Posted on 06/23/2016 2:04:08 PM PDT by ColdOne
A measure to bar confederate flags from cemeteries run by the Department of Veterans Affairs was removed from legislation passed by the House early Thursday.
The flag ban was added to the VA funding bill in May by a vote of 265-159, with most Republicans voting against the ban. But Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) both supported the measure. Ryan was commended for allowing a vote on the controversial measure, but has since limited what amendments can be offered on the floor.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Of course I am astonished & amazed at your ability to recall and repost data originating many years ago.
Is that from memory, or some kind of filing system?
Regardless, the facts are that Morrill doubled tariff receipts between 1860 and 1865.
Indeed, by 1870 tariff receipts doubled again.
Yes, inflation in goods consumed most of that, but since average wages rose only 50%, those revenues could hire half again more workers -- for example, to build transcontinental railroads.
Further, from 1865 to 1870, while tariff receipts doubled again, wages held steady and consumer prices fell 20%.
So, rusty, your claim that tariff receipts actually went down under Morrill is simply wrong.
rustbucket: "Here are links to old posts of mine where I described how I did those calculations and provided additional information: [Post 1172, Post 288, and Post 131]."
I found nothing in those old posts which disproves the data presented here: Morrill doubled tariff revenues by 1865 and doubled again by 1870.
Yes inflation did consume much of that, but far from all.
rustbucket: "The set of monthly figures in Post 131 might be familiar to you.
PeaRidge posted them to you in the present thread [Post 294].
Incidentally, I did not apply inflation to those monthly 1861 figures."
Those figures support my argument that Deep South cotton exports paid for roughly 50% of US imports in 1860.
With cotton gone in 1861 US imports dropped by about half.
Regardless, here are numbers I have for US tariff receipts:
This is why I say that Morrill roughly doubled tariff receipts by 1865 and doubled them again by 1870.
Sure, but none of that is relevant to the question on the table: did Morrill double tariff receipts?
The answer is: yes, although consumer prices of goods also doubled, making the buying power of increased revenues no greater than in 1860.
However, since wages went up only 50% the government could afford the hiring of half again more workers for such projects as re-building Army forts or Navy ships.
He made it clear that new prosperity appeared all over the city as a result of Lincoln's push South."
Both of these opinions support what I've posted all along:
That New York Democrat businessmen hated Republicans and favored any concessions necessary to conciliate the South, and that once war came New Yorkers quickly adjusted, adapted and prospered economically.
So Deep South cotton proved not as important to Northeasterners as secessionists of the time and pro-Confederates of our time imagine.
Well, certainly off cotton, whether produced by slaves, freed blacks or Southern whites.
And after the war, when no slaves produced cotton, Northerners continued to transport, store & process it.
So what mattered to them was not slaves, but cotton.
DiogenesLamp: "The numbers prove that it would cause New York and surrounding areas a huge economical upheaval if they were deprived of their monopolistically created money stream."
But there was no "monopoly" before or after Civil War.
The data demonstrates that most Southern exports shipped directly to their customers overseas.
Returning ships brought imports & immigrants to New York because that's where customers & employers were located.
There is no possibility those customers & employers would suddenly rush to backwater cities like Charleston or Savanah after secession.
Instead, New Yorkers would and did adjust, adapt and continue to prosper.
DiogenesLamp: "The evidence indicates the pressured their Agent in the WhiteHouse to start a war which they badly needed, and the evidence indicates he complied."
At this point "spin" turns to total fantasy inside your witless brain.
In fact there's no real evidence of it.
DiogenesLamp: "I'm not going to listen to your "specie" argument.
It is nonsense.
I am not going to listen to your Pearl Harbor argument.
It is nonsense."
That's because your brain is full of sawdust so burning with a Big Lie it has no oxygen left for facts, reason or truth.
You're addicted to nonsense and can't break your habit.
DiogenesLamp: "The provable facts demonstrate that there was a Huge and Massive economic cost to New York if the Southern States became Independent, and I believe you can always get to the bottom of something by simply following the money."
That's because at heart you're a Marxist totally victimized by the US public education system into thinking nothing but economics drives human beings.
It's why we see politically insane liberals blaming Islamic terrorism on Global Warming (!) or on "poverty" when most terrorists are actually quite well off.
But even someone as politically corrupted as DiogenesLamp has not yet devised an economic explanation for the US declaring war on Japan in December 1941, so perhaps in that you can see hints of limitations to your "economics trumps everything" hypotheses.
DiogenesLamp; "So you can prattle on about all your irrelevant side issues, but until you come up with something that changes the math, I simply have no interest in reading it or taking it seriously."
But your real problem is mental sawdust on fire with a Big Lie and no oxygen left for facts, reason or truth.
Some supported secession only until the news of the Southern tariff rates hit the newspapers. Then the long knives came out.
But you also employ misdirection.
You said: “So Deep South cotton proved not as important to North easterners as secessionists of the time and pro-Confederates of our time imagine.”
But it certainly did to northeastern businesses.
But more importantly was direct trade with Europe which cut out the US Treasury, as Lincoln so famously noted in his inaugural. So, yeah, lost cotton trade goods tariff revenue was what he was talking about a few days before he ordered Fox south.
But the average rate of 15% tells us that for every item taxed higher than 15% other materials must have been taxed lower.
Correspondingly, if the Confederate tariff averaged 15% yet lowered the rate on some manufactured products, then it must have raised its rates on other items.
Regardless, the Confederate tariff was only in effect for a few months, until the Union blockade took effect.
;-)
I am holding page 48, as Rush would say, in my formerly nicotine stained hands (though that was more than 40 years ago).
I see the numbers you mentioned for imports & exports.
They mostly correspond to the numbers I've seen on those elsewhere.
What they don't show is which states produced which export products, and that is the subject of discussion here.
The question is: did "the South" produce 87% or 75% of total US exports, or was it just cotton, as I've argued, much closer to 50%.
None of the reports I've seen so far provide data on that.
Here's what the data certainly tells us:
Which sounds about right to me.
PeaRidge: "Since the US Treasury was facing an immediate drop in revenue to the point of being unable to pay its obligations, that is where there was a problem.
What did matter was the North's inability to collect tariffs without the use of force."
So you claim, but the facts tell a different story:
US tariffs collected:
What this says is that New York and Northern businesses generally, adjusted, adapted and continued to prosper despite the loss of Deep South cotton.
No, no, no... good FRiend, I didn't say that, you posted it and I merely quoted your own words back to you, emphasizing their importance, since your own words here support my arguments.
As I have now repeated endlessly: Northern Democrat businessmen were friends & allies of Southern secessionists.
As you posted, they didn't oppose secession, instead they wanted to join in secession.
Failing that, they wanted every concession possible to mollify Deep South secessionists.
They absolutely did not want war.
And once war came anyway, many copperheads continued to support their Southern brethren.
Others supported the war effort only half-heartedly.
I've mentioned Union General McClellan before -- your typical Democrat Union general, of whom there were many others.
What they wanted was not victory but some negotiated accommodations with the Confederacy.
"Peace without victory" is the way Southern President Woodrow Wilson put it some 55 years later.
PeaRidge: "But more importantly was direct trade with Europe which cut out the US Treasury, as Lincoln so famously noted in his inaugural.
So, yeah, lost cotton trade goods tariff revenue was what he was talking about a few days before he ordered Fox south."
But Lincoln said nothing about "direct trade with Europe" in his inaugural address, or anywhere else.
That is a figment of your overworked imagination.
Further, your own facts (see Debow) show that Southern ports already shipped directly to overseas customers, not to New York.
What went to New York were the return runs with imports and immigrants, and imports paid duties to the Federal treasury.
Of course, without cotton exports there would be 50% fewer imports and that did happen.
But it was far from the apocalyptic event you here claim.
Well, duh! Maybe I'm getting through to you.
Correspondingly, if the Confederate tariff averaged 15% yet lowered the rate on some manufactured products, then it must have raised its rates on other items.
Who says the Confederate tariff averaged 15%? Source please. I've always thought the Confederate tariff was lower than 15%.
The 1857 US tariff had a huge number of items tariffed at 24%. Perhaps that was why it was termed the "leading" tariff rate in the quote I provided above. The quote I provided indicated the Confederate tariff lowered tariffs in that huge list to 15%. I suspect that many were lowered in the Confederate tariff to 15% while some of them might have been lowered to 20% or 10%, etc.
The highest tariff rate in the Confederate tariff was 25%, and it applied only to a small number of items, perhaps around 50 or so specific items or types of items. That is far, far fewer than number of items listed at 24% in the 1857 US tariff.
As far as I can tell, the items listed at 25% in the Confederate tariff had a higher tariff under the 1857 US tariff. For example, the 1857 tariff lists alabaster at 30%, anchovies, sardines, and all other fish preserved in oil at 30%, all distilled spirits at 30%, table tops, scagliola at 30% and so on, and so on.
The next lowest Confederate tariff rate below its 25% rate was 20 percent Below that were tariffs of 15%, then 10%, then 5%.
I am not aware that the Confederate tariff raised tariffs on anything compared to the 1857 US tariff or the Morrill Tariff. However, it is possible the Confederacy might have raised tariffs on something. There are literally hundreds and hudreds of specific items in the US tariffs. Since you said the Confederates must have increased the tariff rates on various items, could you please provide me with some examples of items that had their tariff rates increased. Provide me information to support your supposition.
FYI, here is a link to an article in the March 29, 1861 Abbeville Press of Abbeville, South Carolina comparing the Morrill Tariff with the Confederate Tariff on a small list of items. [Link]
I have found items that went up in the Confederate tariff compared to what they were in the 1857 US tariff. The 1857 tariff had a 4% tariff rate for a number of items. The lowest rate the Confederate tariff had, other than zero, was 4 percent. On checking I did find a number of items that went up. “Hides, raw” went from 4% to 5%. “Music, sheets” went from 4% to 10%. So, a number of the smaller items went up. Ice, a special rate item, went from 0% (free) on the 1857 tariff to $1.50 per ton on the Confederate tariff, no doubt to tax ice imported to the South from Northern states.
FYI, the 1857 tariff on dutiable items averaged almost 20% in practice, while the 1857 tariff rate on all imports including free items averaged a bit over 15%. The 15% is the common figure associated with the 1857 tariff.
No, it's just that my point seemed too, too obvious to need posting before.
It's like explaining to a child how one plus one equals two.
We don't expect grownups to need such explanations.
rustbucket: "Who says the Confederate tariff averaged 15%? Source please.
I've always thought the Confederate tariff was lower than 15%."
I've seen pre-Morrill rates averaging 15% mentioned several places as the Confederate tariff.
Let's see what I can find now...
This link says 15% Confederate tariff.
This link says 12.5% average Confederate tariff.
But note the lower rate refers to the May 21, 1861 law, which did not go into effect until August 1861.
The higher 15% may refer to rates in effect at the time of secession, and not changed until the new law took effect.
Of course by the time the new lower rates took effect there were no revenues to speak of, due to Union blockade.
Right, 15%.
Granted that some rates were higher, others lower and averages tell us the overall tax burden imposed on international commerce.
So I think we can summarize events as follows:
Do you disagree?
While it is indisputable that the loss of tariff revenue was immediately detrimental to the Federal Government, it is the loss of trade represented by all that tariff revenue, which was the greater loss to the businesses of the North.
In addition to this, a far more serious problem for the Financial Elite of New York was the issue of greater capitalization of their Southern counterparts. With sufficient capital from increased trade revenue, Southern businessmen would have the means to create businesses which would then directly compete with already established Northern businesses.
The Northern Financial elite was astute enough to see what a threat this represented to their financial interests, and it was very much a reason why they urged a war to prevent it.
The United States would be ruled from the Washington D.C./New York Alliance. Economic Independence from this cartel would never be tolerated.
And now I realize that is very much the same problem we are facing today, though the Elite have expanded beyond the boundaries of New York. We now have an Aristocratic class of wealthy and well connected people who run the nation for their own best interests, and not those of all Americans.
They are still concentrated in New York, because that is still the nexus of finance in modern America. The media works for them, and that is why it is incredibly Liberal.
We already know your findings. You are going to determine that the Union was completely blameless, and that the Southern states were completely at fault.
You have no credibility because you have no objectivity. You are an apologist, and not a searcher for truth.
There, fixed your pesky typos for you.
Sure, no problem, you're welcome.
DiogenesLamp: "We already know your findings.
You are going to determine that the Union was completely blameless, and that the Southern states were completely at fault."
Because your brain is full of burning sawdust, so burning with Big Lies it has no oxygen left over for simple facts & reason, because of that you missed the context of my post.
The context was PeaRidge's links to sources allegedly supporting his claims that 75% to 87% of US exports in 1860 were of "Southern Origin".
In fact none of those sources demonstrated anything different from what I've posted all along: Deep South cotton did represent roughly 50% of US exports, but all other exports could as easily be produced in the North, Midwest, Far West or Border States as Deep South.
Therefore actual Deep South exports were much closer to 50% than the 75% or 87% sometimes claimed.
Of course, I wouldn't expect DiogenesLamp to "get" that, since your brain is so on fire with pro-Confederate lies that simple things, like facts & reason, can't penetrate.
Is not much of a rebuttal.
Insult is not argument, so when you send out insults I simply return them, no extra freight charges but FOB my post.
No, it's just that my point seemed too, too obvious to need posting before.
My concern was that earlier you didn't seem to recognize that, under the US tariff, imported manufactured goods paid a higher tariff rate than the average tariff rate of 15%. Perhaps you didn't express yourself clearly earlier. In my comment above I was just relieved that you finally seemed to understand that different tariff rates applied to different items.
A little history of our exchange over the issue might help. The exchange began over a Chicago Times quote I posted.
[BJK quoting rustbucket]: rustbucket: "An editorial in the daily Chicago Times newspaper comes to mind [December 1860]:
"The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country.
Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole . . .
We have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe.
This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually."[BroJoeK]: I have long wondered where all these bogus numbers came from, turns out they were extant at the time. They were nonsense, propaganda against the North and Union in general, it seems.
[BroJoeK]: Much more careful studies still show Deep South cotton hugely important to total US exports, but not 72%, rather closer to 50% depending on what-all you include. And US tariffs in 1860 averaged around 15%, not the "30% to 50%" the piece claims.
And here's another part of the exchange in a subsequent post:
[rustbucket]:Your [BJK's] reply to the Chicago Times article also included: And US tariffs in 1860 averaged around 15%, not the "30% to 50%" the piece claims.
[rustbucker]: First, perhaps you don’t realize that the 1857 tariff ranged from 4% to 80% depending on the specific item. Raw materials generally got the lower rates while manufactured items were tariffed at 60 to 113 percent above the average rate you quoted. In other words, imported manufactured goods generally paid 24 to 32 percent tariff rate under the 1857 tariff law, not the 15% you quoted.
Then from another post:
[BJK quoting rustbucket]: "imported manufactured goods generally paid 24 to 32 percent tariff rate under the 1857 tariff law, not the 15% you quoted."
[BroJoeK]: What, do you suppose I make these numbers up?
That 15% average number comes from here, and is readily compared to averages from earlier and later years. It also compares to reports that the Confederacy's average tariffs (which were seldom collected) were also 15%.
[rustbucket]: I see that I must speak or post very slowly when posting to you. I have no trouble with the average tariff rate under the 1857 US tariff being 15%. Raw materials imported into the United States were typically tariffed at low rates, e.g., 4%, 8% and so on. Manufactured goods were normally taxed at higher than average rates, like I said, 24 or 32% typically. The Chicago Times quote I posted was referring to manufacturers. Manufactured goods were taxed at rates above the average tariff rate. Look up a table of the 1857 rates if you don’t believe me. I have no problem with the initial average tariff rate of the South being 15%. They used the existing 1857 tariff rate for a while until they agreed on lowering the tariff rate on a number of items a short while later.
Finally, you now seem to understand that the average tariff rate for the 1857 US tariff didn't apply to specific imported items, such as most manufactured items. You are making progress!
FYI, on February 16, 1861, the provisional Confederate Congress adopted the same tariff rates as the 1857 US tariff. Then on February 18, 1861, they exempted a number of items from that tariff. [Link]. So, most tariff rates were the same as those in the 1857 US tariff, but, strictly speaking, after February 18, 1861 the tariff the Confederates imposed on imported goods was actually lower overall than the 1857 US tariff because of exempted items.
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.