Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: PeaRidge
It is not northern businessmen who controlled the US Army and Navy.

No more so than the New York media currently control the elections.

The New York businessmen had influence with Lincoln, and *HE* controlled the Army and the Navy. In regards to Southern independence, the primary necessities of both groups aligned.

Lincoln's government needed the import tariff money caused by Southern exports, and Northern Eastern Businessmen not only wanted the revenue stream from Southern exports they had been enjoying for decades, but they wanted to prevent competition created by millions of dollars worth of capitalization which would occur in the South if it were allowed to remain independent.

The answer to both concerns was war to reestablish control of those revenue producing areas.

In discussions of the Morrill Tariff, the condition of the US Treasury is forgotten.

In the larger scheme of things, the loss to the Federal Government of tariff revenue was the lesser issue. Far more money than that was at stake if the South remained independent.

1,594 posted on 10/25/2016 7:49:21 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1591 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp

..............US Government Spending for 1857-1860
...............(Historical Statistics of the US, pg. 106)

Year..........Total Fed.Spending..........Total Fed.Spending on military,interest on ............................................................Public Debt., and pensions

1857...............67,796,000...............35,400,000

1858...............74,185,000...............34,300,000

1859...............69,071,000...............29,700,000

1860...............63,131,000...............33,100,000


1,597 posted on 10/25/2016 10:49:07 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1594 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp; rustbucket; StoneWall Brigade
I think you have heard quite a few historians push the theme that President Buchanan was such a poor president because.........(list your reason)!

Some criticized him because of the massive debt his administration accumulated.

Yes, debt did increase dramatically, but in the other table above, the data says that with an exception in 1858, that federal spending was declining.

If Buchanan and his people are at fault, then they are responsible for declining federal spending.

But debt was increasing!! Why?

1,598 posted on 10/25/2016 11:00:34 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1594 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson