Replies

This article is total hogwash, nobody at Free Republic will take it at face value, God only knows what the author's motives are.
But now we're taking incoming from other directions that needs to be answered, so here goes:

tsomer: "Often overlooked is the aggressive use of public works spending in support of industrial development primarily in the North, with no commensurate attention to the agricultural economy of the South."

That's a false accusation because: Southern politicians dominated Congress from around 1800 until they walked out in 1861.
So nothing serious happened they didn't want and what they did want they eventually got.
As for antebellum Federal spending, it was split roughly evenly between North & South, meaning the South got disproportionately more, based on their lower populations.
But, some say, the South paid all the Federal taxes!
No they didn't, Deep South cotton exports supported about half of Federal import taxes, but everything else could and did come from other regions.
Bottom line: the South got its fair share of Federal largess and a little bit extra.

tsomer: "One economy was relatively rich in liquid capital for payrolls.
The other economy was seasonal, cash rich once, perhaps twice a year."

In fact, because of remarkable growth in cotton exports during the 1850s, by 1860 average Deep South whites were markedly better off than their Northern cousins.
And with rapidly expanding railroads they were far from backwards.
But they were not as industrialized as the North and that made a huge difference.

tsomer: "...compensated manumission seems never to have been formally offered, or even seriously contemplated to offset the economic and social disaster mandating immediate manumission..."

In fact, several such plans were proposed going all the way back to President Jefferson and always rejected by slave-holders.
Early in the Civil War Confederates could have ended the fighting and kept their slaves, but refused.
Even near the war's end, Confederates were offered compensated manumission but still refused.
Instead they chose to fight on to Unconditional Surrender and total uncompensated abolition.

As for antebellum Federal spending, it was split roughly evenly between North & South,

Stories are all over the map as to who paid what; I confess I dont know, but the greater infrastructure and industrial capacity is cited as a factor in the outcome of the war.

some say, the South paid all the Federal taxes!

I've heard that too but I've never believed it and hope I didn't imply it here. Again, nailing it down is nigh impossible.

whites were markedly better off than their Northern cousins.

I was referring to liquid capital, the kind needed to fund a payroll. The South's wealth was in land holdings and the crops yielded-- and yes slaves too. But money turned around once or twice a year. Was the standard of living better in rural areas, especially with long growing seasons, than in urban industrial centers? Perhaps so, if things like convenience of amenities and protection from Comanchees and the like aren't counted, but to what extent were rural and remote settlers represented in those surveys. Were slaves counted? In other words, did these studies cover both regions laboring classes? (This is my speculation)

In fact, several such plans were proposed going all the way back to President Jefferson and always rejected by slave-holders.

There was plenty of talk but few actual concrete proposals. There was also discussions of "repatriating" the slaves to Liberia. I can only recall Delaware, which voted against it, and D.C. where the rate was $300 per slave I think. It ought to be noted that in about 1859, the peak of the market, the average was $800. It's a ghastly thing to ponder and address in this way, but there's no other. We're talking about the loss of $500 of 1859 gov. tender, with the future obligation of meeting a payroll from that moment forward. It's hardly surprising the offer attracted no takers. They probably suspected that a windfall awaited the bankers as they borrowed against uncertain projected returns. (Here's the source: https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php)

Sorry I have to close for now, but it is a fascinating topic. Thanks for making me think. I'd especially appreciate any info you have about each regions share of the federal budget and the extent of internal improvements. Freegards.