After Confederate statues fall, is Lincoln Memorial next?

https://www.reporternews.com ^ | March 9, 2019 | Jerry Patterson

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Other crops used in slave plantations would also not grow in the territories."

Note my posts #474 & 479 above -- by 1860 New Mexico already had at least hundreds if not thousands of slaves.
So, you point here is what -- that the number of slaves didn't matter, what mattered was that those Southern territories must elect pro-slavery senators & representatives to Congress?

And your logic on this is what, exactly?

[DoodleDawg]

So how about quoting the clause in the constitution that explicitly allows for slave-free states? Never mind the rest of the crap in your post, I’d settle for that.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird quoting: "Voted down were proposals to reopen the Atlantic slave trade . . .
and to prohibit the admission of free states to the new Confederacy. . . .
"The resulting constitution was surprisingly similar to that of the United States.
Most of the differences merely spelled out traditional southern interpretations of the federal charter. . . ."

Our Lost Causers like to downplay the importance of Confederate Constitution's pro-slavery additions.
To review (from post #477 above):

1. Article 1, Sect 9(4) says no law can be passed against slavery.

2. Article 2, Sect 2(1) says no restrictions or limitations on slaveholders' travel & sojourn with slaves, anywhere.

3. Article 4, Sect 3(3) says slavery will be enforced in all CSA territories.

1) No laws against slavery, 2) no travel restrictions on slaveholders with slaves and 3) slavery enforced in territories -- those provisions any new state must accept before admission.
And this allows that new state to remain slave-free how?

[FLT-bird]

How about reading the source I provided?

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "Ah, but what did Washington know?
He certainly was no match for the mighty DegenerateLamp!"

Right, and fundamentally, George Washington was no Democrat, he was a Federalist, the people who eventually became Whigs, then Republicans -- conservatives.

DiogenesLamp is a natural born Democrat, the people beginning with Thomas Jefferson who habitually concoct new & previously unknown constitutional interpretations.
From Jefferson's Nullification to Dred Scott to Roe v Wade, they just can't control their impulses to read into Founders' words ideas which the Founders themselves never imagined.

Why do they keep doing it?
Well... because it's fun and ten times, a hundred times, easier than the very hard work of pushing constitutional amendments through our deliberately difficult system.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "I've posted dozens of Northern editorials showing it was all about keeping the Southern states which were their cash cows in and using their greater population and thus more votes to bilk the Southern states out of ever more of the money they generated in order to line Northern pockets."

No quote ever posted on these threads says anything like that.

Get a grip.

[DiogenesLamp]

and not an ounce more would be bought from Tredegar, it would have to fold its operations. The South would have only retail and agriculture, no manufacturing.

I want to present you with a difficult to understand concept.

Economic changes that might be bad for Tredegar (and I reject that claim) may be more than offset by economic benefits to the larger industries of the South.

You are trying to convince us that these economic changes would be overall worse for the South, simply because you assert they are worse for Tredegar.

They might be worse for Tredegar, but bringing in more profits and capital to all the other cities of the South would have been greatly beneficial to their overall economic condition.

And these changes would have been very definitely worse for Northern Industries who more or less controlled the New York coalition which ran the Congress, and who I am beginning to believe held Lincoln's leash.

[DiogenesLamp]

So how about quoting the clause in the constitution that explicitly allows for slave-free states?

Right back atcha!

[DoodleDawg]

How about reading the source I provided?

You claim that in the convention they voted down a prohibition on non-slave states and claim that the constitution explicitly allows for that. Yet nowhere in the constitution is that explicit permission to be found, at least not that I can see. What clause or clauses are you referring to?

[DiogenesLamp]

Are you really that obtuse? We're talking about the Confederate tariff and not the U.S. one.

No. You don't get to change the subject. The point you claimed to be making was that lower tariffs would not hurt the North because their products would be competitive with European products because they were closer.

My point is that if 10% tariffs in the South would cause no harm to the North, the North, which had complete control of congress, would have set them at 10%. The fact that they set them much higher, and that they enacted other protectionist laws, makes it clear that they thought these laws were necessary for their benefit.

Rendering these laws null would therefore have hurt the North financially, and they clearly recognized this.

I can point you to dozens of editorials and columns that said Trump actually did collude with the Russians and his actions were criminal.

Written in 1860? Also are you trying to say Northern newspapers back then were just as big liars as they are nowadays? My personal opinion is that people of that era were less blatant about lying, especially when their readership was a lot more intelligent than the fools we have nowadays.

But just out of curiosity how many railroad rails were imported from Europe prior to the rebellion?

I would guess none, and this would be because protectionist tariffs made it uneconomical to do so. Also, your inquiry sounds like you are attempting to make my point for me, that High Tariffs on manufactured goods benefited the North, and hurt the South.

[DoodleDawg]

Right back atcha!

There is no clause in the Confederate constitution that explicitly allows non-slave states. On the contrary, Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 and Article IV, Section 2, Clause1 and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3 explicitly prevent non-slave states.

[FLT-bird]

Of course a prohibition on non slaveholding states is not in the Confederate Constitution. I’ll type this next part slowly for you.......

IT. WAS. VOTED. DOWN.

Get it? Rejected. Kind of like your weak repetitive arguments.

[DoodleDawg]

No. You don't get to change the subject. The point you claimed to be making was that lower tariffs would not hurt the North because their products would be competitive with European products because they were closer.

And that is wrong because...?

My point is that if 10% tariffs in the South would cause no harm to the North, the North, which had complete control of congress, would have set them at 10%. The fact that they set them much higher, and that they enacted other protectionist laws, makes it clear that they thought these laws were necessary for their benefit.

And that tariff would still protect the domestic market. But for selling goods to the Confederacy the U.S. goods would be taxed at exactly the same level as European goods. There would be a level playing field, aided by shorter transportation costs. Domestic sales could subsidize the sales to the South, small as they were. There is no reason to believe that Northern manufacturers couldn't compete, and compete very well with overseas sources.

Rendering these laws null would therefore have hurt the North financially, and they clearly recognized this.

It wouldn't have hurt the North financially much, if at all.

I would guess none, and this would be because protectionist tariffs made it uneconomical to do so.

So you claim, not surprisingly. Was there a big export market for railroad rails from Europe?

Also, your inquiry sounds like you are attempting to make my point for me, that High Tariffs on manufactured goods benefited the North, and hurt the South.

You are hearing things again.

[DoodleDawg]

Get it? Rejected. Kind of like your weak repetitive arguments.

Then let me try typing slower, too.

Please...quote...the...clause...of...the...Confederate...constitution...which...explicitly...allows...non-slave...states.

Here's a link to the document for you. Should be easy for you to quote article, section, and clause.

Link

[FLT-bird]

Let me type slower for you.

N. O.

You have long since exhausted all your questions which in any case are not asked in good faith. Feel free to read the quotes and multiple sources I’ve provided.

[rockrr]

bird-brain knows that what he is claiming isn’t true so he’s gonna lead you on another Lost Cause Snipe hunt as a diversionary tactic. It’s what he does.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nope. Stop trying to take the focus off of the US Constitution. You asked where in the Confederate constitution "free states" are allowed, and I asked you the exact same question you seemed to believe was relevant to the Confederate Constitution, but I ask it of the US Constitution.

Asking the same question of the US Constitution shows that you do indeed understand the point that unless "free states" are explicitly permitted by the document, they cannot exist.

You grasp the concept for the Confederate Constitution, now grasp the exact same concept for the US Constitution.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp quoting: "Allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten per cent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railways would be supplied from the southern ports."
New York Evening Post March 12, 1861 article "What Shall be Done for a Revenue?"

In 1860 the US consumed roughly a million tons of iron per year @~$100 per ton.
Of that, ~2/3 was domestic production, 1/3 imports.
Of that, about 100,000 tons (10% of the total) was consumed in the South.

Tariffs paid on imported iron produced ~$5 million in Federal revenues, out of $55 million in total tariff revenues on $375 million total imports.
In all antebellum years, amounts of imported iron were largely determined by US tariff rates -- higher tariffs produced lower imports and higher US production.
When tariffs on iron were lowest, imports rose to nearly 50% of total US consumption, when highest imports fell to 15%.

The 1857 Tariff rate on iron was 24%, so that would be the rate Confederates started with in March 1861.
The Morrill Tariff of March 1861 increased Union rates to ~30%.
The purpose of the new Morrill Tariff was to reduce imports and increase US production -- to put Americans first, you might say. ;-)

The new Confederate tariff passed May 21, 1861 to take effect August 31, reduced railroad iron to 15%.

So this New York Evening Post editorial from March 12, 1861 came after the first Confederate tariff (24%) but before their final tariff rates (15%).
It is responding to a fear of what Confederates might do, not what they did do.

Regardless, its bottom line assumption is still in error -- with only 10% of US iron consumption in the South, Confederate tariffs could have no significant effect on total US production or consumption.
There's no way importers would want to pay tariffs twice -- first at a Confederate port, then re-exporting to a Union customer.
The Post is simply hyperventilating over a minor concern.

[DiogenesLamp]

And that is wrong because...?

To quote the immortal words of Wolfgang Pauli, "That is not only not right, it is not even wrong!"

This refusal to grasp relatively simple concepts is one of the reason why I dislike attempting to engage in any discussion with you.

You don't want to believe that Southern independence was a serious financial threat to powerful Northern interests because you would rather believe the Armies of God marched to insure Justice or something.

You don't want your Mythology tainted with demonstrable facts that shows it to be false.

It wouldn't have hurt the North financially much, if at all.

Res ipsa loquitur.

[DiogenesLamp]

You do come up with some of the most asinine theories I’ve ever seen. Must be some kind of gift.

Let's see. Doodle Dawg has proffered the theory that unless the Confederate Constitution explicitly allows "free states", they don't exist.

I pointed this out about the US Constitution first. How do you grasp the concept for the Confederate Constitution, but think it is an asinine theory when I use the exact same argument about the US Constitution?

Why is it asinine when I apply your own argument to the US Constitution circa 1789-1861?