Replies

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:

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