Why should I?
Because it is the crux of the matter that I have repeatedly asked you about.
I have asked you repeatedly to address this one piece of text from BCF:
"Three times as many people born in slave states had migrated to free states as vice versa...seven-eighths of the immigrants from abroad settled in the North, where jobs were plentiful and cometition from slave-based labor nonexistant. " McPherson, P. 91
Infrastructure? "In 1840, the South had possessed 44 percent of the country's railroad mileage, but by 1850 the more rapid pace of Northern construction had droppped the South's share to 26 percent." McPherson, p. 91.
Industrial capacity? By 1850, "With 42 percent of the population, slave states possessed only 18 percent of the country's manufacturing capacity, a decline of twenty percent from 1840. Most alarming, nearly half this industrial capacity was located in four border states, whose commitment to southern rights was shaky." McPherson p. 91
The world's second ranking industrial power, didnt someone say? Hardly. That sort of leaves out Great Britain, doesn't it? "Using three per capita indices--railroad mileage, cotton textile production and pig iron production [two econometric historians] found that the south ranked just behind the north in railroads, but ahead of every other country. In textile production the South ranked sxth and in pig iron eighth. But the railroad index...is specious, for railroads connect places as well as people. By an index that combines population and square miles of territory, the South's railroad capacity was not only less than half the North's, but also less than that of several European countries in 1860. Combining the two measures of industrial capacity [textiles and pig iron]...the South produced only one-nineteenth as much per capita as Britain, one-seventh as much as Belgium, one-fifth as much as the North and one-fourth as much as Sweden..." An industrial Eden whose slave economy should have been exported to the plains states? "The per capita output of the principal southern food crops actually declined in the 1850's, and this agricultural society was headed toward the status of a food deficit region." McPherson p. 100
McPherson's summary of the statistics: "...like Alice in Wonderland, the faster the South ran, the farther behind it seemed to fall." The South's decades--long struggle to recover from its colonial economic status as an exported of commodity raw materials and an importer of capital manufactured goods is a consequence of the severe distortions of a slave based economy and society."
I want you to address Dr. McPherson's statistics. That is what you hate about the man. He makes the secessionists look like fools.
He doesn't have to call them fools. They clearly are, based on the statistics.
But you don't like his bringing this out, so you attack him personally. I am more talking about that other long piece of text where you call him a Marxist than I am with this half-baked re-imterpretation at the top of this thread.
I do note that the other piece of text I posted that --compliments-- the above text from BCF was written over 40 years ago. You totally ignore it, as you must, because it backs up Dr. McPherson's data.
That is what I want you address is the data.
We don't need Dr. McPherson to interpret the data for us, do we? We can make our own interpretation. But it is hard to avoid thinking that secession was a flight from reality, isn't it?
Walt
That's nice and all, Walt, but what you purport to "ask" is in actuality what you tell, and what you tell leads you nowhere.
I have asked you repeatedly to address this one piece of text from BCF:
And I have addressed it repeatedly, noting McPherson's economic analysis to be both biased and severely insufficient. So again - what's your point?
I want you to address Dr. McPherson's statistics.
Are you blind, Walt, or are you simply not reading what I posted? I already addressed McPherson's stats in those quotes at least twice. You have yet to respond to either by doing anything other than reposting your original quotes of McPherson. If you refuse to read my responses I cannot help you any further.
That is what you hate about the man. He makes the secessionists look like fools.
My only hatred is for the violation the truth. If McPherson does that frequently, and IMHO he does, so be it and hence my position toward him.
He doesn't have to call them fools. They clearly are, based on the statistics.
So let me get this straight - you are concluding the secessionists to be fools because McPherson quoted some stats that they didn't have as many railroads or steel mills as the north? Sorry Walt, but that conclusion does not rationally follow from the premise of those stats any more than winning the lotto follows from your going outside and randomly looking at the moon one evening.
But you don't like his bringing this out, so you attack him personally.
I only attack him to the extent it is necessary to expose your fraudulent claim that he lacks bias. As for his works, I have more than adequitely addressed several segments. If you would pull your head out of your backside for one brief moment and actually read the main article of this thread you would find that it is a thorough factual refutation of a McPherson article from the History Channel web site. Amazingly you've been posting on this thread for days now yet have you not even realized what the thread is about yet!
I am more talking about that other long piece of text where you call him a Marxist
Do you deny anything about his Marxist and anti-southern political affiliations? If so, please state them. If not, don't pretend that he's some middle of the road non-biased fair and balanced writer.
than I am with this half-baked re-imterpretation at the top of this thread.
Interesting, considering that you haven't even bothered to read it, much less refute anything it states.
We don't need Dr. McPherson to interpret the data for us, do we? We can make our own interpretation.
I haven't thus far, but the same cannot be said for you. Upon your original statement of that data I quickly pointed out its flaws based on my own economic understanding of the period. You on the other hand have yet to even read my original reply and instead only repaste McPherson as if it were the entirity of your argument. Seems to me that you need McPherson as your crutch.
And as always, I patiently await your challenge to both my original reply on the economic data and my many challenges to McPherson's core positions on the war's cause found listed above. I also must admit that I don't expect to see it anytime soon considering your evasion-dominated response to both.