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?