Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Uncle Tom's Cabin
Lew Rockwell ^ | 12/16/03 | Gail Jarvis

Posted on 12/16/2003 1:15:09 PM PST by PeaRidge

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540541-557 next last
To: mac_truck
My sister's pastor will not ride alone in a car with any woman besides his own wife because of the appearance of impropiety.

Neither will mine, nor will I. Same for having dinner, or entering someone's house.

As would I, in social settings at my home with other adults present. However, I do not believe that an army camp is the proper environment for a little girl in any circumstance, much less than in the middle of winter.

The camp in question was about 200 yards from the main house. There were adults present - there was an entire army encamped on the grounds.

501 posted on 01/02/2004 9:56:33 AM PST by 4CJ ('Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees.' - T. J. 'Stonewall' Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 499 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; GOPcapitalist
THE WAREHOUSING ACT OF 1846

Congressional GLOBE
29th Congress, 1st session


July 31, 1846 | 1172 | 1173 |


August 1, 1846 | 1178 |


August 6, 1846 | 1199 |


CG 29-1, page 1172-1173

So the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. Hopkins, of Virginia, in the chair,) and proceeded to the consideration of the following bill from the Senate:

A BILL to amend an act entitled "An act to provide revenue from imports, and to change and modify, existing laws imposing duties on imports, and for other purposes."

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the twelfth section of the act entitled "An act to provide revenue from imports and to change and modify existing laws imposing duties on imports, and for other purposes," approved the thirtieth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and forty-two, is hereby amended so as hereafter to read as follows :

[Sec. 12.] And be it further enacted, That on and after the day this act goes into operation the duties on all imported goods, wares, or merchandise, shall be paid in cash: Provided, That in all cases of failure or neglect to pay the duties within the period allowed by law to the importer to make entry thereof, or whenever the owner, importer, or consignee, shall make entry for warehousing the same in writing, in such form, and supported by such proof, as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, the said goods, wares, ormerchandise, shall be taken possession of by the collector, and deposited in the public stores, or in other stores to be agreed on by the collector or chief revenue officer of the port and the importer, owner, or consignee, the said stores to be secured in the manner provided for by the first section of the act of the twentieth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and eighteen, entitled "An act providing for the deposite of wines and distilled spirits in public warehouses, and for other purposes," there to be kept with due and reasonable care, at the charge and risk of the owner, importer, consignee, or agent, and subject at all times to their order upon the payment of the proper duties and expenses, to be ascertained on due entry thereof for warehousing, and to be secured by bond of the owner, importer, or consignee, with surety or sureties to the satisfaction of the collector, in double the amount of the said duties, and in such form as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe: Provided, That no merchandise shall be withdrawn from any warehouse in which it maybe deposited, in a less quantity than in an entire package, bale, cask, or box, unless in bulk, nor shall merchandise so imported in bulk be delivered except in the whole quantity of each, parcel, or in a quantity not less than one ton weight, unless by special authority of the Secretary of the Treasury. And in case the owner, importer, consignee, or agent of any goods on which the duties have not been paid shall give to the collector satisfactory security that the said goods shall be landed out of the jurisdiction of the United States, in the manner now required by existing laws relating to exportations for the benefit of drawback, the collector and naval officer, if any, on an entry to reexport the same, shall, upon payment of the appropriate expense, permit the said goods, under the inspection of the proper officers, to be shipped without the payment of any duties thereon. And in case any goods, wares, or merchandise, deposited as aforesaid, shall remain in public store beyond one year, without payment of the duties and charges thereon, then said goods, wares, or merchandise, shall be appraised by the appraisers of the United States, if there be any at such port, and if none, then by two merchants to be designated and sworn by the collector for that purpose, and sold by the collector at public auction, on due public notice thereof being first given, in the manner and for the time to be prescribed by a general regulation of the Treasury Department; and at said public sale distinct printed catalogues descriptive of said goods, with the appraised value affixed thereto, shall be distributed among the persons present at said sale; and a reasonable opportunity shall be given before such sale, to persons desirous of purchasing, to inspect the quality of such goods; and the proceeds of said sales, alter deducting the usual rate of storage at the port in question, with all other charges and expenses, including duties, shall be paid over to the owner, importer, consignee, or agent, and proper receipts taken for the same : Provided, That the overplus, if any there be, of the proceeds of such sales, after the payment of storage, charges, expenses, and duties as aforesaid, remaining unclaimed for the space of ten days after such sales, shall be paid by the collector into the treasury of the United States; and the said collector shall transmit to the Treasury Department with the said overplus, a copy of the inventory, appraisement, and account of sales, specifying the marks, numbers, and descriptions of the packages sold, their contents, and appraised value, the name of the vessel and master in which, and of the port or place whence they were imported, and the time when, and the name of the person or persons to whom said goods were consigned in the manifest, and the duties and charges to which the several consignments were respectively subject; and the receipt or certificate of the collector shall exonerate the master or person having charge or command of any ship or vessel, in which paid good, wares, or merchandise, were imported, from all claim of the owner or owners thereof, who shall nevertheless, on due proof of their interest, be entitled to receive from the treasury the amount of any overplus paid into the same under the provisions of this act: Provided, That so much of the fifty-sixth section of the general collection law of the second of March, seventeen hundred and ninety-nine, and the thirteenth section of the act of the thirtieth of August, eighteen hundred and forty-two, to provide revenue from imports, and to change and modify existing laws imposing duties on imports, and for other purposes, as conflicts with the provisions of this act, shall be, and is hereby, repealed excepting that nothing contained in this act shall be construed to extend the time now prescribed by law for selling unclaimed goods: Provided, also, That all goods of a perishable nature, and all gunpowder, fire-crackers, and explosive substances, deposited as aforesaid shall be sold forthwith.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That any goods, when deposited in the public stores in the manner provided for in the foregoing section, may be withdrawn therefrom, and transported to any other port of entry, under the restrictions provided for in the act of the 2d March,1799, in respect to the transportation of goods, wares, and merchandise, from one collection district to another, to be exported with the benefit of drawback; and the owner of such goods so to be withdrawn for transportation shall give his bond with sufficient sureties, in double the amount of the duties charge-able on them, for the deposite of such goods in store in the port of entry to which they shall be destined, such bond to be cancelled when the goods shall be re-deposited in store in the collection district to which they shall be transported: Provided, That nothing contained in this section shall be con-strued to extend the time during which goods may be kept in store, after their original importation and entry beyond the term of one year.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That if any warehoused goods shall be fraudulently concealed in, or removed from, any public or private warehouse, the same shall be forfeited to the United States; and all persons convicted of fraudulently concealing or removing such goods, or of aiding or abetting such concealment or removal, shall be liable to the same penalties which are now imposed for the fraudulent introduction of goods into the United States; and if any importer or proprietor of any warehoused goods, or any person in his employ, shall by any contrivance fraudulently open the warehouse, or shall gain access to the goods, except in the presence of the proper officer of the customs, acting in the execution of his duty, such importer or proprietor shall forfeit and pay, for every such offence, one thousand dollars. And any person convicted of altering, defacing, or obliterating any mark or marks which have been placed by any officer of the revenue on any package or packages of warehoused goods, shall forfeit and pay, for every such offence, five hundred dollars.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the collectors of the several ports of the United States shall make quarterly reports to the Secretary of the Treasury, according to such general instructions as the said Secretary may give, of all goods which remain in the warehouses of their respective ports, specifying the quantity and description of the same; which returns, or tables formed thereon, the Secretary of the Treasury shall forthwith cause to he published in the principal papers of the city of Washington.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized to make from time to time, such regulations, not inconsistent with the laws of the United States, as may be necessary to give full effect to the provisions of this act, and secure a just accountability under the same; and it shall be the duty of the Secretary to report such regulations to each succeeding session of Congress.

The bill, having been read through, was taken up by sections.


CG 29-1, 1178

The title was amended to read as follows:

An act to amend an act entitled "An act to provide revenue from imports, and to change and modify existing laws imposing duties on imports, and for other purposes."


CG 29-1, 1199

A message was received from the President of the United States announcing that he had approved and signed the warehouse bill, and bills for the relief of John Crowell, Harriet Ward, and Ebenezer Ballard.



502 posted on 01/02/2004 12:56:02 PM PST by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
probably most southerners didn't own slaves... even if a large percentage of them did own a slave, you can assume a lot of them owned perhaps one or only a few slaves to do the housework and sexually molest... the way people today have a philipino nanny to clean the house and sexually molest

but even if you didn't own an agricultural plantation populated by hundreds of slaves constantly being abused and worked to death, you probably benefit by the mere fact of not being a slave

without a visible class of black slaves, who is going to be beaten and worked to death growing export crops of cotton and tobacco? without any mexicans to do the work you're going to have to beat to death one black man to scare the rest of them into doing the work to bring a cash crop in on time... that alone is a pretty good incentive for being white... whether or not you, yourself, own a slave

because without a cash crop for export there's no need for the services of people like captain samuel clemens to write romantic novels about piloting steam ships up and down the mississippi river... and in all likelihood mark twain wouldn't have had the time for moral reflections trying to reconcile slavery and racism

remember huck finn's dilemna... he loves his friend jim the black slave, but he feels pressured to do what he thinks is right, which is to return jim to his rightful owner... aunt polly must have been some tough customer with that strap to screw a kid up so bad

perhaps southerners did fight for states rights... having slavery so up front and personal they were probably well aware of their fate if the likes of george bush and the rest of the federal elite ever managed to pass themselves off as southerners

you can move north and compete for a job with a starving peasant from ireland or take your chances fighting for states rights in the civil war

northerners certainly didn't fight for federal power... they fought because they knew that if the blacks were slaves, they too were slaves... if you have to compete in a market with slave made goods you're no better than a slave yourself

that's why i admire the good people down in places like maine when they say no to walmarts opening in their town... they don't want the waltons steamrolling every small business in town, selling garbage made by the slaves of the communist government party of china

i think somewhere every man is hardwired for solidarity... we don't necessarily want a black family moving in next door but we have some instinct for sensing out where we stand in the pecking order of things and when we have to band together to fight for our common interests... southern white men must have been content not to be black... northerners must have worried whether they wouldn't be next in line
503 posted on 01/02/2004 1:40:39 PM PST by the_french_gynecologist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Also the same man who taught a Sunday School class for slaves. He was a very moral man, and yes, I can see him being kind to a slave as well.

I am not saying the man was perfect, He wasn't.
504 posted on 01/02/2004 2:32:20 PM PST by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
Until you provide proof for your allegations, I will not be discussing this or any other subject with you.

Or you can apologize for your unfounded slander on a good Christian man. But I doubt that will ever happen. Until such a time as you meet either one of those conditions, I would appreciate it if you would NOT write me further, nor ping me to any other of your comments.
505 posted on 01/02/2004 2:36:37 PM PST by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Why do you post statements like that when you know damn well there is no truth in them?

Because it is the truth and you know damn well it is.

506 posted on 01/02/2004 2:44:20 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Dr White preached his funeral, the old Gentleman seemed and I know he was deeply afflicted, for from all accounts the Gen. took quite an active part in the church and was the founder of the Colored Sunday School and the main stay of it as long as he was in Lexington.

From "Stonewall: A Biography of General Thomas J. Jackson: by Byron Farwell, page 125:

"In 1845 Dr. Henry Ruffner, then president of Washington College and know for his anti-slavery views, and the Reverend Tucker Lacy had established a Presbyterian Sabath School for Slaves that was attended by about 100 people."

When Dr. Ruffner and Rev. Lacy left Lexington, Jackson took it over.

507 posted on 01/02/2004 2:47:34 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I would like to see the truth bite you in the arse one day, and see if you could even recognize it then. But I guess that being able to believe what makes you happy, no matter how much it contradicts the facts, may be some people's cup of tea. Obviously it is yours.

Happy New Year.
508 posted on 01/02/2004 3:49:54 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
I would like to see the truth bite you in the arse one day...

One thing is sure, I won't be getting it from you.

509 posted on 01/02/2004 4:30:43 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You could if you had any capacity for objectivity left.
510 posted on 01/02/2004 6:18:44 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

Comment #511 Removed by Moderator

To: mac_truck
First:

I have warned you in a polite manner. I will NOT be addressing you further on the subject. AND if you violate my request, then I will take this up with the moderator.

Two: You sir are an assinine MORON. I have more education than you will ever know. So stick your opinion in the place where your intelligence resides. :)

You have been duly WARNED!

512 posted on 01/02/2004 7:26:40 PM PST by TexConfederate1861 ("Cast not your pearls before SWINE")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
That still speaks well of Jackson......

A little information for your intellectual stimulation:

Stephen Holding
The New York Times
Dear Mr. Holden,

It was with some disappointment that I read your review of Gods and Generals last February. I have always considered you a fair-minded, sometimes illuminating critic. No one, least of all a filmmaker who has received his share of praise and scorn over the years, questions your prerogatives and opinions. As the French say, "Vive la difference!" That said, however, you were simply wrong in your assertion in today's NY Times that ."..all the critics agree with me."

It is hard to miss the extreme hostility that some critics (which based on your latest comments now include yourself) have shown towards this film. It goes beyond movie-reviewing. It's as if the film hit a raw nerve or scraped at an open wound. Perhaps you are inclined to put the whole "ludicrous" experience behind you. May I humbly suggest, that at another time, perhaps years from now, when you are no longer reviewing movies, content in writing a memoir or a film history, that you re-visit the film in DVD.

But for now, I would greatly appreciate a simple correction in my favorite newspaper. As you can see from the reviews I have quoted below, all the critics did not agree with you.

I will continue to read your reviews with great interest as always. With best wishes for a prosperous and happy New Year.

~ Ron Maxwell

"Surpasses even Gettysburg as a Civil War film masterpiece." JIM FERGUSON / FOX TV

"Stirring, spectacular epic achievement." "History has never been brought to life with such insight and vivid detail, with such vibrant emotions, with so much to learn and so much to live in a movie experience that is awesome to behold." DAVID SHEEHAN / CBS-TV

"A big, ambitious, sweeping epic ... Stephen Lang gives one of the best performances of his career." JEFFREY LYONS / NBC-TV

."..powerful, riveting, monumental... divine inspiration." "Ron Maxwell's attention to detail effortlessly puts vivid life into names once memorized from a History book." STAN URANKAR / CLEVELAND SUN NEWSPAPERS

"People passionate about History, and especially about the Civil War...will love this one." PAUL VILLENEUVE / LE JOURNAL DE MONTREAL

."..thoughtful..." ."..a heartfelt film with an enlightening message. " "The production values, including the cinematography, art direction and musical score, are each outstanding." PHIL BOATWRIGHT / BP NEWS

."..remarkable battle sequences..." "Maxwell's re-creation and grand design make this movie special - along with Duvall's re-strained, majestic portrayal of Lee." MICHAEL WILMINGTON / CHICAGO TRIBUNE

."..an awesome sense of authenticity and scope..." KEVIN THOMAS / LOS ANGELES TIMES

"If you love history...you'll want to see GODS AND GENERALS." ."..Duvall invests his part with integrity and authenticity." ELEANOR RINGEL GILLESPIE / THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION

."..strong performances..." ."..massive, incredibly rendered sequences of sustained warfare." ."..astounding battle scenes..." ."..galvanizing performances by Jeff Daniels and Stephen Lang." "Daniels brings the same intellectual panache and understated determination to the part as he did in Gettysburg..." "But it's Lang, as Gen.Stonewall Jackson, who rides off with the movie. He's truly a revelation." TOM SIEBERT / CITY PAPER

"The engrossing performance of Lang as Jackson is the first great performance of 2003. It's the most dynamic screen portrayal of a military man since George C. Scott's Patton in 1970." JACK GARNER / ROCHESTER DEMOCRAT & CHRONICLE

"GODS AND GENERALS is one of the more remarkable movies of the decade." STEVE SAILER / UPI

"Stunning, inspired, and inspiring, GODS AND GENERALS is the finest Civil War movie ever made - including Gone With The Wind." JIM SVEJDA / CBS RADIO

"Answers and questions some of the great civil war myths." "Daring film-making about a war American's should never forget." "GODS AND GENERALS is a rarity, a historical epic that stays true to the facts. Robert Duvall and Stephen Lang bring the civil war icons Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson to life." RICHARD CROUSE / REEL TO REAL

"GODS AND GENERALS is an extraordinary achievement in filmmaking. The story is fascinating and the performances are outstanding." KAREN BUTLER / UPI

" Offers a powerful human context for understanding the US Civil War!" " Presents in a powerful way the impact of war on the families of the soldiers." "Captures the horror and devastation of war on civilians and soldiers alike." "Jeff Daniels is outstanding as Colonel Chamberlain, leader of the 20th Maine." "Much more than a clash of two armies - a vivid portrait of a nation in conflict with itself." JOHN J. PUNGENTE / SCANNING THE MOVIES BRAVO

"Writer-director Ron Maxwell paints an incredibly vivid portrait of such legendary men as Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee. More than that, we get a real sense of life in those troubled times, the strategy and mechanics of battle, as well as the tragedy of pitting brother against brother." "I'm awfully glad I saw it, and if you have a taste for history, you should too. "LEONARD MALTIN / HOT TICKET

"It's like Ken Burns come alive, but with color and clash." "Some films bring out the best in actors. This role is Jeff Daniels' legacy. If there is a third part to this trilogy, he'll complete the arc of triumph of one man's character." "History is not dates and battlefields. It's people and passions...in this film, you're right up against those people, seeing the world from their viewpoint." ."..sweeping, yet sweet; it's an epic with emotion." PATRICK STONER / "FLICKS" PBS

"A compelling tale of honor, values, and the horror of war." "Visceral, engrossing and highly entertaining." "Epic in scale, universal in its humanity." "Superb performances from an exceptional cast." MIKE SARGENT / WBAI-FM

"Duvall and Lang form a dynamic duo that captivates the audience and vividly brings these historical figures to life." "GODS AND GENERALS will teach you all of those things that you missed in history class." WILLIE WAFFLE / WMAL-AM

."..a landmark epic." SUSAN GRANGER / SSG SYNDICATE

"Masterfully done. It was truly moving to see a realistic account of how our country was divided not too long ago." RICH WEST / FMiTV NETWORKS

"GODS and GENERALS is not only the finest movie ever made about the Civil War, it is also the best American Historical Film. Period." BILL KAUFFMAN / AMERICAN ENTERPRISE MAGAZINE



December 30, 2003

Ronald F. Maxwell, writer, producer, director of the movies Gettysburg & Gods and Generals, lives in Los Angeles, California. He is a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the Directors Guild of America, and the Writers Guild of America.


It seems some critics really liked the movie.....:))
513 posted on 01/02/2004 7:35:46 PM PST by TexConfederate1861 ("Dixie and Texas Forever")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
It seems some critics really liked the movie.....:))

They're welcome to their opinions. I thought it sucked.

514 posted on 01/02/2004 7:56:57 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
You could if you had any capacity for objectivity left.

You're an odd one for accusing others of a lack of objectivity.

515 posted on 01/02/2004 7:58:07 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I wonder why....>sarcasm< :)
516 posted on 01/03/2004 5:19:19 AM PST by TexConfederate1861 ("Dixie and Texas Forever")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
I wonder why....>sarcasm< :)

Oh I don't know...maybe because it was a horrible movie? </sarcasm>

517 posted on 01/03/2004 6:05:26 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You're an odd one for accusing others of a lack of objectivity.

And I suppose that your basis for that judgement is, as it always is for you, because you say so.

518 posted on 01/03/2004 7:51:06 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Well, it is not very strange that you WLAT Brigade guys all hate the movie while us Pro-Confederacy types like it. I mean let's face facts....in this movie, the Yankees LOST.

But, no sense in "beating a dead horse", we wil just agree to disagree on the subject.....:)
519 posted on 01/03/2004 8:46:27 AM PST by TexConfederate1861 ("Dixie and Texas Forever")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: nolu chan; Non-Sequitur; PeaRidge
The clause on page 1172-73 was apparently not the only provision of the Warehousing Act that Congress adopted. This is certain because 15 years later when the act was about to be subverted by the Morrill tariff, Senator Robert Hunter of Virginia rose in opposition where he repeatedly and very clearly stated its storage provisions to have been for three years, not one. This three year term is consistent with the original 1846 bill I quoted from as well as era treasury department documents for enacting a warehousing system, which suggests that the law was either amended or added to shortly after August 1, 1846 and certainly before 1860 to make it three years. Here is Hunter's speech with the relevant sections bolded:

"There is a proposition in it for the virtual repeal of the warehousing law – that law under which New York has prospered so largely – that law to which England owes so much of that centralization of commerce which she has enjoyed in her cities and in her docks for years past. It was said that their warehousing system was originated by Sir Robert Walpole, who, for commercial intelligence, seemed, in this and other respects, to have been far, far ahead of his time. According to the history that is given to us, the men that had made so much money out of the frauds which had been perpetrated through the system of drawbacks and debentures, got up a mob and instigated commotions against him. They beset him as he went to the House of Commons, and made it so disagreeable that he had to abandon the bill. But finally reason conquered prejudice; truth triumphed. The British Government introduced the system, and they allow goods to be warehoused not merely three years, but five years; and then, after five years, the importer may come in and take an account of his goods, pay the duties on those which have been taken and lost or consumed, and re-house the residue again for another five years. I venture to say that there is not a man in the whole United Kingdom who has any character for financial ability or commercial intelligence, who would think of proposing a repeal of that system.

Why should we do it here? Has it not been eminently beneficial since we extended the system to three years? Why, sir, let us look to the history of its operation. I have had a statement made of the goods that were imported and re-exported from this country from the years 1833 to 1846, before the system was established, and for a corresponding period of years from 1848 to 1860. In the first period of thirteen years, the entire re-exportation of merchandize was $79,767,000; and from 1848 to 1860, the re-exportation of goods imported was $146,095,073, nearly double. Of this latter amount of goods re-exported, $92,200,000 worth were re-exported from the warehouses. Thus our ship-owners have derived the profit of freights on this increased trade which we have given to New York. Thus our merchants have derived the profits on these exchanges. Thus the owners of real estate have derived the profits upon storages. Thus New York has been able to become rapidly – and it is since the passage of the warehouse bill that her progress has been most, most rapid – a great emporium and center of commerce. Why is it? It is because, owing to the warehousing system, a great amount of the goods of the world are stored there, and a merchant or a ship-owner can go there and make out an assorted cargo for any part of the globe. If the merchants have not the goods in their stores, they have them in the warehouses. When a man carries a bill to New York, he is sure that he can not only convert it into money, but into any species of commodity or merchandize which he may desire; and that is one reason why the banks have been enabled to stand there, when they were breaking and falling everywhere else. That is the reason that a bill upon New York is worth more than a bill upon other places. That is one thing which has served to make her a great center of commerce.

Nor is that all, sir. Owing to this system, the small dealer, the man of small capital, is able to deal in imported goods. He does not have to pay his duties of forty, fifty, or sixty per cent., or whatever they are, and lie out of the interest of his money, and borrow it a long time before it can be returned to him; but, when he finds he can sell his goods, he goes to the warehouse, pays the duties, disposes of his merchandize, and obtains so speedy a return that he, too, is enabled to deal in imported goods. Thus, the business is not confined to those immense capitalists who are able to advance the money, and wait for the interest and the duty to be returned to them for months, or perhaps years." - Congressional Globe, 36th congress, 2nd session (speech starts on p. 898)

You will note that I bolded the last paragraph as well, which describes in detail the very same result of the warehousing act that non-seq seems to deny as a possibility. As I have stated in full accuracy, the warehousing act boosted NYC because (a) it permitted merchants to import goods without a cash advance to pay the tariffs upon docking and (b) it facilitated wider reexportation among warehoused goods in trade with the rest of the world. The act's advocates and defenders, among them Hunter, openly advocated it upon these two grounds and the speech above is conclusive testimony to that fact.

520 posted on 01/03/2004 11:01:41 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540541-557 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson