Got it. When it comes to real facts & reasons, DiogenesLamp is our own Sgt. Schulz:
Posted on 11/23/2016 6:01:04 PM PST by Loud Mime
I am studying our Civil War; anybody have any recommendations for reading?
All false because based on false data.
First, in 1860 Deep South cotton exports ($191 million) paid for roughly half, not 3/4, of US imports.
Other Confederate state exports (i.e., tobacco, rice) added less than 10%.
When all such exports were removed in 1861, the results reduced Federal import revenues only 26%, after which they grew in following years by 19%, 37% and 51%.
This demonstrates that Deep South cotton was not as big a deal as pro-Confederates in 1860, or today, claimed.
Second, in 1860 roughly 10% of the US white population lived in the Deep South, another 10% in Upper South Confederate states.
So about 80% of US citizens lived in Union states whose international trade needs were supplied through such Union cities as New York, Philadelphia, Boston and Baltimore.
Nothing that happened in 1861 could ever force those Union citizens to use Confederate ports for export & import of international products.
Bottom line: pro-Confederate dreams of grandeur, then and now, were based on false assumptions and misunderstood data.
As it turned out, Confederate cotton was not nearly as important to either the Union or their European customers as some Southerner defenders had fantasized.
The facts speak for themselves despite your efforts to keep steering people back to what you wish to believe. An independent South was a huge threat to the financial interests of the power brokers controlling finance and government in the 1860s (and who's descendants and allies are still controlling finance and government today.)
I have come to realize the threat we face today, (Wealthy and powerful Liberals influencing government to support policies which maintain and increase their wealth) is the exact same problem the South faced in 1860.
There is a Cabal that nowadays people are labeling as "Globalists" which saw the origins of it's power in the 1860s as a result of collusion between government and wealthy elite power brokers. They killed 750,000 people in the 1860s to maintain their control, and countless numbers since.
I see articles regarding this Nuclear deal with Iran being possibly linked to Boeing's 16 billion dollar effort to sell aircraft to this rouge nation. That something might be in the economic interests of those connected with power but contrary to the best interests of the nation is exactly the problem we have faced for a long time.
But the south didn't face the problem - the south was the problem!
Got it. When it comes to real facts & reasons, DiogenesLamp is our own Sgt. Schulz:
During this time, conversion from sail and side paddle to screw for intercontinental shipping was rapidly occurring, largely in the U.S. due to Federal subsidies that heavily encouraged and financed ship building.
Of course, this business, as shown, went to the North either to established shipping companies, or to those that were well connected and directly financed in New York.
It also appears that anyone connected to overseas trade accepted this government-private business relationship in the beginning due to the advantages to be gained over the English competitors.
It is also very clear that the relationship between the ship owner and the Southern grower became much more remote due to the intervention of factors and intermediary shippers. Thus , many growers just accepted the slowly increasing costs of getting product to buyer due to inability to manage costs directly.
This set the state for Northern shipping interests to gain a large measure of control when the warehousing act was passed.
The posts that were filled with rhetoric and photographs of the a coastal ship owned by a Southern shipper that attempted to make a point about Southern shipping development not being excluded by law were neither true nor applicable to the premise you presented.
The Navigation Law did, in fact, prohibit any American interest from buying a fully rigged sailing ship from a foreign builder. Therefore, anyone interesting in building that type of company would have to deal with American shipbuilders located in the North or build from scratch.
The argument that was continually being made was that Southern ship building was not prohibited, but the other side of the issue was never raised...and that being that just because a law does not exist does not mean that other factors did not weigh against Southern ship building.
As you saw in Bacon's descriptions, New York banking was the source of some revenue in shipbuilding, with Federal subsidies essentially being the collateral for loans. I can name only one ship owner in the South that had that type of relationship with banking in 1840.
Nevertheless, Southern interests became involved in the Coastal and River trade which grew New Orleans, Galveston, Mobile, and Charleston.
It was initially, and not by design, more of a free market symbiotic relationship, until the speed of the British ships forced the industry into government hands.
That was the beginning of the decline of Southern profits as control moved away from the growers.
The US Treasury and Congressional Borrowing as reported to the US Congress in Dec. of 1859:
In preparation for the President’s state of the union report, Howell Cobb (of Georgia), the Secretary of the Treasury (Buchanan Administration), reported to Congress that based on projected spending, there would be dramatic increases in the debt of the government.
In his state of the Union report of December 5, 1859, President Buchanan’s Secretary of the United States Treasury issued his report stating that for fiscal year 1859, the total revenue of the US Treasury was $88,090,787. This was misleading, because $28,185,000 was ‘income’ from government borrowing. The actual total revenue from tariffs, and less the funds from the sale of public lands was $49,566,000. Tariff revenue contributed 92% of the total revenue of the country.
But the Congress spent $69,071,000, which was 29% more than it took in.
The value of total US exports for the year was $278,902,000. The value of the exports grown or produced in the South was 74% of the total. In order to understand the contribution of Southern agriculture to the trade, and thus tariff and taxation structure of the entire country, the following chart shows the percentage of the total value of exports contributed by the South for the year of 1859:
..................U. S. Department of Commerce
.................Agricultural Production of the South
........................Yearly Detail 1859
Value of : ......Cotton .........$161,434,000
.....................Tobacco ...........21,074,000
.....................Rice ....................2,207,000
.....................Naval stores........3,694,000
.....................Sugar.....................196,000
.....................Molasses.................75,699
......................Hemp.......................9,227
......................Other................8,108,000
__________________________
Total ...........................$196,797,926
Value of Southern manufactured
Cotton exports......................................... 4,989,000
Value of cotton component of Northern
Manufactured cotton exports (60%)..........3,669,000
_________________________
Total value of all Southern products.........................$205,455,926
Percentage of Southern Production to
the total US exports for 1859 of $278,392,000.
........................74%
Happy Holidays
In fact, considering the many hundreds of ships used in 1850s US trade, those "subsidies" were minimal, applying to only a handful of the fastest carrying US mail, and even then did not cover all their costs, as evidenced by the bankruptcy of some owners.
So this whole "subsidized Northern shipping" meme is just a canard.
PeaRidge: "Of course, this business, as shown, went to the North either to established shipping companies, or to those that were well connected and directly financed in New York."
As your own post #640 shows, some of those owners came from Cincinnati and Philadelphia.
Ownership of the Charleston Line, you say, was strictly New Yorker Anson Phelpsz, but there's no reason to assume that wealthy investors from Charleston itself would not seek opportunities in a profitable firm with their own city's name on it.
If, that is, shipping was as profitable as you imply.
PeaRidge: "Thus , many growers just accepted the slowly increasing costs of getting product to buyer due to inability to manage costs directly."
In fact, relative to the prices paid for cotton, shipping costs declined as ships, on average, grew bigger and faster.
Indeed, the undisputed profitability of cotton growing can be measured in the dramatic increases in both numbers and prices of slaves.
PeaRidge: "This set the state for Northern shipping interests to gain a large measure of control when the warehousing act was passed."
Oh, yes, the 1846 US Warehousing Act, proposed by former Mississippi Democrat Senator, then US Secretary of Treasury under Tennessee Democrat President Polk -- that Warehousing Act.
The Federal act, along with the lower Walker Tariff, so inimical to Southern interests it... what?
Well, it was supported by Southern Democrats, opposed by Northern Whigs.
PeaRdige: "The posts that were filled with rhetoric and photographs of the a coastal ship owned by a Southern shipper that attempted to make a point about Southern shipping development not being excluded by law were neither true nor applicable to the premise you presented."
No, they are both true and applicable, your repeated denials notwithstanding.
PeaRidge: "Therefore, anyone interesting in building that type of company would have to deal with American shipbuilders located in the North or build from scratch."
And you have a problem with putting America First, why, exactly?
PeaRidge: "...just because a law does not exist does not mean that other factors did not weigh against Southern ship building."
But there was only one other factor which truly mattered: relatively fewer Southerners invested in the risky business of ship building, owning & operating because they had much better investments readily available for their funds: the highly profitable cotton production business.
PeaRidge: "I can name only one ship owner in the South that had that type of relationship with banking in 1840."
Remember, in the 1850s there were many hundreds of ships, of all categories and sizes, required for US commerce.
A mere handful were "subsidized" by government.
The rest made it, or failed, on their own.
The equivalent today would be our truckers, some owned by large corporations, but many owner-operators.
If you ever listened in on a CB, you know how many are Southerners.
So there's no reason to think there were not many Southerners transporting US products in the 1850s.
PeaRidge: "It was initially, and not by design, more of a free market symbiotic relationship, until the speed of the British ships forced the industry into government hands.
That was the beginning of the decline of Southern profits as control moved away from the growers."
A total fantasy, fabricated out of thin air, no confirming evidence whatsoever.
As with most of the Lost Causer mythology.
Mississippi Democrat Senator & Secretary of Treasury who proposed the 1846 Warehousing Act:
Tennessee Democrat President Polk who signed both the Warehousing Act and Walker Tariff.
False, a work of propaganda, not of fact.
That's because it's intended to argue that "Southern exports" paid for "74%" of Federal revenues, when the actual number, for cotton & rice, was around 50%.
The reason is: actual 1859 total exports, including specie, were $357 million, of which cotton was about half.
All other alleged "Southern exports" were, in fact, either relatively insignificant or also products of Union states & regions -- i.e., tobacco.
PeaRidge: "Total value of all Southern products.........................$205,455,926"
More careful analyses (page 605) showed total merchandise exports for 1859 were $293 million, plus $64 million in specie = $357 million.
Of that cotton & rice totaled only 45%, and even the alleged total of "Southern products" came to only 57%.
But most of those alleged non-cotton "Southern Products" actually came from Union states & regions.
Why is this important?
Because, based on PeaRidge-type numbers, Deep South secessionists claimed they were paying for "74%" of Federal revenues, when the actual number was about half.
Half is still a huge number, for such a small population, but not quite as important as was claimed.
"The utter contempt with which privileged Eastern liberals such as myself discuss red-state, gun-country, working-class America as ridiculous and morons and rubes is largely responsible for the upswell of rage and contempt and desire to pull down the temple that we're seeing now."I've spent a lot of time in gun-country, God-fearing America. There are a hell of a lot of nice people out there, who are doing what everyone else in this world is trying to do: the best they can to get by, and take care of themselves and the people they love. When we deny them their basic humanity and legitimacy of their views, however different they may be than ours, when we mock them at every turn, and treat them with contempt, we do no one any good. Nothing nauseates me more than preaching to the converted. The self-congratulatory tone of the privileged left—just repeating and repeating and repeating the outrages of the opposition—this does not win hearts and minds. It doesn't change anyone's opinions. It only solidifies them, and makes things worse for all of us. We should be breaking bread with each other, and finding common ground whenever possible. I fear that is not at all what we've done.
"I've spent a lot of time in gun-country, God-fearing America."
I live in gun-country, God-fearing America, I am one of those critters.
Over the years I've traveled in every US state (except Alaska), lived or worked in a dozen, north, south, east & west.
My Dad was Pennsylvanian, my Mom North Carolinian and they are buried side by side a few miles from my home.
I served in the US Army, worked in industry and am now semi-retired.
Yes, I did go to school, but don't hold that against me, I studied history and business so know the difference between facts & myth, something that makes sense vs. somebody hoping to pull the wool over our eyes.
Lost Causer mythology is just that: mythological stories invented to turn otherwise indefensible actions into something greater than stupid and morally bankrupt.
The myths begin by demonizing "Ape" Lincoln and his "Black Republicans", ignoring all Confederate acts & declaration of war and magnifying any Union misbehavior.
It pretends the only "crimes" Fire Eater secessionists committed were their secession declarations and new Confederacy, when in fact there is long list of provocations and acts of war, threatening the existence & boundaries of the United States.
But here's the most important point to remember: all those "Fire Eater" secessionist Confederates were Democrats, erstwhile Southern allies to the same Northern Democrats who, then as now, ruled over Big City immigrant populations and the nation's financial centers.
In 1861, Southern Democrats did not lose their Northern Democrat allies over secession or Confederacy.
No, the break came, finally, only after the Confederacy repudiated its debts to their Northern Democrat allies.
That hit their friends where it hurt the worst, and so Northern Democrats turned on their Southern Democrat allies, in defending against the Confederacy's declared war on the United States.
But, as pro-Confederates often point out, the average Southerner in 1860 was not a slave-holder, indeed, they were not necessarily even Democrats.
As recently as 1848 the majority of Southerners voted for the Whig candidate, Zachary Taylor -- think of Whigs as Southern Republicans.
When Whigs split apart, Southern Whigs became the America First party (aka "Know Nothings").
So, where did we recently hear that slogan, "America First"??
Note how 1848 Whig (brown-yellow) counties voted Republican (red) in 2016:
2016 presidential election, shaded by percentages:
That same contempt was evident in the writings from the 1860s. New York, Boston, Chicago, etc. hated and despised the Southern people, considering them uneducated, backwards and immoral.
Same as today, but "Flyover country" is a lot bigger nowadays. The large coastal cities are still dripping with contempt for people who are not like them.
And that is precisely the point on which you are wrong.
In fact, New Yorkers especially the very financial & commercial interests which so, so vex your mind, those New Yorkers were the close political, economic and even social allies of Southern cotton producers.
They were happy to support secession, even wished to secede themselves, and they just as ardently proposed whatever political accommodations Southerners might accept.
In early 1861 there was no daylight between those New York Democrats and their Southern Democrat allies.
Until, until... until, that is, those Southern buddy-buddies of the New York commercial interests repudiated their debts to Northerners.
Now, now suddenly, New Yorkers of all political, economic and social conditions began to realize they had been had.
And New Yorkers -- Democrat, Republican, Know-nothings, whatever -- New Yorkers don't like being screwed over, period.
So suddenly, "Ape" Lincoln and his "Black Republicans" did not look so, so cartoonish and evil.
Suddenly, even New Yorkers who loved the South realized something must be done, and briefly switched sides to support Republicans.
But by 1868 New Yorkers reverted to true form and again voted with Southern Democrats against the Union war hero, US Grant.
No, you're still very confused.
In 1964 Democrat President Lyndon Johnson abandoned Southern descendants of slave-holders in favor of descendants of their slaves.
Since then Democrats hold all Southern whites in contempt, and make no pretense of hiding it.
But the fact that they kicked out whites and took in blacks, plus any other minorities they could grasp, that makes them no less Democrats than they ever were.
And Democrats have always been all about falsifying history (including the US Constitution, the Bible, etc.) to serve their "progressive" agendas.
In years past they falsified for Southern whites, today they falsify against any traditional values, but it's all still just Democrats doing what Democrats by nature do: telling lies.
Sadly, innocent and unsuspecting DiogenesLamp grasped onto some of those Democrat lies, and now just can't let go of them, no matter what.
Rebel Rose.
The south haters will be on you like flies on you know. Pointing out the south was getting screwed in the union to epic proportions and could be a cause or partial cause of the civil war will bring out all the public school and yankee freezers.
Very good book.
It happens every time I point out that the North had a HUGE amount of money to lose if the South became independent. People don't want to believe that the war was fought for greed, they prefer to believe a noble lie than an ugly truth.
Especially if their ancestors were on the invading side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.