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.
I am very adept at identifying analogies you don't like because they contradict what you would prefer to believe.
They thought the proposed amendment didn't give them anything the constitution already gave them, and they wanted more than that.
Since this is your theory, perhaps you can explain what this "more" thing is that they wanted. I'm not sure where you go from "Permanent" slavery in the USA versus the status quo in the CSA. It seems as though slavery would still be confined to the Southern states, and still not "expanded" into the territories, so what could they have gotten in terms of "more slavery" in the CSA that they would not have gotten in the USA?
It looks to me like on the issue of "more slavery" they would have gotten nothing more in the CSA than the USA, but on the issue of profits, they would have been massively better off in a CSA than a USA. But I have your assurances that what they wanted was "more slavery" and that they were totally unconcerned about doubling their incomes.
Very few people "cared about the slaves." Very many people cared about slavery.
Tiny little minorities of kooks predominately in Massachusetts cared about "slavery" as a morality issue. Everyone else hated it because of threats to their wages and a general hatred of black people. Also, your effort to try and separate the slaves from slavery is silly.
Slavery had done fine in a variety of environments and situations. It would have been protected and nurtured by the slaveowners of the South.
It would have continued on exactly as it had been in the USA for "four score and seven years." It would have never expanded into the "territories" because the profits were in the Southern cotton growing regions.
Without having to pay slaves, slaveowners did have to provide for them as well as spend money to keep them in bondage.
So it's more expensive to provide food and housing to slaves than it is to pay workers in Egypt and India to toil in the fields? Why do I not believe you?
They also had their own lifestyles to keep up. Such costs were not zero.
The cotton exporters lifestyle has nothing to do with the costs of labor they employ. Their employment costs whether it will be slaves or paid labor, will remain the same regardless of how opulently they wish to spend their money.
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 are correct. I do not understand your theories as to how the Northern manufactures come out ahead by "dumping" into Southern markets as opposed to having protectionist laws propping up their prices and thereby give them heavier profits.
You are somehow asking me to believe they would have made more money from "dumping" than by the use of protectionist laws giving them higher profits. Again, I do not understand this theory of yours. It appears to make absolutely no sense to me.
You have bought into every idiotic lie that the slaveowners brought forward to justify their secession,
You've said that before, and it was incorrect the first several times you have said it, and I will tell you why.
I did my own research to come to my conclusions. I have no knowledge of what "slaveowners" said on the matter because I have not bothered to research any of that. I noted that 72% of the total European trade came from the South, yet 90% of the money ended up in New York and Washington DC.
Slaveowners saying things have nothing to do with this clearly odd situation. If they complained about it, I don't blame them at all for doing so. I complain about Washington DC getting my money every year while parasites get free money from these same @$$holes in DC.
Do you like sending your money to DC to be used for things you abhor? I don't.
You think you've seen the truth, but you've been played -- played by slaveowning secessionists from long ago and their flimsy excuses
Because I haven't been reading anything "slaveowning secessionists" have been saying, I can hardly be influenced by what they've said. You don't like it, but I started out with numbers that didn't make any sense. I didn't start out reading what "slaveowners" said. From what I gather from reading what you and your cohorts say they said, it was all about slavery and how they wanted to "expand" it into the territories.
I later ran across Robert Rhett making an economic argument, but by that time, I had already realized something was very wrong and it smelled very corrupt.
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.
Well that's just it. When you look at it deeper, you realize they were no worse than the Northerners profiting from slavery, and especially those who manipulated the government to guarantee money flow into their pockets, which is more of the exact same problem *WE* are dealing with today in modern America.
Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, and Moderna, (New York, Boston and New Jersey) have made tens of billions of dollars from government mandated "vaccines."
DC steers money into the pockets of the connected. This was the problem in 1861, and it is still the problem today.
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 is. You just have to be more objective and willing to understand I don't share your assumptions or premises.
I am looking for corruption, and you are looking to avoid seeing it.
It's obvious by now that you are too far gone down your rabbit hole of fantasy for that.
That's funny coming from you. :)
I leave you now. Wallow in your own putrid excrement.
And this is how to tell that you are arguing from emotion, and not reason. I can't recall ever saying anything nasty about you.