Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,833
The sequel to post #5...

Kent State University
Digital Commons @ Kent State University Libraries
New Studies in U.S. Foreign Relations Kent State University Press
7-2015

Dissolving Tensions: Rapprochement and Resolution in British- American-Canadian Relations in the Treaty of Washington Era, 1865–1914
by Phillip Myers

Part of the International and Area Studies Commons, and the United States History Commons
This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Kent State University Press at Digital Commons @ Kent State University Libraries. It has been accepted for inclusion in New Studies in U.S. Foreign Relations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Kent State University Libraries. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@kent.edu.

The British-American rapprochement was both an old and a new paradigm of American foreign relations. It was old because the rapprochement existed prior to 1861, a child of the treaties of the 1840s and 1850s. It was new because negotiations of each treaty between the United States and Britain had consistently been characterized by concessions, goodwill, informal understandings, and deliberate omissions to get the treaties signed and approved by Parliament and Congress. In other words, through all of the British-American treaties since the Jay Treaty of 1794, these themes persisted to benefit British-American understanding. The rapprochement grew before the War of 1812 and remained steadfast during the American Civil War. It remained a leading tenet in British-American relations. It peaked in 1908, and it held fast during World War I and afterwards. It was overall solid enough to keep British-American relations stable in the twentieth century. This paradigm and its nuances produced a new perspective about the issues in American foreign policy that throws new light on British foreign policy as well. It also casts revealing shadows back on antebellum American foreign policy that, in turn, illuminates events taken for granted in explaining the advent of American empire and the Republic’s entry into world affairs from the Mexican War through World War I. Robert L. Beisner argues that “1865–1900 was an era in which one
American diplomatic paradigm supplanted another.” The new paradigm for purposes of this study was the steady progress in resolving British-American tensions through joint high commissions, international arbitrations, and expert testimony in these forums that were absorbed by the rapprochement.


https://digitalcommons.kent.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=new_foreign_relations
670

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,260
The Abolitionists did not expect emancipation to occur so quickly. They thought that they were pursuing a cause that would not be achieved for decades.
That's just one- perhaps the greatest- irony of the conflict: the extreme actions of the Secessionists brought about the very result they wanted to avoid!



True enough, but my point was that the abolitionists were a small minority in the United States and even among that minority, there were varying shades of abolitionism, only a few of whom considered it more of a moral issue than political.

I think more northerners opposed the expansion of slavery, because of the inequity in representation in Congress, given the South by Slavery, than slavery itself.

I am not saying there was no opposition to Slavery on moral issues alone, just that I think they were a minority in the North and probably among the abolitionists themselves.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,260
Thank you for your post.

I take that as a yes, they did tell the whole truth.


Take it as you like, as long as it is understood, as applying to the premise of Slavery being the cause of Secession and war, for the Slave States in general, and SC in particular. if one studies the political, social and economic history of that State from its inception to this very day, especially its historical difficulties in adjusting itself to the DoI and the Constitution of the United States.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,733
Location
District of Columbia
Thank you for your post(s), Alan.Unless I err, have I read three positions you have taken on the OP:

1. I don't know.
2. Yes, they did not tell the whole truth.
3. It is impossible to know.

That combination strikes me at a bare minimum to be less than an outright endorsement of their validity. Maybe you would give them a C or a C-?
This was my answer to the question posed:

{1} So, what method would I use to determine that the Sec Dec was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Perhaps I could (a) identify what the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth would look like (the "ideal" truth) for such a document; and (b) compare the actual Sec Dec to the "ideal" doc; and (c) determine how much lacking in truth the Sec Dec is, compared to the ideal.

I don't have the desire, energy, or enthusiasm for that, unfortunately. My answer to the question, was the Declaration "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", is that I have no answer.
I have made the additional point that...
(2) Your critique is mainly about (a) the linguistics and rhetoric used in the Declaration, as well as some factual inaccuracies therein and (b) the character of some of the men responsible for the declaration. But even if every argument made in the faux-Hayne's letter is valid, that still does not mean that the secessionists weren't motivated by the fear of what the pro-abolitionist Republican Party would do to slavery once it held the presidency. It means the people who wrote the doc were not all the nicest people nor the most rational, which is not the most uncommon criticism of fire-eaters.
...and that...
I wouldn't say it is naive to evaluate the Sec Dec only on the basis of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I would say that it's impossible to evaluate the Sec Dec only on the basis of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, because context matters. And when you take away the context of feelings, beliefs, values, biases, etc, human behavior is inscrutable.

- Alan
All of the above make sense and are consistent with each other, to me.

RE: Yes, I know of Ruffin's fascinating novel. I cite it in the bib of my book. Question: Are you aware of Ruffin's railroad interests? Yancey's? Wigfall's? Quitman'S? Etc.?

Why is that relevant?

- Alan
 

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
This was my answer to the question posed:



I have made the additional point that...


...and that...


All of the above make sense and are consistent with each other, to me.

RE: Yes, I know of Ruffin's fascinating novel. I cite it in the bib of my book. Question: Are you aware of Ruffin's railroad interests? Yancey's? Wigfall's? Quitman'S? Etc.?

Why is that relevant?

- Alan
Thank you for your post.

I am of the persuasion that not all things are as inscrutable as they might at first appear, to say nothing about having 150+ years of hindsight.

My OP carries with it no value judgments whatsoever upon those willing to post. And I would argue that the OP is far from naive, as you simply assert; however, I have no interest in arguing that. I did not post the question to argue. I posted the question because of numerous assertions in other posts --and in this one as well-- that Secession and the war that followed were caused by slavery and that any other suggested cause makes one a "Lost Causer" to some who have lost their logic. Nor do I wish to labor the absurdity of that slavery non sequitur. Just wanted to see how many others took the bait of Yancey et al., as the naive South Carolinians did. It is remarkable to me that people with 150+ years to study such a document are still taken in by it. Such are entitled to their views and because of their posts here and elsewhere, I understand their view which puzzled me previously. I simply don't accept it, nor do I sit in judgment on their belief or yours. All I judge is the Declarations themselves, which the creators of it invited me --and you-- to do.

I take "why is that relevant" as synonymous with "I don't know."

James
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,733
Location
District of Columbia
Thank you for your post.

I am of the persuasion that not all things are as inscrutable as they might at first appear, to say nothing about having 150+ years of hindsight.

My OP carries with it no value judgments whatsoever upon those willing to post. And I would argue that the OP is far from naive, as you simply assert; however, I have no interest in arguing that. I did not post the question to argue. I posted the question because of numerous assertions in other posts --and in this one as well-- that Secession and the war that followed were caused by slavery and that any other suggested cause makes one a "Lost Causer" to some who have lost their logic. Nor do I wish to labor the absurdity of that slavery non sequitur. Just wanted to see how many others took the bait of Yancey et al., as the naive South Carolinians did. It is remarkable to me that people with 150+ years to study such a document are still taken in by it. Such are entitled to their views and because of their posts here and elsewhere, I understand their view which puzzled me previously. I simply don't accept it, nor do I sit in judgment on their belief or yours. All I judge is the Declarations themselves, which the creators of it invited me --and you-- to do.

I take "why is that relevant" as synonymous with "I don't know."

James
1) I don't think all things are inscrutable, my point was that people can be inscrutable if we don't look at their beliefs, values, biases, feelings, etc. We must look at the context in which people say things, not just at the words they use, for example. I've explained why I think this is important.

2) For the record,

• I don't believe the OP carries any value judgements.

• I did not say the OP is naive, another member did use that word in a post.

• I did not say or even suggest you were a Lost Causer.

I hope you will not look at my posts based on comments from other people. I try to shoot straight, and I hope that as you review my posts, you will see I have always tried to respond to your comments, and not add extraneous material.

3) RE: I take "why is that relevant" as synonymous with "I don't know."

Questions like Are you aware of Ruffin's railroad interests? Yancey's? Wigfall's? Quitman'S? Etc.? inspire my ire. I don't know everything. If something is important, that I should know, I think it fair to tell me the relevancy. When I mentioned Ruffin, I didn't just ask, are you aware of his book? I discussed the book and showed why it was relevant to the discussion. Any of us can write a post saying do you know this or that? But that is not a path to learning. If your comment is supposed to lead me to something I should know, tell me outright what that is, or I'd prefer that you don't ask.

4) I suggested a couple of books earlier that I hope you can get a chance to browse, at least. I know it's a long shot that you'll look at them ~ I'm not naive enough to think that everybody's going to borrow a book based on a recommendation from a stranger on an Internet forum ~ but I think that at the least, they will give you additional tools with which to examine the past, even if it doesn't change your mind.

- Alan
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
919
Location
Dixie
Thank you for your post.

I am of the persuasion that not all things are as inscrutable as they might at first appear, to say nothing about having 150+ years of hindsight.

My OP carries with it no value judgments whatsoever upon those willing to post. And I would argue that the OP is far from naive, as you simply assert; however, I have no interest in arguing that. I did not post the question to argue. I posted the question because of numerous assertions in other posts --and in this one as well-- that Secession and the war that followed were caused by slavery and that any other suggested cause makes one a "Lost Causer" to some who have lost their logic. Nor do I wish to labor the absurdity of that slavery non sequitur. Just wanted to see how many others took the bait of Yancey et al., as the naive South Carolinians did. It is remarkable to me that people with 150+ years to study such a document are still taken in by it. Such are entitled to their views and because of their posts here and elsewhere, I understand their view which puzzled me previously. I simply don't accept it, nor do I sit in judgment on their belief or yours. All I judge is the Declarations themselves, which the creators of it invited me --and you-- to do.

I take "why is that relevant" as synonymous with "I don't know."

James
1) I don't think all things are inscrutable, my point was that people can be inscrutable if we don't look at their beliefs, values, biases, feelings, etc. We must look at the context in which people say things, not just at the words they use, for example. I've explained why I think this is important.

2) For the record,

• I don't believe the OP carries any value judgements.

• I did not say the OP is naive, another member did use that word in a post.

• I did not say or even suggest you were a Lost Causer.

I hope you will not look at my posts based on comments from other people. I try to shoot straight, and I hope that as you review my posts, you will see I have always tried to respond to your comments, and not add extraneous material.

3) RE: I take "why is that relevant" as synonymous with "I don't know."

Questions like Are you aware of Ruffin's railroad interests? Yancey's? Wigfall's? Quitman'S? Etc.? inspire my ire. I don't know everything. If something is important, that I should know, I think it fair to tell me the relevancy. When I mentioned Ruffin, I didn't just ask, are you aware of his book? I discussed the book and showed why it was relevant to the discussion. Any of us can write a post saying do you know this or that? But that is not a path to learning. If your comment is supposed to lead me to something I should know, tell me outright what that is, or I'd prefer that you don't ask.

4) I suggested a couple of books earlier that I hope you can get a chance to browse, at least. I know it's a long shot that you'll look at them ~ I'm not naive enough to think that everybody's going to borrow a book based on a recommendation from a stranger on an Internet forum ~ but I think that at the least, they will give you additional tools with which to examine the past, even if it doesn't change your mind.

- Alan
I tried to post to this thread last nite but I got too personal and the post was edited so much that I deleted it.
I will try again using these posts as guides.
Many arguments here have been declared “strawmen” arguments. I believe the thesis that led to these threads is it’s self a straw man. So also is the argument that the Ordinance of secession must be true or false. Whether it is or isn’t is in fact irrelevant. It is the stated cause of secession by the convention. It is naive (I didn’t use it before) to think that only the fire eaters were aware that any of it may or may not have been true, exaggerated, or misrepresented. It is also not the only document or evidence that leads me to the conclusion that slavery is the primary, or at the root of all other causes, cause of secession and ultimately the war. The op is not a yes or no answer as it relates to the causes of secession.
I have said that the OP maybe a lost causer, not based on this premise alone, but based on the bit of false equivalency comparing lincoln’s Involvement in the Blackhawk war with jackson’s Indian wars and Indian removal act. This was yet another straw man. When combined with the thesis premise it becomes a distinct possibility that the author is trying to detract from the importance of slavery in the politics that led to secession.
It is my opinion that the author needs help developing an argument strong enough to withstand scruinty and is using us to completely develop his thesis.
 

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
1) I don't think all things are inscrutable, my point was that people can be inscrutable if we don't look at their beliefs, values, biases, feelings, etc. We must look at the context in which people say things, not just at the words they use, for example. I've explained why I think this is important.

2) For the record,

• I don't believe the OP carries any value judgements.

• I did not say the OP is naive, another member did use that word in a post.

• I did not say or even suggest you were a Lost Causer.

I hope you will not look at my posts based on comments from other people. I try to shoot straight, and I hope that as you review my posts, you will see I have always tried to respond to your comments, and not add extraneous material.

3) RE: I take "why is that relevant" as synonymous with "I don't know."

Questions like Are you aware of Ruffin's railroad interests? Yancey's? Wigfall's? Quitman'S? Etc.? inspire my ire. I don't know everything. If something is important, that I should know, I think it fair to tell me the relevancy. When I mentioned Ruffin, I didn't just ask, are you aware of his book? I discussed the book and showed why it was relevant to the discussion. Any of us can write a post saying do you know this or that? But that is not a path to learning. If your comment is supposed to lead me to something I should know, tell me outright what that is, or I'd prefer that you don't ask.

4) I suggested a couple of books earlier that I hope you can get a chance to browse, at least. I know it's a long shot that you'll look at them ~ I'm not naive enough to think that everybody's going to borrow a book based on a recommendation from a stranger on an Internet forum ~ but I think that at the least, they will give you additional tools with which to examine the past, even if it doesn't change your mind.

- Alan
First of all, my friend, my apologies. I did not intend to draw your ire and I meant no ill will -- though,as a fledgling poet, I enjoyed your rhyme: "inspire your ire." I will get back to Edmund Ruffin in a minute.

Second, I take all your posts at face value without reference to others. And, yes, I am aware that the naïve comment came from another poster. I have requested comment from that poster as to what it was that made it naive, but I have not heard back from said poster

Third, I like very much the book recommendations that you provided on this post and I do in fact intend to look them up. You have served all of us well with your posts and these citations. You have been one of the most responsible posters on this thread in my view.

Fourth, I am well aware that you never called me a lost causer. That comment was not directed at you but to others who might read your post.

I enjoyed your review Of Ruffin's book and I am glad you brought it up. It has been overshadowed by uncle Tom's cabin as almost every other piece of ante-bellum literature has. I brought up the railroad interests of Ruffin and several other fire eaters because most people totally ignore the railroad interests of the fire eaters. This is one large ingredient that speaks to the biases of SC's Seceshers.This is a very important aspect of their lives and I threw it out to provoke your interest but not to make you mad. If you inquire into these interests, I think you will find some material that will be very useful to you. I certainly have. It is all too lengthy for me to review on a thread like this. I have written about it in my book. However, I will name one critical element. Did I already say critical? Yancey's biographer states that the reason Yancey got back into politics circa 1854 or 1856 ( I cannot recall which I do not have the book before me ) was precisely because of the transcontinental railroad. It is absolutely no surprise to me, given what he knew, why he was so interested in Independence. No surprise at all.

How does this fact address the OP? Simple. I think you and the others have addressed the biases of those who drove the movie for secession. The TRR was a major bias of Yancey and many other of the fire heaters. And, as you know, Yancey had a great deal to do with South Carolina seceding.

All on post.

Peace.

James
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,950
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
When combined with the thesis premise it becomes a distinct possibility that the author is trying to detract from the importance of slavery in the politics that led to secession.
"Don't know. Has to do where choo-choo go." -- Mongo from Blazing Saddles.
 

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
"Don't know. Has to do where choo-choo go." -- Mongo from Blazing Saddles.
I like the poetry in this post even if the post itself is way off OP. I just called my stockbroker and ordered 10,000 shares of straw futures. FYI and FOI, detracting from anything is not my bag. But I have only said this a dozen times or so, directly or indirectly.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,950
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I like the poetry in this post even if the post itself is way off OP. I just called my stockbroker and ordered 10,000 shares of straw futures. FYI and FOI, detracting from anything is not my bag. But I have only said this a dozen times or so, directly or indirectly.
And I considered the post aprobriate because I consider the entire thread/OP detracting from actual history.

I'd call that stockbroker and sell, immediately. :wink:
 

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
And I considered the post aprobriate because I consider the entire thread/OP detracting from actual history.

I'd call that stockbroker and sell, immediately. :wink:
Funny that you keep following it. Apparently there are a lot of other people who do not consider it detracting. But thanks for your post.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,950
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Funny that you keep following it. Apparently there are a lot of other people who do not consider it detracting. But thanks for your post.
I follow not to learn, for every post seems to have a vested interest in a personal agenda, but to keep informed how far this thread "jumps the tracks" when it comes to actual history.

More straw?
 

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
Another criticism of the truthfulness of SC's Secesh Declarations come to mind. In short, they were not just secession documents. Truth be told they were every bit expansionist declarations as they were secession declarations. They weren't just taking their marbles and going home. They intended to take some Union marbles with them. The use of the word "secession" was simply a red herring they expected the naive to swallow; and it is evident that a lot of people did then and many in their wake 180 years after the fact. Lincoln didn't bite and many others have not feasted on them either.

FYI, I happen to believe in the rights of the states in 1860 to secede. No question in spite of all Abe's double talk. But I don't think a seceding state had the right to steal from the Union what the Union had recently stolen from Mexico.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,260
That the framers of the South Carolina, et. al., Declaration of Causes ... , were liars and dissemblers can hardly be doubted. But, That the north had become implacably hostile to the very existence of Slavery and could not be trusted to honor its Constitutional obligations to S.C. was an article of faith, by all those framers, even the fire-eaters. They lied and dissembled to given S.C. the excuse to secede, that they did not believe they could do by telling the truth. or not dissembling.
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
282
Another criticism of the truthfulness of SC's Secesh Declarations come to mind. In short, they were not just secession documents. Truth be told they were every bit expansionist declarations as they were secession declarations. They weren't just taking their marbles and going home. They intended to take some Union marbles with them. The use of the word "secession" was simply a red herring they expected the naive to swallow; and it is evident that a lot of people did then and many in their wake 180 years after the fact. Lincoln didn't bite and many others have not feasted on them either.

FYI, I happen to believe in the rights of the states in 1860 to secede. No question in spite of all Abe's double talk. But I don't think a seceding state had the right to steal from the Union what the Union had recently stolen from Mexico.
If these were expansionist documents, they were not very rational. South Carolina's enterprise absolutely needed most to the slave states to succeed. The slave states to the north were not very enthusiastic about this business. VA, TN and NC finally came on board, but only after there seemed no choice. These states were not really much interested in expansionism. And those states would have a large voice in any CSA policy after indepenence, no matter how it came about. In fact, I think those 3 states would have begun a program of ending slavery for themselves, as there would no longer be any meddling from "outsiders" in the matter.
 

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
That the framers of the South Carolina, et. al., Declaration of Causes ... , were liars and dissemblers can hardly be doubted. But, That the north had become implacably hostile to the very existence of Slavery and could not be trusted to honor its Constitutional obligations to S.C. was an article of faith, by all those framers, even the fire-eaters. They lied and dissembled to given S.C. the excuse to secede, that they did not believe they could do by telling the truth. or not dissembling.
Thank you for an explicit response to the OP.
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,833
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
Research Department Staff Report 425
May 2009

Transportation and Development: Insights from the U.S., 1840—1860
Berthold Herrendorf
Arizona State University
James A. Schmitz Jr.
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
Arilton Teixeira
Capixaba Research Foundation

ABSTRACT
We study the effects of large transportation costs on economic development. We argue that the Midwest and the Northeast of the U.S. is a natural case because starting from 1840 decent data is available showing that the two regions shared key characteristics with today’s developing countries and that transportation costs were large and then came way down. To disentangle the effects of the large reduction in transportation costs from those of other changes that happened during 1840—1860, we build a model that speaks to the distribution of people across regions and across the sectors of production. We find that the large reduction in transportation costs was a quantitatively important force behind the settlement of the Midwest and the regional specialization that concentrated agriculture in the Midwest and industry in the Northeast. Moreover, we find that it led to the convergence of the regional per capita incomes measured in current regional prices and that it increased real GDP per capita. However, the increase in real GDP per capita is considerably smaller
than that resulting from the productivity growth in the nontransportation sectors.


https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr425.pdf
202

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top