Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
It should also be noted that United States ships imported Coolies to several other countries in North and South America....all this before, during and beyond the period of 1861 and 1865. The one of the supposed crusade against slavery.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Is Battalion referring to 'legal' or 'Illegal' importation of Coolies????
You mean the 1862/1868 laws that were never enforced until 1882 (Chinese Exclusion Act)?
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
So, in fact, we are discussing the 'Illegal' importation of Coolies. That is a significant admission, because the 1806 ban on the importation of slaves was often violated. What Exactly is Battalion's Point?
That since the law was being violated, the ban should be rescinded? That the south was two-faced; arguing for strict enforcement of the Constitution, while winking at it's violation?
It should also be noted that United States ships imported Coolies to several other countries in North and South America....all this before, during and beyond the period of 1861 and 1865. The one of the supposed crusade against slavery.
This is what would be known as criminal acts in America. And, as noted to you earlier in this thread, Mississippians were trying to "import" 10,000 Coolies in 1858 -- and were denied by the action of the Federal government. You never commented upon that action. Why not? Would now be the time you wish to acknowledge the Southern attempts to import "Coolies"?
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
You mean the 1862/1868 laws that were never enforced until 1882 (Chinese Exclusion Act)?
Come now. You know this is a false statement. All you have to do is read backwards a few pages in this thread to see a reference to the 1862 law being enforced in 1868. That action also led to the passage of a new law in 1868. It was posted for you; you ignored it and never responded. Do you think it went away because you let this thread lie quietly for several months?
Also, just to put some realism into this discussion, the attention of the Federal government was a bit taken up with the Civil War (1861-65) and the Reconstruction and the Indian wars that followed. While important, I doubt suppression of the Coolie Trade was at the top of the nation's priorities in those days.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
As I said- it is a prime indicator (especially when it is constant for 20 years)...not proof unto itself
Balderdash. You offered it as prima facie evidence of slavery. Just more nonsense on your part. If you actually want to "prove" that the imbalance shows a "slave trade", then it would match closely the male/female ratio of the Atlantic Slave Trade. Care to show us how it does?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
You need to check what contemporaries were saying about this trade. Why did the US government pass a law against it in 1862?...and again in 1868? (though it appears the laws were never enforced till about 1882- Chinese Exclusion Act)
What I said was that your attempt to prove slavery by a male/female ratio was nonsensical. It was.
The Coolie Trade was certainly pretty lousy. That's why people were trying to ban it, and why they eventually did. But since you already know of at least some efforts to enforce the ban on the trade in this period, your repeated statements that there were none just comes across as a deliberate deception.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
This is what would be known as criminal acts in America. And, as noted to you earlier in this thread, Mississippians were trying to "import" 10,000 Coolies in 1858 -- and were denied by the action of the Federal government. You never commented upon that action. Why not?
Is this another one of your deceptions?
What you describe is nowhere on this board.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Come now. You know this is a false statement. All you have to do is read backwards a few pages in this thread to see a reference to the 1862 law being enforced in 1868. That action also led to the passage of a new law in 1868. It was posted for you; you ignored it and never responded. Do you think it went away because you let this thread lie quietly for several months?
Please show where the US Congress appropriated money and ships for the suppression of the Coolie trade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Also, just to put some realism into this discussion, the attention of the Federal government was a bit taken up with the Civil War (1861-65) and the Reconstruction and the Indian wars that followed. While important, I doubt suppression of the Coolie Trade was at the top of the nation's priorities in those days.
Tim
Not even at the Port of San Francisco?
Anybody arrested there?......No?
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Please show where the US Congress appropriated money and ships for the suppression of the Coolie trade.
Why? Wouldn't it be better, for instance, to point out the actions taken in 1867-69 against the importation of coolies into New Orleans and Louisana?
This action, BTW, was part of the duties of the US Treasury Department, and not a Navy function.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
