (either side-wheel or screw propeller)were replacing ships of wood and sail.
And buying such from England or Europe was prohibitively expensive because of the tariff's and the navigation act of 1817. The North had an effective monopoly on this sort of industry, and the laws were geared toward keeping those northern industries in positions of dominance over anyone else.
Toss out the law that prohibits the carrying of cargo on foreign built or foreign crewed ships between ports, and trade would have been greatly increased to all the Southern ports. Also there would have been no need to pay the New York headquartered coastal packet shipping that was then carrying cargoes between Southern ports.
Charleston had a ship building industry. The "Horizon", which was the first American Ship every seized by the French under the Berlin decree, was built in Charleston South Carolina. James McClure and his Father had ran a shipping business from that Port for years in the 1800s.
It must be easy to make an argument when you simply wave away things you don't like, whether it be a southern politician and secessionist leader's statements, or the southern Declarations of Causes. .
I can find statements that said it was about trade and economic interest. I can cite Virginia's secession statement in which they said they were leaving because of Federal aggression against their sister states.
Sure, if you look around, you can find statements by all sorts of people to support whatever it is you want to support.
I don't put so much stock in what people say as in what they do. People lie. They tell you what they want you to hear.
Lincoln said his violence enabled fleet was a "supply" mission. He said people peacefully voting to leave the control of Washington DC's rigged system was "Rebellion."
When you realize everyone is lying to you, you get to a point where you believe that the only way to know what is actually true is to look at the money.
Follow the money and the power and you will always understand what is happening. Listen to what people tell you is happening, and you will be misled.
Just to be clear, which statements by historical figures will you allow and which will you not allow?
Statements against interest by persons launching an invasion into other people's lands could generally be taken to be true. When Lincoln said he had no objections to the Pro-Slavery Corwin amendment, I believe him.
Status quo of the slaves working down in the South to keep the money flowing into New York and Washington DC, seems like a very good outcome for him and his New York backers.
There can be no higher source of credibility than a pro-Confederate source - unless perhaps there can be found some foretelling reference in The Book written by the most read Author of all time.
If such a reference exists, I don't know about it; can't quote it chapter and verse so to speak.
“The warehousing act also benefited New York more so than Southern ports”
When you have ten times the capacity for ships, the act will have a disparity outcome. New York port could handle more ships than 90% of all the Southern port combined. Every Southern port with a U.S. Customs house had bonded warehouse.
Why did Northern business profit from mail contracts, A whole hell of a lot more people lived in the North to receiving mail. When a ship dropped off a load of mail in Charleston or Wilmington, Southern railroads were paid by the Federal Govt to transport that mail. There was nothing in U.S. Law that prohibited any Southern shipper contracting to transport that mail from North to any Southern port.
“And buying such from England or Europe was prohibitively expensive”. Tredegar in Richmond VA bought its raw materials for Pennsylvania and New York. The were shipped by rail. Tredegar was a very successful business. If it had not existed (despite your opinion that a Southern industry could not compete against a Northern Industry) The South would have lost 50% of their artillery pieces, the CSS Virginia would have gone without iron plate and most Southern railroads would have gone without rail.
“Toss out the law that prohibits the carrying of cargo on foreign built or foreign crewed ships between ports”
Without that law, Southern coastal shipping would have died due to competition from the Brits and the French
Then how do you know it's not fake?
The reason there was no advantage to doing so was because of the navigation act of 1817. Charleston was as you said, much smaller, and could not handle traffic like New York, but this is self reinforcing condition. If it can't get the traffic, it can't grow, and if it can't grow, it can't increase it's capacity. The navigation act made the costs of going to Charleston the same as going to New York, and it was not only 800 miles further away, it didn't have the facilities to handle great quantities of shipping anyways.
Getting rid of the large tariffs, and getting rid of the ban on carrying cargo between ports, and it is instantly profitable to sail to Charleston, sell part of a cargo, then sail to Pensacola, and sell another part of the cargo, and then sail to Mobile, and sell the rest.
Instant money for Southern ports. Greater profits for European traders.
The money streams would have deflected from New York, and gone to the same places where the American export cargoes originated. The New York middlemen would have been cut out.
"...the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."Boston Transcript, March 18, 1861.
A year or so ago I read an article from some Charleston newspaper shortly after South Carolina seceded. It was full of stories about the massive building boom going on at the time, and how all the warehouse space and hotels in Charleston had been overwhelmed with customers. The city was going like gangbusters trying to build new warehouses, hotels, and other industries.
Charleston would have grown quite a lot, and it would have all come at the expense of the very wealthy people in New York who backed Lincoln's election to the Presidency.
Here I have to side with you. There are a lot of fake or otherwise dubious quotes out there.
“Getting rid of the large tariffs, and getting rid of the ban on carrying cargo between ports, and it is instantly profitable to sail to Charleston, sell part of a cargo, then sail to Pensacola, and sell another part of the cargo, and then sail to Mobile, and sell the rest.”
well and good, except it would have been British flagged ships that were running the coastal trade, not Southern ships.
“Nobody bothered to build trade between Charleston and Europe because there was no advantage to doing so.” How much Southern cotton was shipped out of New York or Boston. Bet Charleston shipped a whole lot more cotton than New York did. A southern owned ship could easily carry a load of cotton bales from Charleston to England and return with a load of English goods to Charleston. There was no law to prevent it.
Since they no longer had a shipping industry, why would the South have cared? Excess capital over time would have created one, and then perhaps they would have started down the protectionist path the way the North did.
How much Southern cotton was shipped out of New York or Boston.
In terms of who controlled it, virtually all of it.
Bet Charleston shipped a whole lot more cotton than New York did. A southern owned ship could easily carry a load of cotton bales from Charleston to England and return with a load of English goods to Charleston. There was no law to prevent it.
Why go to Charleston? The system had been set up to warehouse goods in New York Warehouses and distribute them through the existing packet coastal trade, also controlled by New York. New York was 800 miles closer. No additional profits could be had by sailing to Charleston, and so no one was going to sail for another week to get to a place that didn't provide any additional profit for doing so.
Again, all that changes with South Carolina becoming independent. It then became profitable to travel those additional 800 miles.
With Independence eliminating the need to obey the navigation act of 1817, as you said, the British would take over the coastal trade for Southern ports.
Who benefits? The British shippers. The Southern port cities.
Who loses? New York based coastal packet traders. New York businesses.
Southern shippers losing comes to mind.
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.