Most people are taught "Slavery! Slavery! Slavery!" all their lives and never bother to look at the bigger picture. You see all the Covid 19 Maskholes running around saying "Listen to the government!"
Same phenomena.
It's been pointed out a thousand times that the Corwin Amendment didn't work because the slaveowners cared too much about slavery.
It hasn't been pointed out to me. That assertion doesn't even make sense. You are telling me that a Constitutional amendment which protects slavery forever was rejected because "the slaveowners cared too much about slavery"?
Silly claim on the face of it.
Congress was willing to give them a guarantee but it wasn't enough for them.
Because they cared too much about it? Here's another theory. They wanted something else. What was that something else? How about a 60% increase in profitability for their exports? (By cutting out the North and DC's tariffs.) How about an even bigger increase in their purchasing power because European products would no longer be marked up so high to prop up the connected Northern manufacturers?
They get huge benefits by getting out from under Washington's thumb. As for slavery, DC wasn't giving them anything they didn't already have.
But I reject the fallacy that because Northerners were willing to give slaveowners that guarantee they "didn't care" about slavery.
They certainly didn't care about the slaves. Guess who would bear the brunt of that Amendment? The slaves would. F**ing them over to maintain Financial control of the South indicates their concern was financial control, not the well being of the slaves.
They cared about keeping slavery out of the free states and territories.
Because they had been told that over and over again, but an actual examination of the reality demonstrates there never would have been any significant slave presence in the territories.
Also, there has been further clarification on this matter through quotes posted by others. It would appear that the biggest objection to slaves in the territories was because of the desire to keep black people out of the territories and to reserve it for white people only.
Their other concern was to make certain the South never got enough allies to override their rigged laws that funneled money into their own pockets.
Thus the fake "Slaves in the Territories" bullsh*t.
They cared about keeping the union together.
They cared about keeping a profitable Northern Thumb on the Southern export trade.
You don't know that. European goods weren't necessarily better or cheaper.
I've read it many times over the years, and if European goods were more expensive or of inferior quality, then why were protectionist tariffs needed to protect the domestic (Northern) industries from them? Hmmmm?
There were tariffs to develop American industry, to create jobs and to make the country stronger and less reliant on foreign manufacturers.
This is the claim, and it would not be so objectionable if it were true, but the reality was that these tariffs tended to favor Northern profits and had the effect of stuffing Southern produced money into Northern controlling pockets.
They did, but you weren't paying attention. Lancashire cotton workers suffered terribly from cotton shortages, but they held meetings and circulated petitions and manifestos saying that they wouldn't work with slave cotton.
And did they make this announcement after the blockade when they had nothing to lose, or before the blockade when it would actually have cost them something?
I'm guessing it was an empty gesture because they knew they weren't getting any more "slave cotton" anyway. If not, they would have shortly been destroyed by their competition that continued taking the "slave cotton" at the much cheaper price.
Hell, we're still taking slave labor products from China right now as opposed to refusing them.
Englishmen were capable of being horrible mercenary imperialists in some situations and also wanting to be or be considered loving humanitarians when it came to other matters.
Even the horrible mercenary imperialists wanted to be considered to be loving humanitarians. They wouldn't change, but they wanted other people to see them as good people even when they were not.
The average Indian salary now is about $5000. The average Egyptian salary now is about $7000. People were even poorer back in the 1860s and survived on a lot less.
Less than Zero? Now *that* I would like to see.
You sound almost gleeful thinking that slavery would always be cheaper and more profitable than free labor.
Realistic. The very notion that paid labor will be cheaper than unpaid labor seems nonsensical when it applies to simple things like cotton cultivation and harvesting.
But labor in many poorer countries wasn't that free. People were very poor and desperate for work.
A worse situation than slavery? So why then would anyone support a worse situation than slavery? It seems as if it makes slavery the lesser of the two evils.
I'm not sure whether you'll be happy or disappointed to find out that slave labor wasn't always going to outcompete its competitors.
I cannot wrap my head around such an idea. Telling me that paying people to produce a product results in a cheaper price than not paying people to produce a product just seems insane to me.
The Confederates definitely were trying break off slave territories in the US. They attacked Sumter and started the war because they recognized that Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee would join them if there was a war.
Well this claim has certainly been repeated over and over and over by people trying to justify an Army invading them, but I see little evidence for it beyond the "sprinkle a little blood" comment by someone or other.
Maryland and Missouri were still part of the US and the American government had the right to take steps to protect them.
They had no more right to tell them they can't leave than they had a right to tell the Southern states they can't leave.
The Declaration of Independence says they can leave, and nothing in the US Constitution says they cannot. The assertion that they cannot leave is bullsh*t made up by people who didn't want them to leave and is not supported by any significant evidence.
Kentucky was different. There had been an informal agreement to stay out and the Confederates broke the agreement.
There had been an informal agreement to keep men and munitions out of Fort Pickens and the Union broke that agreement. Since that is how one side played the game, the other side would not be far behind.
Southerners did set up their own shipping enterprises. I have mentioned Charleston's Trenholm firm many times. There were others.
There was shipbuilding in Charleston in 1807 because "the Horizon" was built there, but as Robert Rhett pointed out in his address from South Carolina, Southern shipbuilding had virtually disappeared, and now the trade was carried on almost exclusively by the same powerful companies in the North.
Their coastal packets (controlled in the North) were profitable partially because of federal subsidies to carry the mail.
The main North Carolina railroad was 75% state owned.
You make no mention of federal dollars. How many railroads in the North were built with federal money?
Doubtful. British products weren't necessarily better or cheaper or produced in such large quantities.
That's not the point with your "dumping" claim. Why would people "dump" products when they can command higher prices because of federally imposed tariffs on the competition?
If they have to "dump" products into the Southern markets, this means they are forgoing the higher profits they would have otherwise gotten through the protectionist policies.
Again, it equates to a large loss of money to these Northern manufacturers.
It's only sensible that more Northern goods would have made the rail trip down from Chicago than would have made the long transatlantic crossing.
Oh. That's why we buy stuff from Chicago instead of China. Clearly Chicago has a trade advantage over China, and nobody buys anything from China because of their high transport costs.
In reality, people will buy whichever is cheaper, and the Chicago products would have been forced to be cheaper because of the loss of the artificial price supports from the tariffs.
So again, losing the tariffs cost Northern manufacturers big bucks and it made the European goods much more competitive.
What happened in the 1850s and 1860s was that wealthy cotton and slave interests seized on passing complaints to try to tear the nation apart and get a country of their own.
If they were happy, why would they want a country of their own? You discount the money pipeline from Southern pockets to Northern pockets and you go out of your way to believe it's about morality and not money.
No, it's really about money.
There was a very bizarre situation in which wealthy Southerners glorified in their cotton wealth, but also complained about poverty and complained that Northerners were moving head (at the South's expense) and leaving the South behind.
Bigger populations tend to do that if useful work for their people can be found.
You seem to have taken every complaint of the slaveowners at face value and found them justified.
Hardly. I had never heard of their economic complaints until long after I had noticed there was something very wrong with how much they exported and how much came back into Northern pockets.
It was after I noticed this thing which didn't make any sense that I later ran across Robert Rhett's economic complaints, and later still before I ever saw subsequent examples of Southerners complaining about the economic losses they had from being part of the USA.
That's a pity. You could learn a lot if you didn't just parrot long discredited theories.
That's funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.
You keep repeating the discredited theory of "expansion of slavery", and "War was about Slavery", and "They only offered permanent slavery to preserve the Union."
You have your own share of theories that don't make any sense.
You are very adept at pulling stupid analogies out of your bunghole, but that doesn't make them accurate representations of anything.
You are telling me that a Constitutional amendment which protects slavery forever was rejected because "the slaveowners cared too much about slavery"?
They thought the proposed amendment didn't give them anything the constitution already gave them, and they wanted more than that. They wanted to live in a country where slavery would never be threatened, even indirectly.
They certainly didn't care about the slaves.
Very few people "cared about the slaves." Very many people cared about slavery.
Thus the fake "Slaves in the Territories" bullsh*t.
Slavery had done fine in a variety of environments and situations. It would have been protected and nurtured by the slaveowners of the South.
How many railroads in the North were built with federal money?
In the antebellum North very few.
Less than Zero? Now *that* I would like to see.
Without having to pay slaves, slaveowners did have to provide for them as well as spend money to keep them in bondage. They also had their own lifestyles to keep up. Such costs were not zero.
If they have to "dump" products into the Southern markets, this means they are forgoing the higher profits they would have otherwise gotten through the protectionist policies.
You have not understood anything I have said this month or anything that has happened in international trade in your lifetime or anything about economics.
You have bought into every idiotic lie that the slaveowners brought forward to justify their secession, and you think that other people are naive. You think you've seen the truth, but you've been played -- played by slaveowning secessionists from long ago and their flimsy excuses, and played by morons today who egg you on in your folly. You add to that a real hatred of one part of the country that leads you to overlook the faults of the Southern slaveowners even when they are similar to or worse than those of Northerners. You don't know basic facts and don't want to learn things that go against your own prejudices.
I can't claim to have everything right. I don't always put things in the right way. I'm still searching for answers and still learning, but I thought it was possible to have a rational conversation with you and examine various historical and economic questions. It's obvious by now that you are too far gone down your rabbit hole of fantasy for that. Actually, that was obvious from the beginning, but for some reason I persisted thinking that there was some point in the conversation. It's clear now that there isn't. I leave you now. Wallow in your own putrid excrement.