Posted on 03/05/2008 6:38:02 PM PST by Rebeleye
Let's stop right there. Why do you claim that the Northern states imported very little? What evidence do you have to support that?
The tariffs protected Nothern manufacturing interests but raised the cost of everyday living in the South, and of course adversely affected the South’s commerce with its European trading partners.
Why didn't it also raise the cost of living in the North as well? A tariff inflated the prices of the protected goods for whoever bought it, North or South, East or West. The Northern consumer paid the same price for the protected good or the imported good as the Southern consumer did. So the fact is that the tariff impacted the North just as much and in the same way as it impacted the South. Wouldn't that be so?
More than 80% of the revenues generated by these tariffs were spent up North for public works and infrastructure (including subsidizing industrial works and railroads: The North had an extensive railroad apparatus, where the South had very few track miles in comparison).
Can you name some of these Northern railroads which were receiving these federal revenues, and some of the Southern railroads which did not? My reason for asking is that I'm not aware of any significant federal subsidies until the transcontinental railroads. Prior to the rebellion federal subsidies for roads, railroads, canals, etc. was very limited, with states and private companies paying most of the bills.
Likewise these other public works you speak of. What were they? Forts, courthouses, customs houses and the like, the South got plenty of them as well.
In short I'd appreciate a breakdown on this 80% figure you provided. And even if that figure is correct, I'd also point out thatin 1860 the south had only about a 5.5 million free people out of a total population of 27.2 million. That's about 80% of the population, so if they got 80% of the federal spending then what's the problem? How are they being cheated?
Then, in the late 1850s, Congress began to debate the creation of what was known as the Morrill Tariff.
Yes, yes, yes, we all know about the Morrill Tariff. I would point out that the tariff was finally passed in the House in 1860 and was promptly killed in the Senate. Had the South not seceded then that would have been it's fate in 1861 as well. The Morrill tarriff was passed because the South seceded, the South did not pass because the tariff was passed.
To get a flavor of the cause of the Civil War from dispassionate and neutral sources, one can simply read the Eurpoean accounts of the conflict, both contemporary and historical.
Wouldn't it be better to get a flavor of the cause of the rebellion from those most directly involved in the decision to secede? Those advocating it, and voting on it, and causing it in the first place rather than from people like Marx who never once set foot in the country? If you do that then it's clear that slavery was by far the single most important cause for the southern action.
So, how did the North finance the Civil War since it lost its tariff revenues? Initially, it borrowed the money. Then, it passed the Revenue Act of 1862 which raised taxes and initiated the first federal income tax. It also created what would become the Internal Revenue Service.
In his 1864 message to Congress, Lincoln reported that federal income from tariffs and duties amounted to $102 million. Tariff revenue was the second most important source of federal income behind internal revenue. According to all you're telling us about the amount of tariff revenue generated by the south prior to the rebellion, that should have been impossible. How do you explain it?
Re: Your Post 101
Where to begin, where to begin? I’ll just respond in sequence:
1) The Northen states imported far fewer goods than the Southern states because they were developing their industrial capacities and did not need the trade relationship with the other industrial manufacturers in Europe. The South’s economy was agricultural, and its only profitable market was with Europe (the North was not a profitable market for Southern crops). But Europe, understandably, didn’t want just to be an importer of someone else’s goods, it wanted a market for ITS goods (which were manufacturer goods) in return. Thus, the South and Europe became trading PARTNERS, and they bought each other’s goods. What did Europe have to export that the Northern states needed or wanted (since the North was developing its own industrial capacity)? Very little. Thus, the North obtained not much of anything from imported very little from Europe.
Europe had an alternative to Southern cotton, for instance: It could have imported cotton from Egypt. But, Egypt was not a market for European manufactured goods, so there would have been a trade imbalance.
The South HAD to buy European goods in order to keep a market for its exported agricultural goods. And in order to keep that market, it had to import goods from Europe. a trade BALANCE.
In short, the South’s trade with Europe was based on a quid pro quo: a partnership.
2) This was addressed in #1 above.
3) The govenment subsidized the tracks that were used by the various railroad companies.
4) The North had a larger population than the South, and was far more urban. Thus, it had far more infrastructure to develop and maintain. The South was rural except for a handful of port cities.
How was the South getting cheated if the North got 80% of the revenues? Because, as explained, those revenues came about because of the South’s trade partnership with Europe.
It’s like this: Say you come from a large, extended family, one in which you hardly know, and in some instances know not at all, most of your kinfolk. But, you are industrious, and have made good, and generate a nice income. Your kinfolk, though, resent — or, don’t think it’s fair — that you have all that money and that you spend it on yourself. They think that because there are far more of them than there are of you, you should spread that money around — meaning, the vast majority of it — so that they can buy some nice things, fix their roofs, buy a second car for the missus, etc. What’s more, if you don’t want to share your wealth with them, since they outnumber you, they tell you that as long as you are a part of the family you have to pay up, or they will force you to. So, what do you do? Do you cave in and cough up your money? Or, do you say “Screw that! I’m getting out of the family!”
5) The Morrill Tariff based both houses of Congress.
6) You Northern apologists (and historical revisionists) always say that the South seceded because of slavery. The use of slave labor was but one of the labor forces employed to harvest crops in the South. The South didn’t secede because the North or the federal govenment threatened to take away its slaves (slavery was legal, and the federal government had no constitutional authority to abolish slavery without a constititutional amendment doing it, and the South knew no such amendment had any chance of passing). But what the federal government did have the power to do, and the votes in Congress to make it happen, was to fleece the South of its economic interests. That was something the South could not accept.
People who are immediate to an incident see it from a filtered viewpoint, and the more emotional the incident, the more emotional the filter. That’s why it’s always good to hear an analysis from sources who “had no dog in the fight,” and thus no emotional investment.
The North did not invade the South to abolish slavery. Hell, if the North was so fired-up to to abolish slavery by force then it could have invaded the South before any state seceded! Why didn’t it? If no state had ever seceded, would the North have invaded the South to free the slaves? Of course not, and you know it. But, would the North invade to punish the South for screwing up the revenues of the federal treasury, of which the lion’s share was spent up North? History shows that’s just what the North did. But, fighting the South was not popular with all Northerners, and many opposed it (hence the tepid response to Lincoln’s first call for volunteers to invade). And, many of those who did volunteer sure as hell did not volunteer to free the slaves (even Grant said that if freeing the slaves had been the reason for the war he never would have been involved in it).
7) I never said there was no tariff revenue after the South seceded. But it was minimal compared to the levies and taxes imposed on the citizenry and domestic businesses and operations (internal revenue). Before the South seceded more than 80% of the federal revenues came from tariffs; afterwards, but a fraction of what it had been. In 1864, by your own comment, revenue from tariffs was “the second most important source of federal income behind internal revenue.” Thus, obviously, federal income from tariffs had to have been less than 50%, as if it were any more it could not have been “second most”. In fact, it was substantially less than 50%, wasn’t it?
Non-sequitur, I’ve noticed in your threads and posts that you’re real good at answering a question by asking another question, and you don’t seem to get around to well, answering the question posed. Are you a Democrat?
More Bullsh*t.
Prove that they were coerced. Three of my ancestors didn’t own a single slave, yet VOLUNTEERED to serve in the Confederate Army.
And I'll respond in kind.
The Northen states imported far fewer goods than the Southern states because they were developing their industrial capacities and did not need the trade relationship with the other industrial manufacturers in Europe.
See, it's these kind of blanket, unsupported statements that weaken your case. Why is this true? Why wouldn't the North want imported goods if the South did as well, and if the North was developing its industries then wouldn't it also be developing its markets, North and South? So if you want to say that North didn't need imported goods because the domestic alternatives were available then the same would be true of the South as well.
But Europe, understandably, didn’t want just to be an importer of someone else’s goods, it wanted a market for ITS goods (which were manufacturer goods) in return. Thus, the South and Europe became trading PARTNERS, and they bought each other’s goods.
That is flat out ridiculous. Europe bought the South's cotton because there was no alternative source available, and their textile industries needed it. But for the sake of arguement, let's assume your statement is true. What was it that the South wanted to import from Europe in such quantities as to offset the millions of bales of cotton exports? And plese don't say 'manufactured goods'. That could encompass anything from a steam locomotive to a sewing needle. What was it that the South demanded from Europe specifically? What was it that Europe provided in such quality that the U.S. manufacturers couldn't compete?
Europe had an alternative to Southern cotton, for instance: It could have imported cotton from Egypt. But, Egypt was not a market for European manufactured goods, so there would have been a trade imbalance.
If you look at the history of cotton production, at any of the sites available on the web, neither India or Egypt were alternatives to the U.S. in 1860. Neither grew enough to feed the British textile mills and shipping costs from India, half way around the world, were prohibitive. Neither country grew the two kinds of U.S. cotton, Gossypium hirsutum and Gossypium barbadense, which produced a longer, stronger thread. Egypt was never a threat to the South as a source of cotton, and was only a stop-gap source during the rebellion. Once the war was over, cotton production in Egypt dropped to low levels once again and Europe resumed imports from the U.S. In spite of, it should be pointed out, ever increasing U.S. tariffs. By your logic, post rebellion purchases of U.S. cotton by British manufacturers should have continued to drop as U.S. protectionist measures grew, shouldn't it?
The South HAD to buy European goods in order to keep a market for its exported agricultural goods. And in order to keep that market, it had to import goods from Europe. a trade BALANCE.
You are assigning 21st century economic theory to 19th century economic conditions. There was no trade balance prior to the rebellion. The U.S. exported millions of bales of cotton and very few imports returned to the Southern states. That fact is clear from the export figures and tariff collection figures available. Well over 3 million bales of cotton exported in the year prior to the rebellion, and 95% of all tariffs collected in Northern ports.
2) This was addressed in #1 above.
Actually you ignored it. The point was, if tariffs raise the costs of protected items then that cost is the same for all consumers, North and South. And that is a fact. If I am a Northern consumer and I want to buy a widgit when there is a 10% protectionist tariff on it, then I have two choices. I can buy the imported one, like you claim the Southerners would, and pay the 10% tariff. Or I can buy the domestic widgit, which you claim the Northerners would, with it's price inflated by 10% due to the tariff. Either way, the consumer is impacted by the tariff. So the tariff impacts both sides equally.
The govenment subsidized the tracks that were used by the various railroad companies.
Which ones? Some names please.
The North had a larger population than the South, and was far more urban. Thus, it had far more infrastructure to develop and maintain. The South was rural except for a handful of port cities.
So what? If the North had 80% of the population and 80% of the territories, why shouldn't 80% of government spending occur there?
How was the South getting cheated if the North got 80% of the revenues? Because, as explained, those revenues came about because of the South’s trade partnership with Europe.
But once again, if your claim is true then how could tariff revenues increas so much during the war? If the South was indeed producing 80% of government revenues through the tariff then federal duties during the war should have dropped to one fifth prewar levels, shouldn't they? Instead within three years they had doubled. Without the South. Without the South's imports or exports. How was that possible?
5) The Morrill Tariff based both houses of Congress.
Yes, in March 1861. If you note that date, you'll also note that was after 7 SOuthern states had walked out, taking their senators with them. In the spring of 1860 the Senate had blocked passage of the tariff. In the spring of 1861 the Senate had enough Democrats to do it again. The tariff would not have become law if the South had not left.
You Northern apologists (and historical revisionists) always say that the South seceded because of slavery.
There is a whole lot of revisionism going on here, and I don't think it's from the Northern side. The grand Southron myth is that you all seceded because of tariffs. Yet when figures are produced showing the South most likely paid a disproportionately small share of the tariff you throw out unsupported gibberish. You want facts? Here are some for you:
Fact: in the year preceeding the rebellion, tariff collections in the 11 busiest Southern ports was less than $3 million. Tariff collections in the three busiest Northern ports was over $42.5 million. If the South exported so much and the North imported so little then why were over 9 out of every 10 dollars of imports landed in Northern ports? Source: "Statement Showing The Amount of Revenue Collected Annually in Each Collection District from June 30 1854 to June 30 1859, Exec. Doc. No.33, 36th Congress, 1st Session" as presented in Appendix 2 of "Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running During the Civil War" by Stephen R. Wise.
Fact 2: in the year presceeding the rebellion 3.133 million bales of cotton were exported from the U.S. Only 275,000 bales left from Norhthern ports. If all that cotton was leaving from Southern ports and the South demanded so much in the way of imported goods, then why weren't those ships arriving with imports and loading with cotton? Source: Hunt's Merchant magazine and Commercial Review. As listed in Appendix 3 of the above mentioned book.
The North did not invade the South to abolish slavery.
You know what? You are not going to find a single, serious student of the rebellion who would dispute that statement. Not one, certainly not me. The North did not fight the war to end slavery, or preserve it. The North fought the war to preserve the country. That is a fact. But it is also a fact that there are two sides to the struggle, and if the North did not fight the war to preserve slavery it is a fact that the South launched the war to protect slavery, which was their reason for seceding in the first place. And all the revisionist Southron tales won't change what the men of the period said were their reasons for their actions.
I never said there was no tariff revenue after the South seceded. But it was minimal compared to the levies and taxes imposed on the citizenry and domestic businesses and operations (internal revenue). Before the South seceded more than 80% of the federal revenues came from tariffs; afterwards, but a fraction of what it had been. In 1864, by your own comment, revenue from tariffs was “the second most important source of federal income behind internal revenue.” Thus, obviously, federal income from tariffs had to have been less than 50%, as if it were any more it could not have been “second most”. In fact, it was substantially less than 50%, wasn’t it?
Your claim has been that the South generated the overwhelming majority of tariff revenue, and if that were true then yes, one would expect tariff revenue to fall. But in 1864 ttal government receipts were over $260 million and the tariff contributed about 40% of that. It was the second greatest source of revenue after internal revenue. If your claims be true federal tariff revenue should have dropped to a fraction of the pre-war amount not grown, because the U.S. did not have Southern exports and Southern demand for imported goods. By your own statements, growing to $102 million in three years should have been impossible. Yet that is what happened. Explain it.
Non-sequitur, I’ve noticed in your threads and posts that you’re real good at answering a question by asking another question, and you don’t seem to get around to well, answering the question posed.
And if that is not a case of the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.
Are you a Democrat?
Of course not. If I were a Democrat I'd be a confederate, wouldn't I?
My God, but you are dense. It doesn’t make any difference at what port the tariff duties were collected, but who paid the tax (i.e., who was the purchaser of the goods). Southern interests were by far and large the major purchaser, thus Southern interests “paid the freight.” So, if you say that only $3 million in tariff revenue was collected at Southern ports and $42 million was collected at Northern ports it’s irrelevant to the argument as to who actually paid the tax (the issue is not WHERE the tax was paid or collected, but WHO paid it). Hell, that’s like saying that since St. Louis processes all the federal revenues from income taxes collected from all the states in its collection district, Missouri produced all those revenues. How ridiculous.
Why didn’t the South trade its agricultural goods with the North in exhange for manufactured goods? Two reasons: 1) There wasn’t much of a market for Southern goods in the North, as the North didn’t much need the South’s agricultural goods; 2) The profitable market that was available to Southern exporters (i.e., Europe) demanded a quid pro quo for the sale of its own goods (the fact that, at that time, European manufactured goods were superior and more numerous than much of what was manufactured in the North was just an added incentive, though the South did also buy Northern goods).
Why didn’t the North import many goods from Europe? Because the North, in developing its manufacturing capacity, was in competition with Europe for those same manufactured goods. It’s called protectionism.
Your question as to what the South demanded as far as trade goods from Europe that it couldn’t get from Northern factories is a red herring posit, and, if you were honest, you’d admit it. The Southern economy was based on agriculture, and it had to have a market for their goods, and the North was not a profitable market because they didn’t much need what the South was selling, so Southern interests had to sell their goods to someone who DID need and want them (i.e., Europe). But, Europe would not buy those agricultural goods (i.e., Southern goods) unless it in turn would be able to sell its marketable goods (i.e., manufactured goods). Thus, Southern exporters had to agree to import European goods in order to maintain a market for their agricultural goods (i.e., if they wanted to sell their products, thay had to agree to buy the products of their trade partners in Europe for the privilege). (The South did, though, buy some Northern goods, as stated previously.)
The South then had no choice but to buy trade goods from Europe, because it had to secure the market for its agricultural goods. THAT was the basis for the States’ Rights argument: The South believed the individual states should have the final say as to their economic lives and futures.
Even Northern newspapers admitted that the South seceded because of economics, as the “Boston Transcript” published in March, 1861 (paraphrased): “It is obvious the Southern states seceded for commercial independence...based on free trade.”
As for your comment that I was assigning 21st century economic theory to 19th century economic conditions is so breathtakingly stupid I was surprised that even you came up with it. Do you think the concept of free and balanced trade was non-existent prior to January 1, 2001? Are you that daft? Don’t you even know that the Founding Fathers of this country were greatly influenced by the economic theories of Adam Smith, and his economic treatises of the 18th century (especially his “Wealth of Nations,” which came out in 1776) were fundamental to their ideas as to how an American economy should be organized? Adam Smith’s economic model advanced the logic of free and balanced trade, as it would benefit all parties. America’s Founding Fathers embraced that with both feet. A good book on this (though the conclusion has been stated in countless scholarly works) is Roy Smith’s “Adam Smith and the Origins of American Enterprise: How the Founding Fathers Turned To A Great Economist’s Writings And Created The American Economy.”
Let’s talk about railroads. A railroad lawyer by the name of Abraham Lincoln (among whose clients, in the 1850s, were the Illinois Central, a huge company believed to be the biggest coporation on the planet in the 1850s; and the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific), was a big supporter of subsidizing railroads with federal monies. Unfortunately, the subsidizing of railroads was disastrously costly (in large part because of corruption), but Ol’ Abe made it a priority to continue the bankrupting program early on in his adminstration, and signed over public lands and other subsidies to Northern investors for their railroads. Also, prior to the Civil War, Northern interests were pushing Congress to bankroll a transcontinental railroad that would traverse the Northern states (incorporating rail systems already in place in, or to be improved upon, in the North, to link up with new tracks to be laid in the West). Southern members of Congress thought the route should be through the South, but since Northern business interests were more influential than Southern interests, and Northern Congressmen outnumbered Southern Congressmen, the South (again) got short shrift. The transcontinental railroad was completed in 1869. You can read much of that history in historian Dee Brown’s (he’s the guy who wrote “Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee”) book “Hear The Lonesome Whistle Blow.”
It is well known that you are wholly and fauningly enthlralled by and with Abraham Lincoln. Where you take the position that Lincoln “saved” the Union, I suggest to you that he in fact destroyed it, along with the US Constitution. Prior to Lincoln the United States was a voluntary association of individual states, states which retained their various powers and authorities save for a few very limited and restrictive powers granted by them to a federal government. Lincoln never agreed with that concept; rather, he was an advocate of Henry Clay’s idea of a strong federal government at the expense of the sovereignty of the states. Lincoln is responsible for — because he set it in motion — the ubiquitous, all-encroaching, ever-restrictive, freedom-destroying leviathan that we know today as the federal government: The Founding Fathers NEVER intended, or expected, their beautiful dream of self-determination to morph into this monstrosity. FDR took the baton from Lincoln and ran with it, only to hand it off to LBJ. The final leg of that relay, which will spell the death knell of America as the land of the free and the home of the brave, could be either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, if either should — God forbid — ever ascend to the presidency. A very interesting book on Lincoln is Thomas DiLorenzo’s “The Real Lincoln.” You probably won’t like it.
No, just not willing to accept something that makes no sense as God's honest truth becaue the all knowing, all wise, all wonderful ought-six says it it.
It doesn’t make any difference at what port the tariff duties were collected, but who paid the tax (i.e., who was the purchaser of the goods). Southern interests were by far and large the major purchaser, thus Southern interests “paid the freight.”
If that is true then why weren't the goods brought to the Southern consumers through Southern ports? Why would they sit still for having the goods brought to New York, landed, taxed, reloaded, and then brought to Southern ports. Were they dense? Or just had no concept of money?
Why didn’t the South trade its agricultural goods with the North in exhange for manufactured goods? Two reasons: 1) There wasn’t much of a market for Southern goods in the North, as the North didn’t much need the South’s agricultural goods; 2) The profitable market that was available to Southern exporters (i.e., Europe) demanded a quid pro quo for the sale of its own goods (the fact that, at that time, European manufactured goods were superior and more numerous than much of what was manufactured in the North was just an added incentive, though the South did also buy Northern goods).
Hmmm. Here's a radical thought. Instead of a barter economy why not invent something to be used instead. You could make it out of, I don't know, gold or silver or something. Then instead of going to the store and whipping out a bale of cotton to pay for your manufactured goods you could use these metal things. We could call it...money! How about that, think it might work?
We're not talking middle ages here. Cotton growers weren't dense. Why should they take on the risks of getting cotton overseas when they could sell it to someone who would take the risk for them. It was a pretty advanced economy, with insurance and middlemen and finance sources and everything. Growers sold to brokers who sold to exporters who sent it abroad. And then they took that funny metal stuff (money I think it was called?) and bought what they wanted, be it manufactured goods or slaves or land or whatever. And that money stuff was just as good as in the North as it was in the South.
Why didn’t the North import many goods from Europe? Because the North, in developing its manufacturing capacity, was in competition with Europe for those same manufactured goods. It’s called protectionism.
And it hit North and South equally. But you would have us believe that Southerners really, really wanted to pay more for their goods than the Northerners did. And you call me dense.
Your question as to what the South demanded as far as trade goods from Europe that it couldn’t get from Northern factories is a red herring posit, and, if you were honest, you’d admit it.
No, it's a legitimate question which you are incapable of answering because none of your Southron myths fit the question. You can't answer it because you have absolutely no idea. And if you tried to answer then you'd have to stop and think "Just what the heck DID they import anyway?" So take a swing at it. The South exported millions of dollars in cotton. According to you Europe demanded quid pro quo and a balance of trade. So in your world a dollar of cotton had to result in a dollar of imports. So just what the hell were they buying? Never mind the fact that none of it was going to their ports, what did they consume?
Even Northern newspapers admitted that the South seceded because of economics, as the “Boston Transcript” published in March, 1861 (paraphrased): “It is obvious the Southern states seceded for commercial ndependence...based on free trade
Even Southerners admitted that the South left over slavery, as Henry Benning, Georgia representative to the Virginia secession convention, said: "What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause. It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil. But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken."
Let’s talk about railroads.
Yes let's, and your claim that federal funds subsidized Northern railroads. I've noticed that you haven't been able to answer that, to come up with a single railroad that was subsidized with federal funds in the North or any railroad denied such subsidies in the South. Not even the Illinois Central. The best you can come up with is the transcontinental railroad, a post-rebellion initiative. So come on, ought-six. You made the claim, let's see your evidence. You claimed that the federal government was taking all that money, stealing all that money from the South and spending it on Northern railroads and infrastructure. Well, what? Which railroads? What infrastructure? You can't come up with any ideas of what manufactured goods the South was importing, can you at least back up your claim on the railroads and infrastructure? Any of it?
It is well known that you are wholly and fauningly enthlralled by and with Abraham Lincoln.
And it is also well known that you loath the man. That no lie is too big, no tale too wild, no myth too outrageous for you to repeat if it makes Lincoln look bad. You will, literally, believe anything
!!! South paid 80% of the tariffs? Sounds good to you. Spending all the money on Northern railroads? What the heck, why not? Never mind the fact that you cannot provide anything to support your wild-ass claims. You don't need any, we're expected to take your word as gospel simply because the great and wonderful ought-six said it was true.
Prior to Lincoln the United States was a voluntary association of individual states, states which retained their various powers and authorities save for a few very limited and restrictive powers granted by them to a federal government. Lincoln never agreed with that concept; rather, he was an advocate of Henry Clay’s idea of a strong federal government at the expense of the sovereignty of the states. Lincoln is responsible for — because he set it in motion — the ubiquitous, all-encroaching, ever-restrictive, freedom-destroying leviathan that we know today as the federal government: The Founding Fathers NEVER intended, or expected, their beautiful dream of self-determination to morph into this monstrosity. FDR took the baton from Lincoln and ran with it, only to hand it off to LBJ. The final leg of that relay, which will spell the death knell of America as the land of the free and the home of the brave, could be either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, if either should — God forbid — ever ascend to the presidency.
All because you say so, huh? That's the story of your posts, something is correct because you say it is.
A very interesting book on Lincoln is Thomas DiLorenzo’s “The Real Lincoln.” You probably won’t like it.
I've read it. I love good fiction, and while I wouldn't classify Tommy's screed as 'good fiction' it did have it's amusing moments.
Acually, if you look at tariff payments, they were mostly being paid in the northern states.
That makes the rest of your rant false, and you delusional.
“Acually, if you look at tariff payments, they were mostly being paid in the northern states. That makes the rest of your rant false, and you delusional.”
They were collected in both Northern and Southern ports, but WHERE they were paid (collected) is irrelevant; it’s WHO paid them that is the issue. Refer to my analogy of St. Louis and the collection of income taxes. There are several IRS collection centers (St. Louis used to be a major one, but Kansas City has now taken over its operations): Atlanta; Cincinnati; Austin; Ogden, UT; Andover, MA; Fresno, CA. Now, are you telling me that all those filers whose collection center was, say, Ogden, UT, didn’t actually pay those taxes, but rather Ogden did? Now, who is delusional?
Dixie Ping
I’m still waiting on an explanation of how 80% of the federal budget went to internal improvements (i.e. railroad subsidies) in the north when records from the time show almost half going to support the army and navy alone.
The ex-slave pictured was named ‘Gordon’. Doctors confirmed he suffered from a medical condition that exaggerated the scarring. And the overseer of the plantation (in Mississippi IIRC) was a yankee.
Georgia, Tennessee and other Souther states also awarded blacks military pensions and honoured them for their service.
It did. Then picked back up as Yankees were forced to import products previously obtained duty-free from Southerners. It's simple economics.
Obviously. The revenue collections didn't drop by 80% or more, which one would expect them to do if the South was accounting for that percentage of tariff revenue. And your claim that the North was forced to import goods previously obtained from the South cannot be true because ought-six claimed in reply 102 that the North was not a profitable market for Southern goods prior to the rebellion.
It's simple economics.
But more complex than you would like us to believe.
Keloid cysts may exaggerate the scarring but they do require an abrasion be present first before forming. The man was flogged at some time.
And the overseer of the plantation (in Mississippi IIRC) was a yankee.
Do you have a source for that? The Yankee overseer, I mean.
Dude, it's not as if the North waited a year BEFORE having to replace the products they previously received from the Southern states - it was barely 3 1/2 months into the year. Even then revenues fell sharply the 1st year.
And your claim that the North was forced to import goods previously obtained from the South cannot be true because ought-six claimed in reply 102 that the North was not a profitable market for Southern goods prior to the rebellion.
I wonder where all that cotton went the fed yankee mills? That same cotton that Lincoln was so desperate for during the war.
But more complex than you would like us to believe.
For some of us it's simple, sorry that your degree didn't cover it.
Courtesy ping to 115 and 116.
OK, Dude, what was it the U.S. was replacing? And from where?
I wonder where all that cotton went the fed yankee mills? That same cotton that Lincoln was so desperate for during the war.
I'm just repeating what ought-six said - the North was not a profitable market for the South's goods. I'm aware that a fair amount of cotton was consumed by the North, but apparently not enough to make the North a good market. It is indisputable that the overwhelming majority of Southern cotton did go overseas, over 3.1 million bales in the year prior to the rebellion.
But given that Europe, primarily England, consumed the bulk of the South's cotton then how did the North find an adequate alternate source and the UK didn't?
For some of us it's simple, sorry that your degree didn't cover it.
Or perhaps I just can't suspend by disbelief to the extent that you can.
“But given that Europe, primarily England, consumed the bulk of the South’s cotton then how did the North find an adequate alternate source and the UK didn’t?”
England did. When cotton exports from America were greatly restricted due to the Union blockades, England turned to Egypt and the Caribbean for its cotton needs. Also, some cotton shipments from the South still did manage to run the blockades, but only a fraction of what it had previously shipped.
Not nearly enough, though. And even with the blockade runners and supplies from Egypt and India the British textile industry was in a depression for the duration of the rebellion.
But we still have the conflicting stories between you and 4CJ. He says that the Union tariff income rose trying to replace that which they could no longer get from the South. You said that there wasn't enough demand for Southern goods in the North to make it a profitable market for them. So which is it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.