What Should a First-Time Visitor to America Read?

A friend recently posed this question: “If you had to recommend one book for a first-time visitor to the U.S. to read, to understand our country, what would it be and why?”...

If the goal is an education, we could recommend Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager’s Growth of the American Republic, a two-volume history that used to be required reading...

Huckleberry Finn may be the greatest American novel... But there is no single novel, no matter how great, that can do the job alone.

Consider instead the great American essayists who invented a new style of writing in the 1920s and founded The New Yorker. E. B. White’s One Man’s Meat is the finest such essay collection... Joseph Mitchell’s Up in the Old Hotel is nearly as great...

Teddy Roosevelt’s short book The Strenuous Life, which opens with his 1899 speech by that name, is an explanation of America’s view of itself — a view that greatly shaped the 20th century. It was the peculiar marriage of power and prosperity together with a sense of moral urgency. Roosevelt demands an active life, a life of struggling for personal and national virtue. He commends a triad of strength in body, intellect, and character — of which character is the most important. America must meet its moral obligations vigorously, he tells us: “It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed.”...

The origin of that moral urgency was America’s most important spiritual crisis. It is best expressed in a single speech, rich in Biblical imagery and contemporary prophecy: Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, which is the greatest of all American writing. It is a tone-poem or photograph of the American soul. A complete understanding, in just 697 words.

Yet in one of your earliest posts to me on this thread you stated that Sourherners were taxed at 12 times the rate of Northerners per capita, although you never explained by what mechanism that was possible. The only federal taxes at the time were tariffs. Why did you bring up tariffs? Apparently to show the fabulous riches the North would lose, although exports were only 9% of total economic activity.

Since it was the Southern states that seceded, and not the North, what was their reason to do so? Northern control of the Southern economy? Was it their fault Southerners didn’t want to build factories, mills, and railroads?
You seem to be fixated on the chimera of economic competition between North and South, without really explaining how that actually motivated Southern secession in 1860. Why not 1850? Also, why the sesech didn’t mention it at the time.

SoCal Pubbie: "Southen agriculture was not the totality of exports.
At most it accounted for 60-65%, not three quarters."

Not even that much, see my post here.

In 1861 when Confederate exports were deleted from Union accounting, total US exports fell only 35%, not 50%, not 65% and certainly not 75% to 90% as often claimed.

Yes, cotton exports did fall 80%, but no other "Southern product" came anywhere near that.
Indeed, alleged "Southern products" like rosin, turpentine and hops rose by orders of magnitude from 1860 to 1861.
Clearly they were mislabeled as "Southern products".

SoCal Pubbie: "The New York Times states that ALL American cotton exports, of which only 80% came from the South, were 60% of total exports in 1860."

That depends on how you count & what you include.
This source (pg 605) shows total 1860 US exports of $400 million, including $66 million in specie.
This source shows total 1860 cotton exports as $191 million plus another $16 million in manufactured cotton products.
However, those $16 million should be included in Northern exports and they are not.
So a rough distribution of value added would put total cotton exports around $200 million or 50% of US exports.
Nothing else in the category of "Southern products" comes anywhere close to being as genuinely "Southern" or important to total US exports -- nothing, not tobacco, not rice, not turpentine or hops... only cotton, nothing else.

SoCal Pubbie: "The mayor of New York City even proposed its own secession, but Unionist sympathies overwhelmed that idea.
It was only after the war started thats Northern captains of industry joined ranks with Uncle Sam."

An important point which DiogenesLamp twists into saying that fear of losing their economic base (cotton, etc.) drove "New York elites" into pushing Lincoln towards war.
In historical fact, economics were secondary to the issue of Confederate seizures by force of Federal properties, especially their military assault on Union Fort Sumter.

Which port was more important to cotton, New York or New Orleans?

New York harbor, c.1855:

New Orleans harbor, where half of US cotton shipped:

SoCal Pubbie: "Chasing down the numbers is a difficult task, as you can find a variety of numbers."

Sure, but it has to be done if we wish to refute claims of our Lost Causers that, what, 75% or 80% or even 90% of Federal revenues were "paid for" by Southern exports.
When you go looking for actual numbers it turns out there are various sources, but they all say pretty much the same thing: "Southern products" were very important but not as important as Lost Causers claim.

Indeed, when you get down to it, turns out there was only one major product which was indisputably Southern -- cotton.
And cotton alone accounted for roughly half of US exports.
And we know for certain it's Southern because in 1861, when all Confederate products were deleted from Union exports, cotton exports fell by 80%.

But no other alleged "Southern product" came anywhere close to 80% reduced exports.
Tobacco exports, for example, fell only 14%.
Even rice exports, which you'd think very Southern, fell just 46%.
Indeed, hops & clover seed, listed as "Southern products" increased exports hugely in 1861.

So clearly the term "Southern product" was quite loosely defined and not intended to be taken as some kind of gospel truth.

And the bottom line is this: in 1861, despite an 80% reduction in US cotton exports, overall exports fell only 35%.
And 35% sounds about right for the importance of the Confederate economy to the overall US national economy.

You disagree?

SoCal Pubbie: "Of course the whole debate is absurd.
These economic excuses arose after the war was over so that Southerners wouldn’t feel so bad about fighting to preserve slavery."

Well, actually Confederate propagandists figured out early-on that our European trading partners would not like a civil war over slavery, but could well understand "free trade" and "oppressive Federal government", so that is the line they used as early as 1861.
This link from my post #85 discusses the issue in some depth.

No, I don’t disagree. I simply meant that pinpointing exact numbers is not as easy as looking up voting tallies in 1856 or something. Even the numbers might be misleading. For example, post 1861 cotton export numbers might include a certain amount of southern cotton smuggled north, or shipped to Canada to avoid the embargo and then brought into the USA for export. On the other hand, do the numbers for cotton exports include some processing in the north that added dollars to the value?

The bigger question is what impact did all this have on motivations to go to war. Even if one were to stipulate to these Southren claims, how would it account for the desire for secession? It doesn’t add up, and the rebels hardly mentioned trade when they issued public pronouncements on their reasoning.

In 1861 when Confederate exports were deleted from Union accounting, total US exports fell only 35%, not 50%, not 65% and certainly not 75% to 90% as often claimed.

This is more of that nonsense thinking.

A more accurate statement would be along the lines of "Because we absolutely destroyed what would have been the Southern trade with Europe, and because we borrowed and spent our money into inflationary conditions and also stimulate a war demand economy while likewise killing off a chunk of our population, We got some numbers that look like the above."

None of your crap numbers would have occurred if the South had established direct trade with Europe. You keep acting as though your numbers were based on conditions pre war, and you are ignoring the fact that they would look nothing like that if the pre war conditions had stayed the same, but instead with the South trading directly with Europe.

Yes, the no competition from the South numbers would have looked like that, once you added in the Lincoln caused inflation into the mix. The competition from the South numbers would have looked nothing like that, and they would have all been bad for the North.

An important point which DiogenesLamp twists into saying that fear of losing their economic base (cotton, etc.) drove "New York elites" into pushing Lincoln towards war.

That is only one aspect. Not only would New York have lost most of it's trade with Europe, (and it would have had associated damage to it's warehousing, banking, insurance etc. industries.) it would have faced the prospect with competition in the interior of the Country for European products imported through the South to supply everything which could be reached through the Mississippi.

Additionally, the capitalization of industry in the South caused by the recovered profits from their existing export trade, as well as new profits from increased trade through Europe, would have built industries that competed directly with Northern Industries.

I've pointed out to you before a Northern newspaper editorial where they fretted about railroad steel being unloaded in southern ports, and how they would be supplying all the steel rails for expansion of the rail road industry.

Capitalization of Southern industries would have grown the South, and removal of this same capitalization of Northern industries would have hurt the North.

Again, the question becomes "Who is losing the money, and who is gaining the money." No matter how you slice this, if the South was allowed to proceed unmolested, they would have been cutting deep into Northern economic interests in myriad and sundry ways.

I only lightly touch on the various ways in which the South would have been hurting Northern Industry and existing financial interests, and it is partly a result of the complexity of it that makes it difficult for people to grasp the big picture about how the Northern money interests would have been hurt.

Needless to say, the Northern money interests were not stupid, and they could see what a horrible economic threat to them was Southern independence, and that is why they demanded a war to stop it.

SoCal Pubbie: "post 1861 cotton export numbers might include a certain amount of southern cotton smuggled north, or shipped to Canada to avoid the embargo and then brought into the USA for export.
On the other hand, do the numbers for cotton exports include some processing in the north that added dollars to the value?"

I have no doubt the reason US 1861 exports included any cotton was because the pipeline & warehouses were left full after 1860's bumper crop.
Once the Confederate spigot closed, the value of every random bale soared and sold at a premium.

SoCal Pubbie: "The bigger question is what impact did all this have on motivations to go to war."

Pro-Confederates remind us that South Carolina first threatened secession after the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" prompting President Jackson's famous threat:

"...please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.[68]"

That was 1830 so in 1860 South Carolina was careful to enlist the entire Deep South in secession, and make the reason slavery, not tariffs.
But while protecting slavery sold well at home, it won no friends in Europe, and so was jettisoned there in favor of "free trade" and "oppressive Federal government."

And that Confederate argument seemed to work pretty well, until Lincoln blew it away with his Emancipation Proclamation.

Well, first I had to get you to understand that the South was producing the vast majority of the export value to Europe, for which Imports were brought in as payment.

To simplify the math, we'll round some numbers in convenient directions. The 73% of total export trade will be rounded up to 75%. The Northern Population will be regarded as 20 million. The Southern population will be regarded as 5 million.

All revenue to the Fedgov is the consequence of Imports, which we will regard the 75% as in payment for Southern exports. As all Federal Revenue comes from imports, we will conclude that the South was paying 75% of all Federal revenue.

So 1/4th of the population of the South, was paying 75% of all the revenue. That 5 million in the South represents 20% of the total population, and so the ratios would be 20/100ths paying 75%, while 80/100ths pays the remaining 25%.

If we Normalize the South's population to the North, we have to multiply by 4, which makes it 80/100ths paying (75% X 4) which equals 300%. 300% / 25% =12.

The South was paying 12 times the rate per capita of the North.

The entire point hinges on recognizing that the South was producing ~75% of the total revenue to the Federal Government, and I think you've admitted to it producing 60%.

If we run the numbers with 60%, it would look like this.

20/100ths * 4 = 80/100ths. 60% * 4 = 240%. 240%/25% = 9.6, so even with your admitted number, the South was paying 9.6 times per capita than the North.

Apparently to show the fabulous riches the North would lose, although exports were only 9% of total economic activity.

But how much of the economic activity of New York did it represent? If I recall correctly, New York had an economy of 1.2 billion per year, of which 200 million would on the face of it constitute 20% of the economy for that city. (Likely more in repercussive effects.)

Additionally it constituted 75% of the revenue of the FedGov, which would have also had to be made up somewhere, and would likely have also been an additional drain on the Northern economy, as well as the loss of subsidies from the Fed Gov as a consequence of the loss of revenue from the South.

Is 20% of your total economic activity sufficient to go to war? I guess it would depend on who was losing the money and how much power they had to initiate a war. Lincoln was backed by the New York Wealthy, and these are the very people who had the most to lose from Southern independence.

We have 20% right off the bat, and I haven't even gotten into manufacturing losses to the north that would have been caused by low import duties on European manufactured goods. They would have had additional losses from the lower cost competition.

To tally all the various forms of losses that would have been experienced by the North would require a great deal of research and time, but a good estimate of the exact amount isn't necessary. It is sufficient to just demonstrate that all the factors would be a net monetary loss for powerful people in the North.

All the changes would result in Northern money interests bleeding from a thousand cuts.

That was 1830 so in 1860 South Carolina was careful to enlist the entire Deep South in secession, and make the reason slavery, not tariffs. But while protecting slavery sold well at home, it won no friends in Europe, and so was jettisoned there in favor of "free trade" and "oppressive Federal government."

Here you make my point for me that I was trying to make to SoCal Pubbie in previous exchanges. They were telling the various audiences what they thought those audiences wanted to hear. For Southern voters, they were claiming it was because the North was threatening slavery. (it wasn't and couldn't.) To Europeans, it was because the North was preventing free trade.

The truth is they realized not only would they make more profits from direct trade with Europe, they also wouldn't be constantly outvoted in congress over every question concerning their interests. They would go from little fish in a big pond, to big fish in a smaller pond, as well as getting richer into the bargain.

Also they were probably tired of hearing moral lectures and condemnation from representatives of the Northern liberals. It was likely the same as those lectures we hear from modern liberals about the immorality of using fossil fuels. (which is our modern economic engine.)

DiogenesLamp: "This is more of that nonsense thinking. A more accurate statement would be along the lines of 'Because we absolutely destroyed what would have been the Southern trade with Europe, and because we borrowed and spent our money into inflationary conditions and also stimulate a war demand economy while likewise killing off a chunk of our population, We got some numbers that look like the above.' "

Rubbish, total fantasy, not even loosely connected to facts.
Where do we even begin with this?
How about here -- as Texas Senator Louis Wigfall put it to William Russell of The Times of London (1861):

"We are an agricultural people; we a primitive but civilized people.
We have no cities-we don't want them.
We have no literature-we don't need any yet.
We have no press-we are glad of it.
We have no commercial marine-no navy-we don't want them.
Your ships carry our produce and you can protect your own vessels.
We want no manufactures; we desire no trading, no mechanical or manufacturing classes.
As long as we have our cotton, our rice, our sugar, our tobacco, we can command wealth to purchase all we want from these nations with which we are in amity."

Russell also wrote of his travels in the South:

"The tone in which

alluded to the whole of the Northern people indicated the clear conviction that trade, commerce, the pursuit of gain, manufacture, and the base mechanical arts, had so degraded the whole race” that Southerners could no longer tolerate association with them...
"There is a degree of something like ferocity in the Southern mind

toward New England which exceeds belief."
A South Carolinian told Russell:
'We are an agricultural people, pursuing our own system, and working out our own destiny, breeding up women and men with some other purpose than to make them vulgar, fanatical, cheating Yankees.' "

So now we see DiogenesLamp hoping to build up our "Southern gentlemen" into latent closet industrialists, manufacturing shipping & merchant titans-in-waiting, just chompin' at the bit & raring to go with Industrial Revolution the very moment they can knock the damnyankee monkey off their backs, right?

Total, complete fantasy.
Sure, Confederates in 1861 may have hated damnyankees, but none of them wanted to become one!

DiogenesLamp: "None of your crap numbers would have occurred if the South had established direct trade with Europe.
You keep acting as though your numbers were based on conditions pre war"

First, they're not my numbers, they come out of the same data set used to "prove" that "the South" somehow "paid for" 80% of 90% of Federal revenues.
I just looked at your numbers a little more closely.

Second, the issue here is pre-war Federal revenues, nothing to do with what mighta, coulda, woulda, maybe shoulda happened after Confederates declared war on the United States.
The question is: did "the South" really "pay for" 80% or 90% of Federal tariff revenues in, say, 1860??
The answer is: absolutely not, and your own numbers prove it.

In 1861 when Confederate exports were stripped out of US total exports, cotton did fall 80% but overall exports fell only 35% and many categories drastically increased, including such supposedly "Southern products" as hops (!) and clover seed (!!).
So the facts prove that alleged "Southern products" were not as important as some apologists like to pretend.

DiogenesLamp: "Yes, the no competition from the South numbers would have looked like that, once you added in the Lincoln caused inflation into the mix."

Totally irrelevant to the question, which is: how important to Federal revenues were "Southern products"?
Answer: not near as important as some like to pretend.

Pro-Confederates remind us that South Carolina first threatened secession after the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" prompting President Jackson's famous threat:

That one is pretty good, but I also like this one.

"John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation I will secede your head from the rest of your body."

Jackson was definitely a man of action. He was one tough bastard.

He was also pretty smart.

Hmmm... Exactly what I have been saying.

DiogenesLamp: "The truth is they realized not only would they make more profits from direct trade with Europe, they also wouldn't be constantly outvoted in congress over every question concerning their interests. They would go from little fish in a big pond, to big fish in a smaller pond, as well as getting richer into the bargain."

I don't necessarily disagree, but you're telling me that like any good Democrats they didn't really believe their own propaganda, it was all for show.
Your problem is that many -- indeed the vast majority -- did believe their own propaganda because, to them, it was true: "Ape" Lincoln and his "Black Republicans" threatened slavery enough to make secession "necessary".

The fact that Lincoln did not really threaten slavery makes secessionist propaganda a Big Lie which converts the "necessity" into pure, unadulterated at pleasure secession.

It's an important point in making the Confederacy illegitimate from Day One.

So much nonsense, so little time, where to even begin?... {sigh}

DiogenesLamp: "first I had to get you to understand that the South was producing the vast majority of the export value to Europe..."

In 1860 raw cotton exports were $191 million, of which half shipped directly from New Orleans, not New York.

Total 1860 exports, including specie ($66 million), were $400 million, making raw cotton <50%.
Manufactured cotton products were another $16 million, but that manufacturing was done in Northern cities, not the South.
Combined, they make cotton about 50%.

Everything else claimed as "Southern product" turned out to be, well, not so much.
We know that because the 1860 Confederate embargo on cotton exports reduced Union cotton exports by 80%, but no other "Southern products" came anywhere close.
Even rice exports fell only 46% and tobacco fell barely 14%.
Clearly claims that those were "Southern products" are gross exaggerations.
Yes, some was produced in Confederate States, but far from all.

That makes claims of 75% Southern pay-for of Federal revenues just more fantasy.

DiogenesLamp: "So 1/4th of the population of the South, was paying 75% of all the revenue.
That 5 million in the South represents 20% of the total population...

But, of course, it wasn't those 5 million, it was their 4 million slaves who made Southern cotton the world's leader, with 80% market share in Britain, for example.
So if we want to whine about poor souls who were over-worked and under-paid, why not start with slaves??
Why cry in our beers over their very wealthy slave-masters?

DiogenesLamp: "The South was paying 12 times the rate per capita of the North."

Actually, it was slavery that paid for Southern luxuries.

DiogenesLamp: "The entire point hinges on recognizing that the South was producing ~75% of the total revenue to the Federal Government, and I think you've admitted to it producing 60%."

I'll fully confess to 50% produced by 4 million slaves who gave their slave-masters the highest average standard of living ever seen at that time.

But you will never convince me those slave-masters were somehow "oppressed" by Federal government.

In 1860 raw cotton exports were $191 million, of which half shipped directly from New Orleans, not New York.

Where it shipped from has nothing to do with it, as you very well know. New York had virtually total control of the shipping, and they had bought up virtually every cotton contract that came available.

The money came back through New York. It didn't go directly to the people who actually produced the commodity, it went first to New York where they skimmed off a big chunk of the profit.

Actually, it was slavery that paid for Southern luxuries.

And the bulk of Federal Revenues, and 73% of the trade going into New York.

The Fed gov was not induced so much to launch a "moral" war as they were to get that money back and stop any future competition to the Northern money men who had gotten their own agent in control of the government.

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.