FRistory: What If In History ...

It’s 1864, The South has won the Civil War. How does this change the pages of history?

x: "Cotton prices were going to slump because of all the other countries and colonies getting into cotton production.
China, India, Egypt, Brazil, Mexico, Central Asia, Turkey all got into the act."

DiogenesLamp: "As a consequence of the blockade.
If there had been no blockade, none of those markets would have developed at the pace they did."

In 1860 the South had effectively cornered the global cotton market by being it's lowest cost, most reliable producer.
So long as that remained the case, buyers in Europe & New England were not going to aggressively seek out other sources.
Why would they?

But in 1861 everything changed, beginning not with the Union blockade, which originally had little effect, but rather with Confederates' self-imposed embargo on exports of cotton.
Confederates' wanted to weaponize "King Cotton" to get European recognition and military aid.
It didn't work.
It only encouraged cotton buyers to seek alternate sources and reduce the South to just one non-essential supplier amongst many.

The cotton embargo was a huge Confederate mistake.

x: "There would be slave revolts because emancipation didn't come."

DiogenesLamp: "Four score and seven years, and suddenly it would happen?
I rather doubt it. "

American slaves were not big on revolts, suggesting that in general they were treated rather well.
One reason may be that large numbers in several states (i.e., Maryland, Delaware, Louisiana) were being granted their freedom and, indeed, the opportunity to own slaves (i.e., their family) of their own.
American slaves did, however, often jump at the chance to escape (i.e., underground railroad) and/or enlist in the Union army to fight for their freedom.

DiogenesLamp: "With 200 million in trade disappearing from New York, (plus the federal subsidies for manufacturing) the Northern supply system would have been affected.
You are not contemplating the consequences of a serious transfer in capital from one region to another."

So now we're into economics and the first thing to remember is 1860 US total assets of circa $20 billion produced annual GDP of $4.4 billion, of which DiogenesLamp's $200 million here represented less than 5%.
Indeed, DL's $200 million would be normal seasonal fluctuations in market values or production:

US GDP growth per year:

1856 = $72 million
1857 = $131 million
1858 = -$90 million (panic of 1857)
1859 = $330 million
1860 = -$35 million
1861 = $225 million
Average for six years = $110 million growth in GDP per year.

Point is: while DL's $200 million meant a lot more in 1860 than it does today, it was still just a small percent of the US overall economic picture.

Second, what did DL's $200 million actually represent?
Answer: roughly the value of Deep South Cotton exports in 1860, which were about 50% of total US exports.
In 1860 about half of the US cotton crop shipped directly from New Orleans, not New York.

In 1860 cotton ($191 million) was the #1 US export, and "specie" ($68 million), meaning California gold & Nevada silver, was #2.
Total 1860 exports were $400 million.

So how do our pro-Confederates claim 75% or 80%, or even 90% of US 1860 exports were "Southern Products"?
Answer: by exaggerating Southern exports and minimizing total exports.
For example, they say, "you can't count specie as northern exports", but remember, the point here is to establish how much of US import tariffs were paid for by exports of "Southern products".
Specie was certainly not a "Southern product" and yet it was the #2 US export in 1860 at $66 million.

They also claim as "Southern products" exports which could be and were produced outside Confederate states.
The biggest example here is tobacco, the US #3 export (behind cotton & specie) at $19 million.
In 1861, when all Confederate exports were eliminated US tobacco exports fell less than 15%, meaning tobacco was not really a "Southern product".

Indeed, the real definition of "Southern products" are those whose exports almost disappeared from Union accounting in 1861.

Cotton exports (#1 "Southern Product") fell over 80%, clearly a "Southern product".
tobacco exports (#2 "SP") fell only 14%, clearly not just a "Southern product".
rice exports (#3) fell only 46% suggesting production outside the Confederacy.
rosin & turpentine, (#4) fell only 40% suggesting more than half of that produced outside the Confederacy.
clover seed (#5) exports rose from $600,000 to $1,113,000 showing it was in no way a "Southern product".
Hops (#6) exports rose from $32,000 to $2,006,000 an 86 fold increase, telling us hops were totally mislabeled as "Southern Products".

So here is the bottom line: in 1861 when all Confederate exports were deleted from Union accounting, then total US exports did fall drastically, but not by 90%, nor 80%, nor 75%, nor even 50%.
In 1861 total US exports fell by 35% and that was the true contribution of "Southern products" to export earnings which paid for import tariffs to the Federal treasury.
At the same time, Union GDP rose $225 million in 1861, the very amount which DiogenesLamp claims was going to somehow transform, say, Charleston, SC, into Confederates' New-New York.

So all claims that "the South" was somehow paying up to 90% of Federal government revenues are totally bogus, regardless of how often our pro-Confederate Lost Causers repeat them.

So how do our pro-Confederates claim 75% or 80%, or even 90% of US 1860 exports were “Southern Products”?
Answer: by exaggerating Southern exports and minimizing total exports.

The focus is not on 1860 in particular but on US exports for decades prior to 1860. Southern Cash Crops had been BY FAR the biggest exports. Midwestern Grain was only starting to become an important factor. Northeastern manufacturers imported practically nothing at all.

The biggest example here is tobacco, the US #3 export (behind cotton & specie) at $19 million.
In 1861, when all Confederate exports were eliminated US tobacco exports fell less than 15%, meaning tobacco was not really a “Southern product”.

What were the main tobacco producing areas of the US? It was Virginia #1, North Carolina #2 and Kentucky #3. What Northern states do you think had the right climate for tobacco? Show us Tobacco exports by state.

It seems strange you claim Southern Exports weren’t really very important when Northern and Foreign newspapers were saying this:

The predicament in which both the government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over....If the manufacturer at Manchester (England) can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage....if the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers. Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty free. The process is perfectly simple. The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North. We now see whither our tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated power of the State or Federal Government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad. We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched.” New York Times March 30, 1861

“The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more than all other trade. It is very clear the South gains by this process and we lose. No, we must not let the South go.” The Manchester, New Hampshire Union Democrat Feb 19 1861

That either revenue from these duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed, the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up. We shall have no money to carry on the government, the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe....allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten percent which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York. The Railways would be supplied from the southern ports.” New York Evening Post March 12, 1861 article “What Shall be Done for a Revenue?”

“For the contest on the part of the North is now undisguisedly for empire. The question of slavery is thrown to the winds. There is hardly any concession in its favor that the South could ask which the North would refuse provided only that the seceding states re-enter the Union.....Away with the pretence on the North to dignify its cause with the name of freedom to the slave!” London Quarterly Review 1862

“[T]he contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.” London Times, November 7, 1861

“This question of tariffs and taxation, and not the negro question, keeps our country divided....the men of New York were called upon to keep out the Southern members because if they were admitted they would uphold [ie hold up or obstruct] our commercial greatness.” Governor of New York Horatio Seymour on not readmitting Southern representatives to Congress 1866

“If I do that, what would become of my revenue? I might as well shut up housekeeping at once!” ~ Lincoln, in response to the suggestion by the Virginian Commissioners to abandon the custom house of Fort Sumter. (Housekeeping is a euphemism for federal spending.)

“But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?” ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

…To Northern manufacturers a free-trade South spelled ruin. Imports would be diverted from Baltimore, New York, and Boston where they faced the Morrill Tariff to Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans where they would enter duty-free. Western states would use tariff-free Southern ports to bring in goods from Europe. So would many Northerners. On the very eve of war, March 18, 1861, the Boston Transcript wrote: If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon the imports, no doubt the business of the chief Northern cities will be seriously injured thereby. The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union and that of the Confederated States, that the entire Northwest must find it to their advantage to purchase their imported goods at New Orleans rather than New York. In addition to this, the manufacturing interest of the country will suffer from the increased importations resulting from low duties….The…[government] would be false to all its obligations, if this state of things were not provided against.

” If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union. So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils … the quarrel between North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.” – Charles Dickens, as editor of All the Year Round, a British periodical in 1862

“Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, ‘to fire the Southern Heart’ and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation North American Review (Boston October 1862)

“The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism.” Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election

“They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people’s pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union.” The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

[demanding a blockade of Southern ports, because, if not] “a series of customs houses will be required on the vast inland border from the Atlantic to West Texas. Worse still, with no protective tariff, European goods will under-price Northern goods in Southern markets. Cotton for Northern mills will be charged an export tax. This will cripple the clothing industries and make British mills prosper. Finally, the great inland waterways, the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio Rivers, will be subject to Southern tolls.” The Philadelphia Press 18 March 1861

December 1860, before any secession, the Chicago Daily Times foretold the disaster that Southern free ports would bring to Northern commerce: “In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwide trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow.”Chicago Daily Times Dec 1860

Similarly, the economic editor of the NY Times, who had maintained for months that secession would not injure Northern commerce or prosperity, changed his mind on 22 March 1861: “At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States.”

On 18 March 1861, the Boston Transcript noted that while the Southern states had claimed to secede over the slavery issue, now “the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade....”

When asked “why not let the South go in Peace?” He answered “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government?” Abraham Lincoln 1861

On May 1, 1833, President Andrew Jackson wrote, “the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question.” Jon Meecham (2009), American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House, New York: Random House, p. 247; Correspondence of Andrew Jackson, Vol. V, p. 72.

The Morrill Tariff passed the U.S. House of Representatives on May 10, 1860, before Lincoln’s election and before any state had seceded. It passed the U.S. Senate on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration. (Abe vigorously lobbied for the bill, telling a Pittsburgh, Pa. audience two weeks before his inauguration that no other issue — none — was more important.)

So the Negro [in the North] is free, but he cannot share the rights, pleasures, labors, griefs, or even the tomb of him whose equal he has been declared; there is nowhere where he can meet him, neither in life nor in death. In the South, where slavery “it was not the anti-human immoral aspect of the institution which brought all the weight of national power against it, it was the antitariff, antibank, anticapitalist, antinational [ie the radical re

[the North relied on money from tariffs] “so even if the Southern states be allowed to depart in peace, the first question will be revenue. Now if the South have free trade, how can you collect revenues in eastern cities? Freight from New Orleans, to St. Louis, Chicago, Louisville, Cincinnati and even Pittsburgh, would be about the same as by rail from New York and imported at New Orleans having no duties to pay, would undersell the East if they had to pay duties. Therefore if the South make good their confederation and their plan, The Northern Confederacy must do likewise or blockade. Then comes the question of foreign nations. So look on it in any view, I see no result but war and consequent change in the form of government. William Tecumseh Sherman in a letter to his brother Senator John Sherman 1861.

“Let the South adopt the free-trade system and the North’s commerce must be reduced to less than half of what it now is.” Daily Chicago Times Dec 10 1860

“Any reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro and until it was convenient to make a pretence that sympathy with him was the cause of the war, it hated the abolitionists and derided them up and down dale. As to secession being rebellion, it is distinctly possible by state papers that Washington considered it no such thing. Massachusetts now loudest against it, has itself asserted its right to secede again and again.” Charles Dickens.

In the North, enforcement of the Morrill Tariff contributed to support for the Union cause among industrialists and merchant interests. Speaking of this class, the abolitionist Orestes Brownson derisively remarked that “the Morrill Tariff moved them more than the fall of Sumter.”

“The sole object of this war is to restore the union. Should I be convinced it has any other object, or that the government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge to you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side.” Ulysses S Grant In a letter to the Chicago Tribune, 1862.

“Down here they think they are going to have fine times. New Orleans a free port, whereby she can import Goods without limit or duties, and Sell to the up River Countries. But Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore will never consent that N. Orleans should be a Free Port, and they Subject to Duties.” William T. Sherman

FLT-bird: "The focus is not on 1860 in particular but on US exports for decades prior to 1860.
Southern Cash Crops had been BY FAR the biggest exports."

Sure, but the averages come out roughly the same.
For example, consider 1840, when cotton exports totaled $61 million plus $3 million of manufactured cotton products.
Total exports for 1840 (see page 605 here) were $132 million making raw cotton 46% of the total and all cotton around 50%.
Those are about the same percentages as 1860.

The greatest "Western products" in 1840 were $6 million in flour, $4 million in various wood products and $2+ million in animal products.
The total percentages of "Western products" in 1840 and 1860 were about the same.

Point is: while "Southern products" were important in both 1840 and 1860 they were not as important as sometimes claimed, nor did the percentages change much overall.

FLT-bird: "What Northern states do you think had the right climate for tobacco?
Show us Tobacco exports by state."

Totally irrelevant, since we know for certain that only 15% of tobacco exports came from Confederate states, because 15% is the reduction in tobacco exports in 1861.
Tobacco then & now was grown in many Border South & Border North states like Kentucky, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Missouri & Ohio.
Turned out in 1861 Confederate states' contribution to tobacco exports was minimal.

FLT-bird: "It seems strange you claim Southern Exports weren’t really very important when Northern and Foreign newspapers were saying this:"

I see you've loaded up your canon with grape shot and fired point-blank into your opposition -- dozens of quotes in one post!
Normally our pro-Confederates would ration the quotes & space them out over many posts.
But fired all together in one volley like this makes it slightly harder to point out that at least some of your ammunition is... well, defective.

The quotes from Lincoln & Grant are faked.
The quotes from Charles Dickens are simple Confederate propaganda intended for British consumption.
The Brits hated slavery, but could be made sympathetic to Confederates with arguments about supposed "free trade" with Confederate ports versus the Morrill Tariff (or the Immoral Tariff as wags called it) in the North.
The issue was in doubt and many Brits pro-Confederate until Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation cleared it up in early 1863.
Important to point out here: the first Confederate tariffs were far from "duty free", but were very close to those of the pre-Morrill Union.
Why? Because Confederate government also expected to operate off the revenues from tariffs.
So nothing could land in, say, New Orleans for shipment to, say, St. Louis, without paying two tariffs, first the Confederate tariff then the Union tariff.
Because of that, all the quotes which discuss the possibility of "free trade" through the Confederacy are just fantasy -- it could never happen.
Of course such concerns might well drive some "Northeastern elites", but in early 1861 those were not what most Republicans worried about.
Claims often heard that secession was driven by tariffs not slavery was pure Confederate propaganda, for public consumption only.
The quotes from Deep South papers are, if not outright fakes, highly selected or edited.
In fact, secession was driven first & foremost by fear of Northern abolitionism, not some theoretical effect of a modest tariff increase which in November 1860 had been defeated by Southern allies in Congress.

But since we are firing off quotes, let me respond with one hopefully well-aimed shot, from the New York Times quoting famous British philosopher John Stuart Mill from early 1862:

"The Union soon obtained some much needed trans-Atlantic help from none other than the English liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill.
By the beginning of 1862, the tariff myth had gained enough public traction to earn Mill’s intellectual ire, and he proved quite effective at voicing his opinion concerning slavery’s centrality to the conflict.
He sought to refute this 'theory in England, believed by some, half believed by many more … that, on the side of the North, the question is not one of slavery at all.'
Assuming this to be true, Mill asked, then 'what are the Southern chiefs fighting about?
Their apologists in England say that it is about tariffs, and similar trumpery.'
Yet, Mill noted, the Southerners themselves 'say nothing of the kind.
They tell the world … that the object of the fight was slavery. … Slavery alone was thought of, alone talked of … the South separated on slavery, and proclaimed slavery as the one cause of separation.'
Mill concluded with a prediction that the Civil War would soon placate the abolitionists on both sides of the Atlantic.
That, as the war progressed, 'the contest would become distinctly an anti-slavery one,' and the tariff fable finally forgotten.

Mill’s prescient antislavery vision eventually begin to take hold in Britain, but only after Abraham Lincoln himself got involved in the trans-Atlantic fight for British hearts and minds when he put forth his Emancipation Proclamation in January 1863."

So, even early on some Brits understood that Civil War was all about slavery, and "free trade" was just Confederate propaganda.

Point is: while “Southern products” were important in both 1840 and 1860 they were not as important as sometimes claimed, nor did the percentages change much overall.

its Odd you say that when Tax Expert Charles Adams as well as commentators at the time as well as newspapers North, South and Foreign all said the South provided the overwhelming bulk of the exports.

Totally irrelevant, since we know for certain that only 15% of tobacco exports came from Confederate states, because 15% is the reduction in tobacco exports in 1861.
Tobacco then & now was grown in many Border South & Border North states like Kentucky, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Missouri & Ohio.
Turned out in 1861 Confederate states’ contribution to tobacco exports was minimal.

We “know” that? I don’t think we “know” that at all. I question your statistics. Virginia and Kentucky and North Carolina always provided the overwhelming bulk of Tobacco exports - and still do to this day. The climate and soil in those states is much more suited to tobacco growing.

The quotes from Lincoln & Grant are faked.

The quote from Grant is questionable I admit. The quotes from Lincoln are not.

The quotes from Charles Dickens are simple Confederate propaganda intended for British consumption.
The Brits hated slavery, but could be made sympathetic to Confederates with arguments about supposed “free trade” with Confederate ports versus the Morrill Tariff (or the Immoral Tariff as wags called it) in the North.
The issue was in doubt and many Brits pro-Confederate until Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation cleared it up in early 1863.

Yeah this is simply BS. Dicken’s analysis was spot on...and he was a well known abolitionist. He was openly an abolitionist before, during and after the war. The Brits were extremely suspicious about Lincoln’s motives for emancipation - and with good reason. They noted he freed nobody in areas under Union control.

Important to point out here: the first Confederate tariffs were far from “duty free”, but were very close to those of the pre-Morrill Union.
Why? Because Confederate government also expected to operate off the revenues from tariffs.
So nothing could land in, say, New Orleans for shipment to, say, St. Louis, without paying two tariffs, first the Confederate tariff then the Union tariff.

Because of that, all the quotes which discuss the possibility of “free trade” through the Confederacy are just fantasy — it could never happen.
Of course such concerns might well drive some “Northeastern elites”, but in early 1861 those were not what most Republicans worried about.

The CSA wanted tariffs as low as possible - as Jefferson Davis said in his inaugural address. The Confederate constitution set a maximum of 10% on tariffs (a revenue tariff as opposed to a protectionist tariff) but faced with a large well financed enemy right on their doorstep, they were forced to try to raise revenue in any way they could in order to defend themselves against invasion.

Claims often heard that secession was driven by tariffs not slavery was pure Confederate propaganda, for public consumption only.

This is simply more PC Revisionist BS. It is obvious to anybody who read the papers at the time or who followed American politics that Tariffs and not slavery was what drove the conflict. Slavery was the one thing Lincoln and the North were perfectly willing to compromise over.

Claims often heard that secession was driven by tariffs not slavery was pure Confederate propaganda, for public consumption only.

Again, this is pure BS. Charleston and New Orleans were the two biggest ports in the original 7 seceding states. Its hardly surprising they would have taken notice of the economics of the Morrill Tariff and how this would serve to once again impoverish Southerners and line the pockets of Northern industrialists. The tariff unlike Slavery was an issue that touched the pockets of everybody in the Southern States. Having seen the effects of the Tariff of Abominations a generation earlier, they understood its effects all too well. The efforts to claim it was “all about slavery” when the first thing the Northern states and the Lincoln administration offered up was slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment is an effort at pure propaganda. An obviously dishonest attempt to claim the northern states were motivated by abolitionism rather than by purely financial motives - an effort to line their own pockets at the South’s expense.

So, even early on some Brits understood that Civil War was all about slavery, and “free trade” was just Confederate propaganda.

Mills’ was an effort at pure propaganda. He touted it as an antislavery crusade at a time when the union had slavery, only freed the slaves in areas it did not control and enacted legislation and undertook positively genocidal actions against aboriginal peoples like the Santee Sioux. He also failed to note that the very first thing the Lincoln administration and the Northern dominated Congress offered was the Corwin amendment which would have expressly enshrined slavery in the constitution forever.

FLT-bird: "its Odd you say that when Tax Expert Charles Adams as well as commentators at the time as well as newspapers North, South and Foreign all said the South provided the overwhelming bulk of the exports."

But "overwhelming bulk" is not a number or statistic, and could simply refer to the huge bulk sizes of 500 pound cotton bales.
So one could easily argue that cotton filled 2/3 or 3/4 of export ships' holds without necessarily implying cotton values were more than 50% of US export earnings.

FLT-bird on tobacco exports: "We 'know' that?
I don’t think we 'know' that at all.
I question your statistics.
Virginia and Kentucky and North Carolina always provided the overwhelming bulk of Tobacco exports - and still do to this day.
The climate and soil in those states is much more suited to tobacco growing."

Well, first, these are not my statistics, they come from the same data used to "prove" the importance of "Southern products".

Second, Pennsylvania, Indiana & Ohio are still in the top 10 US tobacco producing states, no reason to think they weren't in 1861.

But possibly most important, 90% of US tobacco today comes from North Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia & Tennessee, likely did in 1861 as well, right?
Kentucky -- a Union state, western NC, western VA and eastern TN, all Unionist regions of Confederate states.
That no doubt explains why US tobacco export totals fell only 14% in 1861.

FLT-bird: "The quote from Grant is questionable I admit.
The quotes from Lincoln are not."

None of those quotes are accepted by legitimate scholars and do not appear in their books on that time.
What they certainly are is pro-Confederate propaganda.

FLT-bird: "Yeah this is simply BS.
Dicken’s analysis was spot on...and he was a well known abolitionist. "

But what Dickens hated more than slavery was... Northerners, because they had screwed him out of much money, intellectual property theft we call it today.
In Dickens' mind the North was all about, indeed only about money and he hated them.
So he was an easy mark for Confederate propaganda, swallowed it all, hook, line & sinker.
Do you want a name?

"By the end of the year, however, the editorial bent of

All the Year Round had become decidedly pro-Southern.
What happened to change Dickens’ mind?
First, he read James Spence’s The American Union, Its Effects on National Character and Policy with an Inquiry into Secession as a Constitutional Right and the Causes of Disruption.
Dickens’ copy is inscribed by Spence himself, and the work would deeply impact Dickens’ view of the war.
Historian of the South Frank Lawrence called Spence’s book 'the most effective propaganda of all by either native or Confederate agent.'...

..."Dickens was so taken with Spence’s arguments that he espoused them almost unquestioningly.
In a letter to his Swiss friend WF de Cerjat on March 16, 1862, Dickens outlines his own views on the war…which are almost entirely borrowed from Spence.
He argued that abolition was merely a pretext for other economic aims and 'in reality [had] nothing on earth to do' with the Northern war effort.
He went on to say, 'Any reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and that until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy for him was the cause of the war, it hated the abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale.' "

So Dickens was predisposed to hate the North, and Liverpool merchant James Spence gave him every reason to do so.

FLT-bird: "The Confederate constitution set a maximum of 10% on tariffs (a revenue tariff as opposed to a protectionist tariff) but faced with a large well financed enemy right on their doorstep, they were forced to try to raise revenue in any way they could in order to defend themselves against invasion."

Right, as I said, the original Confederate tariffs were roughly where US tariffs had been, pre-Morrill.
Therefore, any merchant hoping to use Confederate ports (i.e., New Orleans) to ship product Union customers (i.e., in Chicago) would have to pay two tariffs and would need his head examined for contemplating it!

So the whole scenario is complete fantasy, regardless of how many people in 1861 were enticed or spooked by it.

FLT-bird: "This is simply more PC Revisionist BS.
It is obvious to anybody who read the papers at the time or who followed American politics that Tariffs and not slavery was what drove the conflict.
Slavery was the one thing Lincoln and the North were perfectly willing to compromise over."

None -- not one -- of the first seven secession states mentioned anything about tariffs in their "reasons for secession" documents.
All focused nearly exclusively on the threat they perceived to slavery from "Ape" Lincoln and his "Black Republicans".
Tariffs were only added much later -- after the fact -- because nobody in Europe wanted to support the Southern slave power, but many (i.e., Dickens) could be won over by appeals to "free trade" and "oppressive Federal government".

FLT-bird: "Again, this is pure BS.
Charleston and New Orleans were the two biggest ports in the original 7 seceding states.
Its hardly surprising they would have taken notice of the economics of the Morrill Tariff "

But the Morrill tariff was not even on the radar screen when South Carolinians began organizing to declare secession in early November, 1860.
Nor did South Carolina mention anything about tariffs in its "Reasons for Secession" document.
Only the perceived threat to slavery from "Ape" Lincoln and his "Black Republicans" mattered to South Carolinians in December 1860 when they declared secession.

All that other nonsense came later, much later.

FLT-bird: "Mills’ was an effort at pure propaganda.
He touted it as an antislavery crusade at a time when the union had slavery..."

No, Mill simply reported accurately that protecting slavery was the only reason for secession cited by secessionists themselves, not tariffs.
Mill predicted that, "as the war progressed, 'the contest would become distinctly an anti-slavery one,' and the tariff fable finally forgotten."

Sadly, that "tariff fable" still confuses minds of many weak & hostile anti-Americans.

British Pro-Confederate Dickens & Unionist Mill:

In 1860 the South had effectively cornered the global cotton market by being it's lowest cost, most reliable producer. So long as that remained the case, buyers in Europe & New England were not going to aggressively seek out other sources. Why would they?

But in 1861 everything changed, beginning not with the Union blockade, which originally had little effect, but rather with Confederates' self-imposed embargo on exports of cotton. Confederates' wanted to weaponize "King Cotton" to get European recognition and military aid. It didn't work. It only encouraged cotton buyers to seek alternate sources and reduce the South to just one non-essential supplier amongst many.

The cotton embargo was a huge Confederate mistake.

Agree with you so far. Still, none of this would have happened but for the Union going to war with the South.

American slaves were not big on revolts, suggesting that in general they were treated rather well. One reason may be that large numbers in several states (i.e., Maryland, Delaware, Louisiana) were being granted their freedom and, indeed, the opportunity to own slaves (i.e., their family) of their own. American slaves did, however, often jump at the chance to escape (i.e., underground railroad) and/or enlist in the Union army to fight for their freedom.

Again, nothing to disagree with here.

So now we're into economics and the first thing to remember is 1860 US total assets of circa $20 billion produced annual GDP of $4.4 billion, of which DiogenesLamp's $200 million here represented less than 5%. Indeed, DL's $200 million would be normal seasonal fluctuations in market values or production:

You can't count the entire GDP as relevant in this discussion. California and the West coast was virtually it's own independent economy, and had very little to do with Trade in New York city. (Or tax/tariff revenue for Washington DC.) Likewise, much of what happened in the interior would not initially have been effected much with or without Southern independence, and the shift of European trade to the South.

That "5%" you cite, represented about 70-80% of New York's entire Trade business. The point here is that the significance of the money depends entirely on who is gaining it and who is losing it, and in this case, Lincoln's wealthy backers were the ones who would be losing it, and the Southern cities were going to be the ones gaining it.

You are trying to present the European trade as insignificant because you want to minimize the evidence that the loss of 230 million dollars per year was a sufficient reason to go to war. I have also constantly informed you that it wasn't just the European trade, but also the capitalization of Southern industries that would eventually compete directly with Northern Wealthy businessmen owned industries, so the threat over time would grow ever greater if the South was allowed to acquire that capitalization.

The railroads (for which Lincoln had very strong and close relationships as a corporate railroad lawyer) would have been threatened by imported steel and rail engine systems imported from Europe. A lot of people who had established financial power basis would be threatened by low tariff trade direct to the South and outside of their power base in the Northern states.

Over time, GDP of the North would have declined, and GDP of the South would have increased, with export/import capital fueling the economic buildup.

Without the European trade, New York, (which was making about 1.2 billion per year at that time) would have started seeing an immediate and serious decline in their revenues.

Answer: roughly the value of Deep South Cotton exports in 1860, which were about 50% of total US exports. In 1860 about half of the US cotton crop shipped directly from New Orleans, not New York.

And here you go again, singling out "Cotton" as the sole significant export from the South. Hemp, Sugar, Tobacco, Molasses and other things amounted to another 23% of the total Southern exports, and if you include the South's cotton to the North for the export of finished textiles, then the South's contribution to the European trade is even greater. According to this data compiled by "Pea Ridge", the South contributed the vast bulk of the European trade. (87%)

Specie was certainly not a "Southern product" and yet it was the #2 US export in 1860 at $66 million.

It was 57 million according to sources I have found. Are you exaggerating it for some reason? Also I haven't found any information designating which came from the North and what came from the South, so your claim that all specie came from the North is a "fact" not yet in evidence.

"Specie" is not trade. It is not replenishable in the sense that "goods", either manufactured or grown, are replenishable. A nation that uses specie to pay for imports will eventually run out of specie, and will have to resort to actual trade to pay for imports. It's a transitory condition, and therefore should not be considered in the context of normal trade.

The rest of your numbers are such an illogical argument that I don't want to take the time to explain to you why your numbers are completely misleading.

As I said with the Barack Obama administration, when you are deliberately gaming the numbers, they no longer mean anything.

But “overwhelming bulk” is not a number or statistic, and could simply refer to the huge bulk sizes of 500 pound cotton bales.
So one could easily argue that cotton filled 2/3 or 3/4 of export ships’ holds without necessarily implying cotton values were more than 50% of US export earnings.

Strange then that Northern newspapers said the exact opposite of what you are saying. Strange too that foreign and Southern papers also said it.

Second, Pennsylvania, Indiana & Ohio are still in the top 10 US tobacco producing states, no reason to think they weren’t in 1861.

But possibly most important, 90% of US tobacco today comes from North Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia & Tennessee, likely did in 1861 as well, right?
Kentucky — a Union state, western NC, western VA and eastern TN, all Unionist regions of Confederate states.
That no doubt explains why US tobacco export totals fell only 14% in 1861.

There are lots of reasons why exports of Tobacco may have only declined by that percent in 1861. Both sides continued trading throughout the war (little known fact yet undeniably true) and of course we don’t know how much was stockpiled in warehouses already. Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky especially simply have a more favorable climate and more favorable soil for growing tobacco. That was no different back then.

None of those quotes are accepted by legitimate scholars and do not appear in their books on that time.
What they certainly are is pro-Confederate propaganda.

This is quite simply false PC Revisionist propaganda.

So Dickens was predisposed to hate the North, and Liverpool merchant James Spence gave him every reason to do so.

More PC Revisionist propaganda attempting to sidestep Dicken’s accurate analysis as being the product of a personal grudge as well as propaganda efforts by another. Of course this conveniently overlooks the fact that it was indeed New England which first threatened secession, that the states expressly reserved the right to unilaterally secede, that multiple presidents openly said secession was the right of each state etc etc. It also conveniently overlooks his economic analysis which was completely accurate. The Northern states were benefiting from high tariffs while the Southern states were harmed by it. In addition the Northern states did vote themselves the overwhelming majority of federal money raised by the tariff and the tariff and grossly unequal expenditures had been the subject of bitter sectional disputes going back well over a generation - like the Nullification Crisis of 30 years earlier.

Right, as I said, the original Confederate tariffs were roughly where US tariffs had been, pre-Morrill.
Therefore, any merchant hoping to use Confederate ports (i.e., New Orleans) to ship product Union customers (i.e., in Chicago) would have to pay two tariffs and would need his head examined for contemplating it!

So the whole scenario is complete fantasy, regardless of how many people in 1861 were enticed or spooked by it.

The Walker tariff had been 17%. The CSA was going to have a maximum 10% tariff. As for the paying two tariffs bit, Northern newspapers sure seemed to believe the threat that importers would shift their business to Southern ports and sidestep the high Morill tariff was real. They were not nearly as sanguine as you seem to be about their ability to collect tariffs for goods that entered Southern ports.

None — not one — of the first seven secession states mentioned anything about tariffs in their “reasons for secession” documents.
All focused nearly exclusively on the threat they perceived to slavery from “Ape” Lincoln and his “Black Republicans”.
Tariffs were only added much later — after the fact — because nobody in Europe wanted to support the Southern slave power, but many (i.e., Dickens) could be won over by appeals to “free trade” and “oppressive Federal government”.

No. False.

From Georgia’s Declaration of Causes:

“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded— the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”

From Texas’ Declaration of causes:

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

From The Address of Robert Barnwell Rhett attached to South Carolina’s Declaration of Causes and sent out along with it:

The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. “The General Welfare,” is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this “General Welfare” requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.

And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.

There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.

No, Mill simply reported accurately that protecting slavery was the only reason for secession cited by secessionists themselves, not tariffs.
Mill predicted that, “as the war progressed, ‘the contest would become distinctly an anti-slavery one,’ and the tariff fable finally forgotten.”

Sadly, that “tariff fable” still confuses minds of many weak & hostile anti-Americans.

As I have already demonstrated, Mill was quite simply wrong. Only 4 states did issue declarations of causes and of those 3 made it quite clear that tariffs and unequal federal expenditures were a main reason why they were seceding - even though this was not unconstitutional while refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the US COnstitution was unconstitutional.

I understand that for PC Revisionists it is very inconvenient to admit that what they fought was a war of aggression for empire and money rather than for principle, but facts are sometimes inconvenient.

“If the Northerners on ascertaining the resolution of the South, had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg. There was not, in fact, a single argument advanced in defense of the war against the South which might not have been advanced with exactly the same force for the subjugation of Hungary or Poland. Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms.” Times of London September 1862

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.