Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial - 2009; the official work and preparation begins now

lincolnbicentennial.gov/ ^ | November 2006 | Lincoln Bicentennial Commission

[Non-Sequitur]

True, only if they had the raw materials to manufacture. The bulk of northern manufacturing rested on materials shipped to them from the South.

Really? The North was dependent on the South for coal and iron ore and wheat and corn and what have you? I think that twist in your panties is cutting off the flow of blood to your brain, dear. The North didn't collapse when the south cut off shipments of raw materials during the rebellion. It managed quite nicely when the South was an economic basket case following the rebellion. The South depended far more on the North than the other way around. And as the rebellion showed, the whole world managed to get along without southern exports.

Not only did the South, upon secession, throw herself onto the world market to buy her products, but her raw materials would also be open to the highest bidder.

Actually the South, upon secession, chose to cut herself off from the world in the export department and launch an embargo on cotton exports, in the insane belief that such an act would bring the world flocking to her door begging for permission to intercede on her behalf. Didn't quite work out how she planned, did it? Britain found other sources. The U.S. found other sources. And the South found that they couldn't eat their cotton.

Not good news for Lowell, Mass. textile plants who depended 100% on Southern cotton.

And yet Lowell, et.al. managed to putter along quite nicely during and after the war, didn't they?

If you would like, cupcake, I can do an entire seminar just for you and your little buddies. Just let me know.

Please do. If it's anything like your other stuff it should be quite a hoot.

[Non-Sequitur]

Northern consumers imported such a small amount that the revenue needs of the treasury were about to shrivel up if it had to rely on tariffs on Northern bound goods. So your point is both irrelevant and a misdirection.

If Northern consumers imported such a small amount then how could tariff revenues, about $55 million in 1860, grow to over $100 million by 1864? Someone was sure importing something, and even adjusting for inflation the were importing at higher amounts than in 1860. So I think you have it backwards. It was the South that actually imported such a small amount, not the North.

The South was by far the biggest importer of goods, and now all those goods were headed for Southern ports. No more revenue for the US Treasury.

Tariff figures and speeches from the people at the time show that statement to be completely false. I'm amazed that you would even repeat such a ridiculous claim. Well, on second thought, considering all your other nonsense then maybe it's not all that amazing.

[Ditto]

True, only if they had the raw materials to manufacture. The bulk of northern manufacturing rested on materials shipped to them from the South.

What was that? Cigarettes, rice cakes and cotton shirts? How much iron ore did the south ship north? Coal? How much timber for ships? Did they build boilers and ship them north to be assembled into locomotives? Make paper to be printed into books in the north?

Aside from Cotton, exactly what grew in the south that the north (or even England or France) "had to have" in 1861? And after 1861, what did even England and France have to have? They did quite well without Southern cotton. Egypt and India filled in very easily for them.