patrick.net

thunderlips11 says

What's happening here is you keep putting forward irrelevancies like comparing the population of Slaves, which was almost wholly Southern, to the whole US population, so you can dilute the percentage thanks to free immigration to the North.

I've tried to explain the concept of changes in the rates of change to CIC and indigenous with zero success. It's your turn to try to explain that a subset group can grow larger while simultaneously becoming a smaller percentage of a larger group to johnny reb. Since the average southerner starts with a 30 point IQ deficit compared to the rest of the country it will be a challenge.

bob2356 says

I've tried to explain the concept of changes in the rates of change to CIC and indigenous with zero success.

There's your first mistake: trying to explain a concept to CIC or indigenous. You can't cure stupid.

That's the goddamned problem right there, this graphic is only a modern problem for Obama and his Idiot Lackeys.

Dan8267 says

There's your first mistake: trying to explain a concept to CIC or indigenous. You can't cure stupid.

CaptainShuddup says

That's the goddamned problem right there, this graphic is only a modern problem for Obama and his Idiot Lackeys.

Case in point...

"You have not provided any evidence that Slavery was on the wane."

Of course I did:

Slave population was 18% of US population in 1790, whereas it was less than 13% in 1860.

All the graphs you cite purporting to show any percentage rise in any particular geographical area in the US just means the percentage decline in other parts was even greater. That's just simple math.

BTW, while you rail against attack me for being an Austrian by citing Rothbard's praise of David Duke, who had not committed any murder, you OTOH has a convicted mass murderer and terrorist John Brown as your avatar!

Even without counting your despicable glorification of the convicted mass murderer and terrorist, your round-about way of attacking me via Rothbard makes about as much sense as if I had cited some Stalin or Trotsky "revolutionary" barbarism as a way of attacking you for being pro-Russian.
Comes to think of it, perhaps the worshipping of anti-human bloodthirsty monsters is part of Russian barbarism.

bob2356 says

My logic would include the words inflation adjusted.

Likewise, population ratio instead of nominal numbers when there is a population explosion in a country.

thunderlips11 says

The South did not leave the Union over the relatively low tariffs in place in the 1850s.

The South left for both reasons (tariffs and slavery). Lincoln wanted to enforce Union in order to collect tariffs, which at the time accounted for 80%of USG revenue.

They left because they had the fear that the growing number of free white settlers settling the country would result in Slavery being banned.

In other words, slavery as a political and economic power was on the wane in the US! Why? Because slavery population as percentage of total population was declining, and slavery economy was declining as percentage of the total economy.

Kansas becoming a Free State despite rampant acts of Terror . . .

Ironic statement coming from someone who has the top terrorist in Bleeding Kansas as avatar! While the pro-slavery idiots swaggered and didn't kill anyone, John Brown's gang mass-murdered 5 people in one night "in revenge" starting the Bleeding Kansas chaos!

Reality says

Likewise, population ratio instead of nominal numbers when there is a population explosion in a country.

Slave states went from 18% slaves to 45% slaves. I rest my case.

Reality says

While the pro-slavery idiots swaggered and didn't kill anyone

Except slaves of course, but slaves weren't human so it didn't matter.

Reality says

thunderlips11 says

The South did not leave the Union over the relatively low tariffs in place in the 1850s.

The South left for both reasons (tariffs and slavery). Lincoln wanted to enforce Union in order to collect tariffs, which at the time accounted for 80%of USG revenue.

Yes of course, the south hated the fairly low tariff rates (after rates were reduced in walker tariff act of 1846 and tariff reduction bill of 1857, a bill that southern lawmakers wrote, to the lowest rate since 1816) so much it was one of the 2 reasons they succeeded. In fact the south hated tariffs so much the first thing the confederacy did was institute a high tariff rate. Makes sense. To apologists. But wait there was the dreaded Morrill Tariff. Of course the Morrill tariff never passed until the south had already succeeded and the southern lawmakers had left, but hey don't let facts ruin a good story. The anti slavery british bought the fairy tale that the Morrill tariff caused the succession hook, line, and sinker to the point that they almost recognized the confederacy. Britain being the south's largest trading partner didn't have anything at all to do with it.

Hmm, tariffs were on imported manufactured goods, the south's economy was an export economy. There were no tariffs on american manufactured products. So the south succeeded because they the wanted to buy european manufactured goods instead american manufactured goods and the tariff made them more expensive. Yea, sure right.

I've read the tariffs as a cause of the civil war theory many times. Always from southern slavery apologist writers. The facts don't support it.

bob2356 says

Likewise, population ratio instead of nominal numbers when there is a population explosion in a country.

Slave states went from 18% slaves to 45% slaves. I rest my case.

18% was the slave to overall population percentage in 1790 in the entire US. The slave to overall population percentage in 1860 was less than 13%. What was the 45%? Dishonest switching of base number of the statistics? LOL

bob2356 says

While the pro-slavery idiots swaggered and didn't kill anyone

Except slaves of course, but slaves weren't human so it didn't matter.

Murdering slaves was illegal in north America since before the founding of the US, and punishable by death just like most other kinds of murder. There wasn't any murdering of slaves in Kansas-Nebraska territory that we know of or encourage/financed by pro-slavery side like the abolitionists financing and lionizing the terrorist mass murderer John Brown.

Tariff was a strong point of contention for much of the first half of 19th century. New England almost seceded in the 1820's-30's over the issue. Yes, European imports would be cheaper in the absence of tariffs. America did not become a manufacturing powerhouse turning out less expensive goods (after adjusting for quality) until the late 19th century; otherwise, the Whig platform for protective tariffs would have been quite unnecessary.

Reality says

18% was the slave to overall population percentage in 1790 in the entire US. The slave to overall population percentage in 1860 was less than 13%. What was the 45%? Dishonest switching of base number of the statistics? LOL

In 1790 slavery was legal in all states. So the slave states had 18% slave to overall population ration. IN 1860 the slave states had 45% slave to overall population. Nothing dishonest about comparing slave states to slave states. At least no more dishonest than comparing to states that didn't exist.

Reality says

Murdering slaves was illegal in north America since before the founding of the US

Really?
Virginia, 1705 – "If any slave resists his master...correcting such a slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction...the master shall be free of all punishment...as if such accident never happened."
Louisiana, 1724 - "The slave who, having struck his master, his mistress, or the husband of his mistress, or their children, shall have produced a bruise, or the shedding of blood in the face, shall suffer capital punishment.
North Carolina legislature made the willful killing of a slave murder, unless done in resisting or under moderate correction
Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia A runaway slave refusing to surrender could be killed without penalty
"A slave has no rights that a white man is bound to respect" Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, 1857.
Perfectly legal to murder a slave, and many were. All you have to do is say they had it coming. Or are you going to argue slave owners weren't pro slavery?

Reality says

America did not become a manufacturing powerhouse turning out less expensive goods (after adjusting for quality) until the late 19th century

Really? From The Rise of American Industry:
By 1850 there were over two million spindles in over 1200 cotton factories and 1500 woolen factories in the United States.
There was $1.9 billion total value of annual manufacturing in the country by 1860, over 90% in the north. That was one hell of a lot of money in those days. The south wasn't buying any of it? Where was it all going?

Want to provide some kind of documentation to back up the "after adjusting for quality" crap.

Reality says

New England almost seceded in the 1820's-30's over the issue

Where do you get your history? The federalists were unhappy the 1803 Louisiana Purchase, the national embargo of 1807, and the War of 1812. The hartford convention was december 1814. Not the 1820'-1830's. They never came anywhere close to almost succeeding. I have Thomas J. DiLorenzo's Sovereignty in Transition sitting right in front of me. Go look it up.

Reality says

Slave population was 18% of US population in 1790, whereas it was less than 13% in 1860.

All the graphs you cite purporting to show any percentage rise in any particular geographical area in the US just means the percentage decline in other parts was even greater. That's just simple math.

Once more time:

Your numbers are deliberate dilution to conceal a truth

The percentage of Slavery in the Slave States remained pretty much unchanged; the North was never big on Slavery. More Free Immigrants moving to the North doesn't change the fact that Slavery was as important to the South in 1860 than it was in 1790. MORE important, since Cotton dominated US Exports, over 50% in 1860 from below 10% in 1790.

Ergo, no evidence that Slavery was on the Wane.

Reality says

The South left for both reasons (tariffs and slavery). Lincoln wanted to enforce Union in order to collect tariffs, which at the time accounted for 80%of USG revenue.

The Tariff at the time of secession was one of the lowest in the Early Republic's history, half the rate of the "Tariff of Abominations" from decades before. Southerners did not secede over Tariffs, it was a side issue. The main issue was preserving Slavery; Tariffs were only reinvented as the main cause after the War, when Slavery was despised and Southerners tried to deflect criticism of themselves by substituting a non-moral cause.

bob2356 says

Of course the Morrill tariff never passed until the south had already succeeded and the southern lawmakers had left, but hey don't let facts ruin a good story. The anti slavery british bought the fairy tale that the Morrill tariff caused the succession hook, line, and sinker to the point that they almost recognized the confederacy. Britain being the south's largest trading partner didn't have anything at all to do with it.

The Southerners used the Tariff line with the British to garner support. "If we win, we'll have no tariff, so you can buy all our cotton, and we'll buy all of your manufactured goods."

The Morrill Tariff Fib is very much like the Smoot-Hawley Fib; neither came into effect until after the main event occurred.

One other angle I wanted to mention was that the Civil War came at a time that the US was transitioning from an agrarian economy to a manufacturing economy. No doubt the South had fixed ideas on how things should proceed and slavery should be a part of their future. But technology always wins out eventually.

The main interest Lincoln had in the situation was that the south paid 80% of the tariffs, which was the only source of revenue for the Federal government. This was what he HAD to handle. Not to mention that he wanted a centralized government and a centralized bank and said so for 30 years.

To suggest he intended to free the slaves as anything other than an afterthought is beyond specious.

indigenous says

To suggest he intended to free the slaves as anything other than an afterthought is beyond specious.

HE wanted to preserve the Union at all costs, even if it meant keeping Slavery, at least until the Middle of the war when he realized there was no going back. What the public felt, by giving the most votes to the most anti-Slavery candidate in spite of and probably because of Southern Attitude Problems, was something else.

One myth of the Civil War was the level of support the South had in the foothills and mountains of Appalachia, where they were largely pro-Union. A century of Southern Propaganda has made the great-grandsons of a population that was very Union sympathetic and despised by the Lowland Planters into Confederate Bumper Sticker owners.

thunderlips11 says

HE wanted to preserve the Union at all costs, even if it meant keeping Slavery

Agreed, and he was no better than any other asshole that wanted power and ideology IOW one of the worst fucks in the White House ever.

It should be noted that the South had already seceded before Lincoln arrived at the White House for the first time or took the Oath of Office.

But he made it clear what is intention was, they seceded after his election.

He was an asshole.

indigenous says

But he made it clear what is intention was, they seceded after his election.

huh? You said he didn't want to abolish slavery. The tariff nonsense has been pretty well debunked. So what are these intentions that he made clear that caused secession?

Centralized govt and bank and an intent to increase the tariff

indigenous says

Centralized govt and bank and an intent to increase the tariff

Stop it--you're killing me. They seceded out of the union because Lincoln was likely to raise the tariffs? You're kidding, right? What does centralized government even mean? And what does Lincoln getting elected have to do with it?

tatupu70 says

What does centralized government even mean?

Sactly, that is your problem.

also he intended to increase mercantilism.

indigenous says

Sactly, that is your problem.

also he intended to increase mercantilism.

I've got news for you. States don't secede over intent.

Please explain how government became more centralized in the time between Lincoln's election and the secession. What exactly occurred to cause the South to leave the Union.

tatupu70 says

What exactly occurred to cause the South to leave the Union.

Read the thread

indigenous says

Read the thread

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Let me rephrase.

Now that the tariff nonsense has been thoroughly debunked here, and given that some of the Southern states seceded before Lincoln even took office--what do YOU think caused the Civil War?

tatupu70 says

what do YOU think caused the Civil War?

A seismic fault between Hamiltonian Centralized government and the Republic defined in the Constitution. A seismic fault between an agrarian culture and a manufacturing culture.

indigenous says

A seismic fault between Hamiltonian Centralized government and the Republic defined in the Constitution. A seismic fault between an agrarian culture and a manufacturing culture.

It was rich fuckers who wanted to own other people.

Or is that too hifalutin? Not plain-spoken and direct, like, say "seismic fault between Hamiltonian Centralized [sic] government and the Republic [sic] defined in the Constitution", plus using words like "culture".

HydroCabron says

It was rich fuckers who wanted to own other people.

Cept the rich fuck was Lincoln

bob2356 says

In 1790 slavery was legal in all states. So the slave states had 18% slave to overall population ration. IN 1860 the slave states had 45% slave to overall population. Nothing dishonest about comparing slave states to slave states. At least no more dishonest than comparing to states that didn't exist.

LOL. That statement only proves your own dishonesty.

Comparing ratios across the entire US was the honest approach. New states west of the Appalachians were largely extensions of the original 13, and often initially settled by population in the original 13 immediately to its east. Transportation was expensive back then. The population in the immediate neighboring state to the east had significant logistical advantage.

bob2356 says

North Carolina legislature made the willful killing of a slave murder,

Exactly! And some slave masters were hanged after such murder.

bob2356 says

Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia A runaway slave refusing to surrender could be killed without penalty

Just like the Union Army would execute deserters every day as the first order of business in the morning, while supposedly trying to fight a war to end slavery. LOL.

thunderlips11 says

The Tariff at the time of secession was one of the lowest in the Early Republic's history,

Just like slavery was still legal in the US at the time of the secession. What exactly is your point? South Carolina legislature decided to secede because Lincoln's party was known for advocating raising tariffs and abolitionist sympathy, the latter of which translated to financing terrorist mass murderers like John Brown. The secession was not in reaction what was done under Buchanan administration, but what they expected to happen under Lincoln administration . . . a president elected by a small minority of votes cast because the Democrat votes were split among three candidates!

Reality says

Just like slavery was still legal in the US at the time of the secession. What exactly is your point? South Carolina legislature decided to secede because Lincoln's party was known for advocating raising tariffs and abolitionist sympathy, the latter of which translated to financing terrorist mass murderers like John Brown. The secession was not in reaction what was done under Buchanan administration, but what they expected to happen under Lincoln administration . . . a president elected by a small minority of votes cast because the Democrat votes were split among three candidates!

Rubbish. The only reason the Morrill Tariff passed in 1861 was the South Seceded. They knew it had no chance of passage if they had stayed in the Union.

The Southern Constitution is the Revealed Truth of the matter. The CSA Constitution:

* Did not prohibit Tariffs in the CSA Constitution, only added the caveat that they had to be "Flat" without preference for industries.
* Did prohibit Emancipation: the CSA was forbidden in their Constitution from both ending slavery and prohibiting it's extension to new areas.

Doesn't sound like a State that wanted to Free Trade and was getting ready to ditch Slavery.

Reality says

bob2356 says

In 1790 slavery was legal in all states. So the slave states had 18% slave to overall population ration. IN 1860 the slave states had 45% slave to overall population. Nothing dishonest about comparing slave states to slave states. At least no more dishonest than comparing to states that didn't exist.

LOL. That statement only proves your own dishonesty.

Only in your warped mind johnny reb. For reasonable people it's not.

Reality says

bob2356 says

Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia A runaway slave refusing to surrender could be killed without penalty

Just like the Union Army would execute deserters every day as the first order of business in the morning, while supposedly trying to fight a war to end slavery. LOL.

You are starting to bring stupid to an art form.

Reality says

South Carolina legislature decided to secede because Lincoln's party was known for advocating raising tariffs

Ditto.

bob2356 says

Ditto.

I read the same, Lincoln made his platform known for 30 years.

bob2356 says

For reasonable people it's not.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/09/04/abraham_lincoln_the_president_used_this_map_to_see_where_slavery_was_strongest.html

Bellingham Bill says

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/09/04/abraham_lincoln_the_president_used_this_map_to_see_where_slavery_was_strongest.html

Wow, it's amazing that a system in decline, on the verge of being dropped, that Slavery spread fast and firmly along the Mississippi from it's home in the Old South.

thunderlips11 says

Wow, it's amazing that a system in decline, on the verge of being dropped, that Slavery spread fast and firmly along the Mississippi from it's home in the Old South.

Christ, look at east texas, kentucky, lousiana, and the western half of tennessee. I never knew there was anywhere near that much slavery there. I always thought slavery was virginia to mississippi. That's what reality is calling a fricking decline? WTF? He should change to unreality.

I always thought WWII was silly for this same reason. Hitler had ceased attacking France, and the SS was winding down the extermination camps - Treblinka effectively ceased operation in late 1943, and the reception area at Chelmno was dismantled in 1942. Clearly Nazism was declining on its own. Similarly with the Japanese: there were no substantial attacks on American soil after December of 1941.

All in all, our actions against the Axis were unprovoked aggression, borne of a Hamiltonian conception of centralized government and driven by a rapacious central bank.

In the same vein, abortion rates are down dramatically over the past 30 years, indicating laws against it to be merely a power-grab of do-gooders aiming to enhance their own careers by stifling the Noble Cause.

HydroCabron says

All in all, our actions against the Axis were unprovoked aggression, borne of a Hamiltonian conception of centralized government.

Pinche Cabron the mutt, actually the centralization part is still going today. Thanks un American Asshole Abe.

No matter how you want to dice it technology has and will replace slavery, drudgery, dangerous work. I would think farming has or will completely change through robotic technology.