The Author of the Civil War

Why don't you state exactly when that occurred and what was said that is not factual.

Reasoned, sensible answer instead of general insult.

Your whole point has been to prove that the tariff was destroying the Slaver economy by raising cost of raising the export crops it depended upon. That must be why you posted that post, otherwise what the hell are you talking about?

The tariff had little impact on Cotton production.

Tariffs fall disproportionately upon luxuries and always did. There was a system of refunds established for importation of factors of production such as machinery which was necessary for our industry.

Practically any book on the Planter life will inform you of the nature of the imports planters bought. How have you missed this? I also mentioned a few items above. There is no need for me to go into such clear and uncontroversial facts even if you pretend to be ignorant of them.

I supposed you also missed the fact that the tariff revision of 1857 was warmly received by the South making the argument that the tariff was a major factor in producing the Wah even stupider and false. In fact, the rates had begun to be reduced as early as the Walker Tariff a decade earlier.

What “general insult” are you alleging?

Why not try to avoid empty comments and contribute to the quality of the thread?

You said: “Tariffs fall disproportionately upon luxuries and always did.”

What luxuries?

You said: “That must be why you posted that post, otherwise what the hell are you talking about?”

You admit that you do not know what you are reading.

You said: “Practically any book on the Planter life will inform you of the nature of the imports planters bought.”

Give one example.

You said: “Republicans were not a majority in either House of Congress when Lincoln came to office so oppressive tariff legislation could have bee thwarted very easily.”

Wrong again arrosob:

House membership was Republican 116 to 90 Democrat.

Senate was 38 each with Vice President Hannibal Hamlin casting the tie breaking vote.

So, you were wrong about both.

And another large brick in the wall of tyranny.

Why do you make empty allegations and then run away from them?

You said: “Nor have you clearly stated there was no tyranny.”

Are you just daft or confused? That was your issue in #231 and here is what you said: “...there was no tyranny from the federal government in 1860”

“What you are apparently confused about here is the DEMOCRAT Mayor Fernando Wood trying to get New York CITY to secede”.

It is you who are confused. You subscribe to the idea that there was no tyranny, and secession movement was therefore unfounded.

I am pointing out to you for the fifth time that secession movement was occurring in New York in December of 1860. It had nothing to do with Fernando Wood, so do not try to confuse the issue. Was it tyranny that prompted this action by New York, motivated by your insinuation that it was simply political?

You said: “Lincoln did not take office till 1861.”

That is only important because it meant that the tariffocracy had finally gained control of the government.

You should go back to some of those ‘Civil War’ threads and try to learn facts.

You said: “I supposed you also missed the fact that the tariff revision of 1857 was warmly received by the South making the argument that the tariff was a major factor in producing the Wah (sic) even stupider and false. In fact, the rates had begun to be reduced as early as the Walker Tariff a decade earlier.”

A good lie is a great way to begin your day, arrosob. Or, maybe, you are just ignorant.

Between 1816 and 1830 there had been four major successive tariff hikes (1816, 1819, 1824, 1828) plus several dozen minor ones. Only at the threat of secession did tariff advocates even attempt compromise in 1832-33, and then in ways that still retained heavily protectionist elements.

As a result America operated under a policy of constant heavy protectionism for over 30 years after the conclusion of the War of 1812. The Walker Tariff in 1846 was the first tariff schedule even remotely favorable to free trade that the country used since the Jefferson administration.

Even then the Walker Tariff's free trade elements (including the 1857 extension of them) lasted barely 14 years before the restoration of levels comparable to 1828’s Tariff of Abominations. The proposed Morrill Tariff would double and triple the tariff rates.

The 19th century tariff politics were not a back and forth contest between the South and the North. Rather, they consisted of the protectionists holding the advantage most of the time while only occasionally did the free traders to take more control, and only after threats of secession.

There was no correcting mechanism for out-of-control protectionism as the country had had for essentially 30 years. Nor were the upward changes to tariffs perceived as too low incremental ones. Tariffs had this perception at two points in the 19th century: 1815 and 1860. Both times the upward “correction” was to install heavy protectionism, which in 1860 essentially meant tripling the rates in one broad sweep.

Many in the North could not perceive that there was anything threatening about tariff legislation.
Economically there was.

“The people of the U.S. owe their Independence & their liberty, to the wisdom of descrying in the minute tax of 3 pence on tea, the magnitude of the evil comprised in the precedent. Let them exert the same wisdom, in watching against every evil lurking under plausible disguises, and growing up from small beginnings.” —James Madison

An export economy's entire livelihood depends upon being able to trade. Unless one is in the business of intentionally sending regions of a country into recession, heavy protectionism is indeed an apocalyptic event to those economies.

The problem in 1860 was exacerbated by trading trends that had been emerging over the previous half-century.

The South provided increasingly greater percentages of exports while the north's share declined (this was in part due to the fact that protectionism between 1816 and 1846 severely impaired technological modernization in the northern economy by encouraging a lazy domestic monopoly).

By 1860 the south literally supported the entire nation in the world economy. It provided in excess of 70% of the country's exports with most of the remainder coming from Midwestern and Western agriculture.

It must be said here, since you do not understand economics, that Southern goods were the currency of overseas purchases. There was not enough gold or silver on deposit in any of the banks in the United States to use as payment for a single year of overseas trade.

That is why the Southern productions were so vitally important to the government, the banking system, and anything associated with trade or consumption of trade products.

That is why Northern businessmen were advocating secession from the United States.

You can press onward and blather about your concept of “tyranny”, but I will continue to provide you with information on what was really happening to the people of the time.

And why were the tariffocrats in Washington scared?

The finances of the Federal Government had been in a very disordered condition due to business downturns resulting from the political disturbances, and which by reducing the imports of overseas goods, had reduced the customs income, the chief source of revenue for the Treasury.

In June, 1860, a loan of twenty million dollars had been authorized by Congress. Of this amount, ten million was offered in October in a five per cent stock, and it had been taken by investors at a small premium.

Before any installments were paid up, the panic that attended the election had affected credit, and many bids were withdrawn.

This so seriously affected the Treasury Department, that as the New Year approached, it seemed likely there would be no funds with which to meet the interest on the National debt.

By the Act of December 17th, 1860, an issue of ten million dollars, in treasury notes, was authorized, to bear such a rate of interest as might be offered by the lowest bidders, but so shaken was credit, few bids were made, and some of them at a rate of thirty six per cent interest per annum.

The capitalists interested in the Government credit finally took one million five hundred thousand dollars of one year treasury notes, at twelve per cent per annum (the amount was subsequently raised to five million dollars), on condition that the money should be applied to paying the interest on the national debt.

This was certainly a dark day in the Capitol, when the Federal Government, which had earned the honor of being the only nation that had ever paid its debts in full—principal and interest—and which in 1856, with an overflowing treasury, had paid twenty-two per cent premium for its own stock, was now reduced to give twelve per cent interest, for a few millions, and to engage to protect its credit with the money.

This, combined with the specter that as soon as the primary cotton and tobacco producing states seceded with the subsequent massive loss in exportable products, that the US Treasury was in great jeopardy.

You said: “It (the Northern population) also had a higher per capita income.”

What was it?

I am ready. What seems empty to you?

Excellent. Why not address the question then?

It took Jay Cooke, a certified financial genius, to settle the United States financial problems.

Of course, the Cornfederacy had no one similar and it was a financial disaster from day one. Printing money was the best it could do.

That’s General Insult, victor at the Battle of Absurdity.

The only reason there was a majority Republicans in the Senate was because 15 seats were VACANT since Treasonous Senators left it.

Of course, those dependent upon the LIE would not note that the House had 29 seats VACANT because the Treasonous Representatives left it.

Don't try your LIES on any one with a brain.

BTW it did not matter what the numbers were had the TRAITORS remained in the Senate any legislation not acceptable to the Slavers since their Senators could have been stopped by a filibuster.

“It is you who are confused. You subscribe to the idea that there was no tyranny, and secession movement was therefore unfounded.”

Of course, there was no tyranny and secession was unfounded. It was based ENTIRELY on a LIE.

“I am pointing out to you for the fifth time that secession movement was occurring in New York in December of 1860. It had nothing to do with Fernando Wood, so do not try to confuse the issue. Was it tyranny that prompted this action by New York, motivated by your insinuation that it was simply political?” Barroom talk among a bunch of drunks/fools does not constitute a political movement and the only secessionist worth speaking of was Wood and his RAT brigade.

But even the drunks/fools had no “tyranny” to secede from.

If you could prove me wrong you would. Look it up yourself.

But what would you expect when 1/3 of the South had no income to speak of, the slaves, and much of the poor whites lived in a subsistence economy with little cash income?

“You admit that you do not know what you are reading.” This from one accusing me of putting words in his mouth. Hilarious stuff.

“Proposed” does not equal ACTUAL.

For all the alleged dependence on Southern exports somehow the United States of America survived for four yrs without them now didn't it?

How did “protectionists” get in and remain in control when there was a majority Democrat Congress and mainly Democrat Presidents for most of the time before 1860?

Northern Agriculture was more affected by tariffs than southern. Now the fine wines, expensive furniture, fancy clothes, silks, satins and brocades imported by the wealthy planters had their prices increased but common people were essentially unaffected.

In a representative republic (as opposed to a tyrannical slavery system) the “corrective” to bad policy is the ballot box. Tariff issues were not so unpopular as to have it eliminated.

James Madison was in the Congress which imposed the first tariff no matter what you imply with your pointless quote.

U.S. exports EXPLODED during the period after the Wah even with high tariffs so you are, of course, greatly distorting what the impact of the tariffs were.

Southern exports were slightly above 50% of U.S. exports in any case.

How did the Union survive financially without the South during the Wah?

Very few Northern businessmen (or anyone else) supported secession contrary to the Pretend History you wallow in.

Foreign investment, British, provided the means of importing not cotton. And those investments were not in the archaic, decepit economy of the Land of the Whip and the Lash. They invested in the modern economy emerging north of the Mason Dixon line.