The picturesque hills of New England were dotted with costly mansions, erected with money, of which the Southern planters had been despoiled, by means of the tariffs of which Mr. Benton spoke. Her harbors frowned with fortifications, constructed by the same means. Every cove and inlet had its lighthouse, for the benefit of New England shipping, three fourths of the expense of erecting which had been paid by the South, and even the cod, and mackerel fisheries of New England were bountied, on the bald pretext, that they were nurseries for manning the navy. The South resisted this wholesale robbery, to the best of her ability. Some few of the more generous of the Northern representatives in Congress came to her aid, but still she was overborne; and the curious reader, who will take the pains to consult the "Statutes at Large," of the American Congress, will find on an average,-a tariff for every five years recorded on their pages; the cormorants increasing in rapacity, the more they devoured. No wonder that Mr. Lincoln when asked, "why not let the South go?" replied, "Let the South go! where then shall we get our revenue?"That's one.
Admiral Raphael Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, During the War Between The States, Baltimore: Kelly, Piet & Co., 1869, p. 59.
When asked, as President of the United States, "why not let the South go?" his simple, direct, and honest answer revealed one secret of the wise policy of the Washington Cabinet. "Let the South go!" said he, "where, then, shall we get our revenue?"Two.
Albert Taylor Bledsoe, Is Davis a traitor; or, Was secession a constitutional right previous to the war of 1861?, Baltimore: Innes & Company, 1866, pp. 143-144.
Another effort was made to move Abraham Lincoln to peace. On the 22nd, a deputation of six members from each of the five Christian Associations of Young Men in Baltimore, headed by Dr. Fuller, and eloquent clergyman of the Baptist church, went to Washington and had an interview with the President. He received them with a sort of rude formality. Dr. Fuller said, that Maryland had first moved in adopting the constitution, and yet the first blood in this war was shed on her soil; he then interceded for a peaceful separation, entreated that no more troops should pass through Baltimore, impressed upun Mr. Lincoln the terrible responsibility resting on him - that on him depended peace or war - a fratricidal conflict or a happy settlement.Three.
"But," said Lincoln, "what am I to do?"
"Let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the Southern Confederacy," answered Dr. Fuller, "and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense and war may be averted."
"And what is to become of the revenue?" rejoined Lincoln, "I shall have no government, no resources!"
Robert Reid Howison, "History of the War", excerpted in Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. 34, Issue 8, August 1862, Richmond, VA., pp. 420-421.
"But," said Mr. Lincoln, "what am I to do?" "Why, sir, let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the independance of the Southern States. I say nothing of secession; recognize the fact that they have formed a government of their own; that they will never be united again with the North, and and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense, and war may be averted."Four."And what is to become of the revenue?" was the reply. "I shall have no government - no revenues."
Evert A. Duyckinck, National History of the War For the Union, Civil, Military and Naval. Founded on official and other authentic documents, New York: Johnson Fry & Co., 1861, Vol. I, p. 173.
In 1861, if the erring sisters had been allowed to go in peace, was not the disturbing question of the hour: Whence is to come national revenue? Had not this very consideration much to do with the policy of coercion?"Thus," said Mr. Lincoln, "if we allow the Southern States to depart from the Union, where shall we get the money with which to carry on the Government?"
James Battle Avirett, "The Old Plantation: How We Lived in Great House and Cabin Before the War", New York: F. Tennyson Neely Co., 1901, p. 18.
Five. And lastly this meeting was written up in the Baltimore Sun 23 Apr 1861 edition.
Something struck me the other day when I was watching Gods and Generals.
Would the South have invaded the North to its furthest reaches in order to subjugate it totally had the Confederates been victorious?
We know that the North did just that with the prostrate South, but the evidence is that the South desired no such thing, and in fact the nature of its rebellion actually precluded a total invasion and subjugation of its opponent.
This is just nonsense. Three quarters of the consumers and 95% of the tariff revenue was collected in the north. Lincoln never made such a statement.
Walt
Lincoln never made such a statement.
"The quote you give is a perturbation of a quote found in John Baldwin's account of his interview with Lincoln, held on April 4, 1861. Baldwin was a member of the Virginia Secession Convention, purportedly a Unionist (although he commanded a Confederate regiment and served in the Confederate Congress). Baldwin wrote his account in 1866, I believe.
Baldwin has Lincoln merely express concern over revenue from the seceded states, and then he (Baldwin) lectures Lincoln on the costs of war.
I find Baldwin's original quote as well as the perturbation unconvincing. Tariff revenue in the years before the war was around $45 million, $42 million of which was collected in the Ports of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. The South simply did not generate that much in tariff revenue.
The version you find on websites probably comes from the book, "The South Was Right," which sources it to (of all things) Raphael Semmes's memoirs. Something similar is in an article by Robert L. Dabney in the Southern Historical Society Papers, who claims Baldwin made the statement to him. (Dabney wrote this, of course, after Baldwin was dead.) I suspect Semmes took it from Dabney's article."
-- Jim Epperson
Walt