Emancipation: January 1, 1863

Townhall.com ^ | January 1, 2012 | Ken Blackwell

[Sherman Logan]

By the time of the “Civil” War, 75% of the Federal budget was derived from tariffs on exports (tobacco and cotton) from southern ports.

Nope. Actually 0% of the federal budget was derived from tariffs on exports, since the US government has never had a tariff on any export.

Tariffs are paid on imported goods, not exported goods. An Iowa farmer paid exactly the same tax (indirectly) on a tariffed product as an Alabama cotton planter.

Can we please put away this ignorant claim for good?

[Sherman Logan]

The industrial North wanted to keep the South agricultural and poor

1. The North was not "industrial" in 1860 except as contrasted with the backward South. A considerable majority of northerners were farmers or involved with services to farmers. Only a minority had anything to do with industry.

2. The South insisted, vociferously, that it was determined to remain agricultural. There was no plot to "force" it to do so.

3. In 1860 white southerners were on average considerably better off than white northerners. If I remember correctly, the per capita income was about 2x than of the North.

After the war the South did indeed remain agricultural and poor for decades, but that was a result of the war itself, not the cause of the war.

[BroJoeK]

note

[Phosgood]

By the time of the “Civil” War, 75% of the Federal budget was derived from tariffs on exports (tobacco and cotton) from southern ports.

I DID NOT STATE THAT CORRECTLY>

By the time of the “Civil” War, 75% of the Federal budget was derived from tariffs on IMPORTS on goods from Europeans whose shippers were then BUYERS of (tobacco and cotton) from southern ports.

[Sherman Logan]

Let us assume your claim is accurate.

Tobacco and cotton dominated exports.

So? How did this constitute oppression of the South?

[BroJoeK]

spaced from post #2: "The cause of the Civil War was not slavery; it was economics.
The industrial North wanted to keep the South agricultural and poor - and they succeeded."

First of all, claiming "economics" caused secession is like calling slavery a "peculiar institution".
Regardless of what you call it -- "economics" or "peculiar institution" it's still the same thing: slavery.

Sherman Logan post #22: "In 1860 white southerners were on average considerably better off than white northerners.
If I remember correctly, the per capita income was about 2x than of the North."

"spaced", "Phosgood" and others here are suffering long term effects from generations of Neo-Confederate historical revisionist propaganda.
So in their minds they reverse the actual pre-war economic and political situation.

Second, in actual fact, the South had dominated economically and politically since the founding of the Republic.
So in 1860 it was Southern dominance at stake, not some phantasm of alleged Northern "oppression".
For generations, Southern gentlemen had dominated their slaves, and dominated the American Republic, and they well understood that such dominance is maintained only through forceful actions.

Most of my data here comes from James Huston's 2002 book: "Calculating the Value of Union".

In 1860, Northern white per-capita income averaged around $140, in the South around $150.
In the South and North Great Lakes, farmers averaged around 50% of white males, but only 30% in New England and Middle Atlantic states.
Here similarities end.

In a nation with white per-capita annual income of $150, South Carolina's per-capita wealth was nearly $1,900 -- compared to about $500 in New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Mississippi and Louisiana were comparable to South Carolina, while Georgia, Alabama and Florida averaged around $1,000 per-capita.
Even the poorer Southern states like Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina, were all as wealthy per-capita as, say, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Illinois.

Yes, it's true, no Southern state was the industrial powerhouse of Northern states like Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York, but Southern states like Virginia, Georgia, Maryland and Kentucky all had as many factory workers in 1860 as northern states like Illinois, Indiana and Michigan.

The South's wealth came foremost from slaves, then valued at $3 billion, equal to the value of Southern land itself, and more than double the value of Northern manufacturing and railroads combined.
Considered "economically", slaves were more profitable than any other investment you could think of, especially since they could be hired out to work in factories, on railroads, etc.
And that is precisely the reason Northern "free labor" hated slavery.

Three billion dollars in 1860 was about 20% of all US wealth, equivalent in today's economy to around $10 trillion.

So, for the slave-holders who dominated the South, "economics" meant "our peculiar institution", which meant: slavery.

Point is: one reason Southerners didn't develop as much manufacturing, is because agriculture was the tried and proved method for becoming wealthy.

Finally, it's often pointed out, the South had fewer than half the railroad miles of the North, and these were neither standardized nor interconnected for interstate commerce or strategic military purposes.
True enough, but Southern railroads were intended to move goods and people to their market-places and so more Southerners had access to nearby rail service than their supposedly more advanced Northern cousins.

So my point again is: before 1860, the South dominated the nation economically and politically.
It was this domination (not some sort of "oppression") which was first seriously threatened by Lincoln's election in November 1860, leading South Carolina slave-holders to begin the process of declaring secession, forming a Confederacy then starting and formally declaring war on the United States, May 6, 1861.

[rusty schucklefurd]

re: “So, for the slave-holders who dominated the South, “economics” meant “our peculiar institution”, which meant: slavery.”

Excellent point and insight.

[BroJoeK]

BJK: "more Southerners had access to nearby rail service than their supposedly more advanced Northern cousins."

Sorry, my mistake.
Here is a comparison of Northern versus Southern populations' railroad access:

So the correct point to make is not that Southerners in 1860 typically had more access to railroads than Northerners, but rather that, despite relatively fewer rail miles, in some states, nearly as many Southerners as Northerners could reach a railroad within a few hours.

[Sherman Logan]

Finally, it's often pointed out, the South had fewer than half the railroad miles of the North, and these were neither standardized nor interconnected for interstate commerce or strategic military purposes.

It should also be noted that the South had a much more extensive network of navigable rivers and therefore less need for railroads to move its goods to market. Of course, as it turned out, in time of war those rivers were a great vulnerability.

I agree with you about the myth of "northern industry." In fact, up through 1850 there was no "north against south" sectional standoff. There was a three-way split, "industrial" (north)East against the agricultural (north)West and South.

The South was normally able to gang up with the West to win its political battles against the East.

Starting in 1850 the South overplayed its hand, insisting that the settled (by the Missouri Compromise) issue of the expansion of slavery be reopened. This turned slavery from a backburner issue into the most important issue of the day, in the process driving away the South's natural agricultural allies in the West.

The eventual result was secession and war.

[Sherman Logan]

It was this domination (not some sort of "oppression") which was first seriously threatened by Lincoln's election in November 1860

Excellent point. It should be noted, however, that southerners believed that the only way they could protect their way of life and the "peculiar institution" on which it was based was to maintain that dominance.

They believed it was rule or ruin for them. And they were quite correct in this belief.

The irony, of course, is that their more and more desperate attempts to protect and spread slavery just drove away their natural allies in the West and as a result created the northern coalition that eventually destroyed them.

[central_va]

The south had a developed industrial sector pre-war:

The Tredegar Iron Works was a historic iron works in Richmond, Virginia, United States of America.[3] Opened in 1837, by 1860 it was the third-largest iron manufacturer in the United States.[4] During the American Civil War, the works served as the primary iron and artillery production facility of the Confederate States of America. The iron works avoided destruction during the Evacuation Fire of 1865, and continued production through the middle of the 20th century.

[BroJoeK]

central_va quoting: "The Tredegar Iron Works was a historic iron works in Richmond, Virginia, United States of America.[3]
Opened in 1837, by 1860 it was the third-largest iron manufacturer in the United States.["

Tennessee also developed heavy industry.
Quoting:

"There was little heavy industry in the South but the Western Iron District in Middle Tennessee was the largest iron producer in Confederacy in 1861.
One of the largest operations was the Cumberland Iron Works, which the Confederate War Department tried and failed to protect.[23]"

Tredegar Iron Works, Richmond, VA:

Tennnessee's Cumberland Iron Works:

[donmeaker]

During the fiscal year ending 1 June 1860, the country possessed some 128,300 industrial establishments. Of these, 110,274 were located in states that remained in the Union. The most heavily industrialized states, New York and Pennsylvania, each had more industry than all the seceding states combined. In 1860, too, America had a total of $1,050,000,000 invested in real and personal property devoted to business, with $949,335,000 concentrated in the North; Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts each had a larger investment than the South as a whole. Finally, the North contributed 92.5% of the $1.9 billion that comprised the total value of annual product in the country in 1860.

[x]

Check out the cool brand new stamp:

It freaked me out when I went the post office today. I couldn't tell if it was a real stamp or some elaborate forgery.

And notice the pun, too. The "forever stamp" picks up on the word "forever" in the Proclamation (though you have to juggle "henceforward" and "thenceforward" to get there).

[donmeaker]

Part of the problem was that slaves had to be kept ignorant to be slaves.

To be ignorant, was to have low productivity. Agriculture had to be dumbed down so that ignorant slaves could accomplish simple tasks.

Any slave that acquired a knowledge of simple geography could decide to no longer be a slave. Many did. By obtaining papers from Canada, they secured protection from the professional kidnappers that were the hirelings of the slave power.

[Sherman Logan]

1860, too, America had a total of $1,050,000,000 invested in real and personal property devoted to business, with $949,335,000 concentrated in the North

Meanwhile, the South had somewhere around $3,000,000,000 invested in human capital.

[Scoutmaster]

My Liberty Bell 'Forever' stamps said 'Forever."

My U.S. Flag 'Forever' stamps say 'Forever.'

Why it is a pun to put 'Forever' on an Emancipation Proclamation 'Forever' stamp?

[donmeaker]

I understand it was closer to 4 billion$, but don’t have the source just now.

That shows how heavily the slave power was invested in slavery. And they pretend that the war started for what?

[donmeaker]

I understand it was closer to 4 billion$, but don’t have the source just now.

That shows how heavily the slave power was invested in slavery. And they pretend that the war started for what?

And recognize that the elimination of chattel slavery didn’t kill the slaves. The productive power that existed before the war was still there. Probably the industrious former slaves could increase their education and productivity.

For the investors in slave property, it must have been very painful to no longer be able to profit from that species of misery.

[Scoutmaster]

And they pretend that the war started for what?

You know: Economics.

economics plural of ec·o·nom·ics (Noun)

Noun

1. The branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth.

2. The condition of a region or group as regards material prosperity.

3. Slavery.