What Should a First-Time Visitor to America Read?

“That information is discussed at length in the article, which you keep telling me you (are reading)/(have read). “

I’ve read the article several times. I see no discussion of why Southern businessmen, with their immense wealth, did not see fit to react to this supposed inequity by opening more banks, building more ships, and engaging more direct contact with European buyers. Say, after 1840 or so.

Perhaps that is what they should have done, but trying to second guess why they didn't do it does not touch on my primary point that they were seeking to remedy the problem by eliminating all existing legal restrictions on their doing business directly with Europe, and that by doing so, they were effectively cutting New York (mostly) out of a very lucrative income stream.

That is my primary point.

1. New York was going to be cut out of a very lucrative income stream that they had enjoyed for years, and that had helped to fuel their economic boom.

My additional points are:

2.Not only would New York lose this lucrative income stream, they would suffer competition with their existing industries from competitive European products that would flood both the Southern and Midwestern markets through the Southern ports, thereby depriving them of additional income because of lost sales.

3. This supply stream of lower cost products from Europe through Southern suppliers would acquire patrons from the Midwestern states (who would trade their products such as grains, cattle) through the Southern suppliers, thereby bypassing Chicago and New York.

4. This set of increased economic ties between the new states/territories would result in a strengthening of the political coalition of the Southern Confederacy, and over time, these states would have become members of it rather than part of the USA.

5. The border states (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri) would have quickly joined the Confederacy once the money and products started streaming through Southern ports, making the ratio of states 15/18 Confederate/Union, instead of 11/22, and that would have been effectively impossible nut to crack with the remaining forces of the Union.

The political and economic ties over time would start to look like this, which is it's natural affinity.

The Free Trade policies (closer to) of the Southern Confederacy was a grave economic threat to many Northern industries.

And this seems appropriate.

So the article doesn't really say anything about why Southern business interests didn't invest more to expand the services they needed to make more money off their crops, did it?

Now, there were no existing legal restrictions on their doing business directly with Europe. They were perfectly able to do what Northern businesses were doing, they just didn't do it. At least not when it came to the shipping and handling aspects. They also chose not to build many textile mills, so that domestic production was centered up north.

1. The fact that trade did not fall as much as you claim it should have after 1861 shows that while the Confederates may have THOUGHT that New York was going to be cut out of a very lucrative income stream, in fact they were not. Then again the whole Southron myth of King Cotton proved to be wishful thinking.

On the other hand, assuming your speculative alternate history was based on a CSA that was allowed to peacefully secede, you have other issues to deal with. Where did the capital come from to build new ships, railroads, warehouses, insurance firms, etc. to handle this new aspect of the market? Crops like cotton sent to New England mills now became imported materials. How quickly would the Yankees look for other suppliers from other parts of the world?

2. Wasn't it you who said that exports and imports were roughly equal? So foreign imports were ALREADY coming into the country. If more came in then yes, domestic manufacturing would have likely suffered. On the other hand import businesses would have made money. But nothing was stopping people in the South from dealing directly with Europe anyway.

3. Maybe there would have been a steady stream, and maybe there wouldn't have. Maybe American manufacturers would have devised efficiencies that would allow competition on price. Now you're the one second guessing.

4. The West and South were already generally allied as free trade advocates. I don't see how Western states and territories would somehow join with the CSA over the USA of which they'd have remained a part.

5. I think that's rank speculation.

“Whaaat...is your favorite color?!”

FLT-bird on Rep. Brooks: "No it demonstrates that Sumner was a complete jerk and shot his mouth off about somebody who had family members who were not going to take that."

So you approve of Rep. Brooks' actions?

FLT-bird on 1828 tariff: "In general the Southern states quickly came to hate it because it did huge harm to their economy.
New England came to love it and tried to keep it in place because it allowed them to significantly increase prices while still gaining market share."

No, most New Englanders opposed that tariff because it increased costs of some raw materials.
Who truly loved it were mid-Atlantic & Western manufacturers.
More important, so did Andrew Jackson, who eventually negotiated compromises of gradually falling rates.
Again, my point is it was not strictly North vs. South since many New Englanders opposed it and many Southerners (i.e., Jackson) supported it.

FLT-bird on 1830 nullification crisis: "Actually it was ended by compromise not by one side backing down.
The tariffs were steadily reduced which was the very thing South Carolina had wanted."

Right, because of Southern rule over Washington, DC, rates continued downward, for 30 years, until by 1860 they were as low as the first tariff under President Washington, about 15% average.

FLT-bird on alleged Southern exports: "But I have provided actual data.
I have also provided sources like tax expert Charles Adams’ 2 books on the subject. "

You keep yammering "Charles Adams, Charles Adams, Charles Adams..." as if the name by itself were some kind of argument.
It's not, but I went back to see if you'd actually posted anything from your Charles Adams, and found two posts, #157 from DiogenesLamp with some pretty good numbers and your post # 211 with just nonsense.
All other mentions of "Charles Adams" provided us with no data whatsoever.

But what about DiogenesLamp's post #157 to SoCal Pubbie?
Well, at least those are numbers we can work with, so let's start here:

Your DiogenesLamp/Charles Adams report says 1859 total US exports were $279 million.
I have two reports (here and here, page 605) one from a 1960 study the other US commerce department, which put 1859 ($357 million) or 1860 ($398 million & $373 million) exports considerably higher, including specie.
Of that DL/Adams puts cotton at $161 million in 1859, 58% of the total, while other sources put 1860 cotton at $191 million = 48% or 51%.

DL/Adams puts tobacco at $21 million in 1859, another source gives us $19 million in 1860.
DL/Adams puts naval stores at $3 million in 1859, another gives us $2 million in 1860.
DL/Adams puts rice at $2 million in 1859, others say $2.5 million in 1860.
So up to this point, DL/Adams seems to be at least in line with other reports.

But then seems to go completely nuts, larding on undefined or ill-defined "Southern products" that make no sense:
Undefined "other" = $10 million.
Mfg cotton = $8 million.
Breadstuffs = $36 million
Specie = $58 million (20% "Southern" = $11 million).

Added together, DL/Adams comes to $252 million or 90% of 1859 total US exports!
And this seems to be the source of all the nonsense we've seen here about it.

What it tells us is that possibly Adams and likely those who used his data were not being entirely honest.
So if we remove breadstuff & specie from "Southern products" that gets us back to 73%.
If we use the total exports from other reports ($357 million), that reduces "Southern products" to 57%.
If we more realistically allocate manufactured cotton and the undefined "other" that gets us to 55%, which begins to sound more realistic.

However, even 55% is way too much "Southern products" because what we're really talking about here are Confederate exports, and those turned out not to include much tobacco.
Of the $21 million shown, only $3 million came from the Confederacy, the rest, $18 million, was Union tobacco.
And that reduces the value of Confederate-Southern products to 50%, which is about right.

Indeed, in 1861 when nearly all Confederate exports were eliminated, US exports fell only 35%, telling us that except for cotton, alleged "Southern products" could actually grow pretty much anywhere.

FLT-bird on "unfair spending": "No they didn’t. Not even close.
And they were paying the vast majority of the tariffs so it was doubly unfair."

The actual data we have says otherwise.

FLT-bird on Confederate tariffs: "Wrong, they set the maximum initially as a revenue tariff...ie 10% maximum.
They were forced due to the needs of war to raise more revenue to defend themselves and thus had to raise it."

In fact, there were two Confederate acts setting tariffs, the first on March 15, 1861 set Confederate rates at 15%, covering especially iron for railroads.
The second act passed on May 21, 1861 had several rates. which (see this document) resembled the pre-Morrill Union tariffs and averaged 12.5%.
Had that truly been a serious threat to Union commerce, the quick & easy response would be to return Union tariffs to their pre-Morrill rates.

FLT-bird quoting: "....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. -- New York Evening Post March 12, 1861 article..."

So, after this NY Post article, on March 15 Confederates passed their first tariff, set at 15% on most items, including rail parts.
But merchants landing in Savanah for shipment to, say, Chicago would pay tariffs twice, in addition to at least 25% higher rail freight costs versus landing in New York.

In the second Confederate tariff, dated May 21, 1861 rates were set at 15%, 10%, 5% and zero.
In the case of railroad iron, that rate was still 15%, not 10%.
Of course, 15% was less than the Union's 24% pre-Morrill and 30% Morrill rate.
But why would anyone pay tariffs twice plus extra shipping?

Furthermore, by 1860 the US was producing most of its own rail, so why would anyone import it?

FLT-bird on the Morrill tariff: "Yes it DID pass after the Southern delegation withdrew but it was GOING TO pass anyway.
The only difference between it becoming law or not was 1-2 Senators.
They could have easily picked off 1-2 Senators."

You keep posting that, but it's still not true.
In 1860 Senate Democrats ruled with 38 votes to 25 for Republicans, and Southerners ruled Democrats, among other ways through seniority and chairmanships, including the finance committee.
Of those 38 Senate Democrats, 28 (74%) were Southerners, plus two Southern American party, meant they needed only four of ten Northern or Western Democrats to join them.
Considering that 14 Northern House Democrats voted "no", that seems pretty doable, had Southerners made the effort.

Further, I've always argued the House itself in 1860 could have defeated Morrill, if Southerners had remained united, because there were enough abstentions plus Border Democrats to make a majority opposed.

So there was nothing inevitable about Morrill until secessionists walked out.

FLT-bird on who owned imports: "I never said “all”.
I said Southerners were doing most of the exporting and importing.
This has amply been demonstrated by all sources."

There's no data anywhere which says who physically owned US imports when they arrived in, say, New York -- Southerners, Northerners or foreigners? -- and therefore directly paid the tariffs.
However, the 1846 Warehousing Act allowed merchants to bond imports without paying their tariff until buyers were found.
This meant that, in effect, ultimate buyers paid the tariffs, not Southern exporters except where they themselves purchased an import item after the tariff was paid.

FLT-bird: "NY serviced Southern exports....everything from Factors to Bankers to Insurers to Shipbuilders, to Shipping Companies."

Far be it from me to defend DiogenesLamp's arguments, but he claims those New York merchants & financiers were not Southern and therefore they were evil and had to be eliminated through secession.
That's his whole argument.

Now if you tell us New Yorkers weren't really that wicked after all (which I agree with) then I'm confused as to why secession was needed to eliminate them.

FLT-bird: "The numbers DO support what I’ve said.
So do the newspapers.
So do commentators....and from all sides.
Cotton alone was 60% of US exports. "

Noooo... Cotton alone was 50% of US exports, including specie.
But nothing else classified by some as "Southern products" was exclusive to the South.
Once again consider the South's #2 export, tobacco.
It also grew in Northern states (i.e., PA & OH), Union Border states (KY & MO) and Unionist regions of Confederate states (TN & VA) such that tobacco fell only 14% when Confederate exports were removed from Union totals in 1861.
Similar results with every other "Southern product" except cotton.

FLT-bird: "I’ve already explained why one year - particularly the first year of the conflict - is not a reliable indicator of where goods came from. eg.
There are things like warehouses in which goods are stored after all.
Sometimes those goods aren’t produced in the same year they are exported....."

Understood, and that explains why cotton exports fell only 80% in 1861 -- the pipeline was full and with higher prices any random bales were scarfed up & sold.
Got it.
But it can't possibly explain why the #2 export, tobacco fell only 14% or why clover seed nearly doubled and hops exports grew from $33,000 to $2,000,000 in one year!
Clearly those commodities were mis-classified as "Southern products" when they were nothing of the sort.

FLT-bird: "Missouri seceded by the way."

Only in Confederate wet dreams, along with Kentucky, Maryland & Delaware.

FLT-bird: "Most Southern states left so there’s not much of a difference between 'Southern' and 'Confederate'.
There are reams of data and numerous commentators on all sides openly saying the Southern states provided the overwhelming majority of all exports."

Turned out in 1861 there was a huge difference between "Southern" and "Confederate" products.
For one thing, of the South's 8 million whites, nearly 3 million lived in four Border States which refused to secede.
Another 600,000+ Unionists lived in Upper South states (especially WVA & E Tenn) in 1861 and Union controlled regions increased every year after.
So even after Fort Sumter in April 1861, nearly half of Southerners were not Confederates so their exports were not Confederate products.

FLT-bird: "Sorry but you do not know better than what observers at the time on all sides and even foreign countries were saying nor do I trust the one year’s worth of data you have compiled over what other economic historians like Charles Beard and Charles Adams have shown."

But all your observers in the 1850s knew nothing of what would happen in 1861, when push came to shove and their true classifications of what was really Confederate and what was actually Union came out.
Turned out in reality a lot of so-called "Southern products" were actually Union grown.

FLT-bird on alleged unequal Fed spending: "ah but we have data that does show it and I have provided those sources.
It shows the North got about 75-80% of federal spending."

Ah, but you've provided no sources to show any such thing, certainly not in terms of over all, long-term Federal spending.

FLT-bird: "Your claim that Northerners did whatever Southerners told them to do because they happened to be Democrats is laughable.
Its irrational and you have no evidence to support it."

OK, first look up the word "doughface", it's here.
Next look up President Buchanan's role in the Dred Scott decision, here.

Doughfaced Democrat Buchanan's role in Dred Scott made him the best friend the slave-power ever had in Washington, DC.

And that's plenty enough for now...

1. The fact that trade did not fall as much as you claim it should have after 1861 shows that while the Confederates may have THOUGHT that New York was going to be cut out of a very lucrative income stream, in fact they were not.

So that 230 million dollars per year of Trade produced by the South just disappeared into thin air?

You aren't getting this. I guess it's too complicated for you to understand that without the blockade, that 230 million trade with Europe would have continued and it would have steered the trade traffic to the South.

You try to use the evidence of what did happen (with a blockade) to reassure what you want to believe about what would have happened. (without the blockade.)

No war, no Blockade, The South eats New York alive. That's why the power structure of New York and Washington DC absolutely needed a war. Without a war, they were in serious economic trouble.

That 230 million dollars per year in trade didn't vanish. It was forcibly suppressed by Union Warships stopping it.

He was from Pennsylvania, wasn't he? If he had been from the South, he would have probably ordered Anderson back to Washington.

BroJoeK has already explained it. “Southern” and “Confederate” were not the same.

And I don’t think it’s nice to accuse Southerners of being so dumb that mean old Mr. Lincoln could manipulate them into secession so easy just so New Yorkers could keep they’re money flowing. I do declare you must take them for country bumpkins!

BroJoeK is constantly grasping for straws to beat back the inconvenient truth. This assertion is just another one of those straws.

But thankfully he has a lot of true believers who really really want to believe, and they don't notice any problems with his spiel.

Now you have demonstrated yourself to be a dishonest debater. You do not address the point put forth to you, and instead run off into the weeds at every opportunity.

When we started this exchange, You didn't know that the South was producing the vast bulk of all the European wealth entering this country. Now that you finally know about it, you ignore the significance of this, because it absolutely works against your position.

That money flow would not have disappeared (without force to stop it.) That money flow would have simply changed it's destination, and therein is the motive for the war.

Were you not wedded to believing a particular thing, you could see it. I suspect you do see it, but don't want to admit it.

Post #570 is what you get for being nice to this fool.

FLT-bird on Southern rule in Washington, DC: "No in fact the evidence refutes it.
Its a ridiculous claim
The Southern states were in the minority.
They did not control the federal government - far from it."

Southerners were the majority of the majority Democrats.
For example, in 1860 Democrats were the Senate majority with 38 votes to Republicans 28.
Of the 38 Democrats, 28 were Southerners and two more Southern American party.
To win a majority Southerners needed only stand united and win over four more of ten Northern Doughfaced Democrats.
And with slave-holder Presidents like Harrison, Polk & Taylor, plus Doughfaces like Pierce & Buchanan, winning over a few Northern Democrats should not be a big challenge.

FLT-bird: "Oh but there WAS a Corwin Amendment.
Lincoln offered it in his inaugural address if only the 7 seceding states would return.
They rejected it."

There was no "offer", no "rejection" and no "orchestration".
Here's what Lincoln said in his First Inaugural:

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which amendment, however, I have not seen, has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service.
To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

FLT-bird, did Davis need Virginia? : "He didn’t need Virginia.
The original 7 seceding states were happy to go on their way without Virginia."

No? If Virginia was unimportant, why did Confederates move the capital to Richmond at the first opportunity?
Only with Virginia came the entire Upper South, adding 1/3 to the Confederacy's square miles and more than doubling its white population, plus important manufacturing in Tennessee (Cumberland Iron works) and Richmond (Tredegar).
And all Davis had to do to win Virginia was fire a few canon shots at Fort Sumter.
Who could say "no" to such a deal?

FLT-bird referring to nothing: "This puts the lie to your claim that Davis was the one who needed a war.
He didn’t want one and made that clear.
He was perfectly happy to depart in peace.
It was Lincoln who needed a war and who started one. Deliberately."

Sorry, but Confederates never "departed in peace".
From Day One they provoked war with constant seizures of Federal properties (forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc.), threats against Federal officials, firing on Union ships and in Texas, forced surrender of Union troops.
As for Davis, of course he needed war, and threatened it in his inaugural:

"If a just perception of mutual interest shall permit us peaceably to pursue our separate political career, my most earnest desire will have been fulfilled.
But, if this be denied to us, and the integrity of our territory and jurisdiction be assailed, it will but remain for us, with firm resolve, to appeal to arms and invoke the blessings of Providence on a just cause."

No talk of negotiations, for Davis it was: war first, talk maybe... never.
Nor did Davis limit his threats of war to land:

"should we be involved in war... common interest of the producer and consumer can only be interrupted by an exterior force which should obstruct its transmission to foreign markets -- a policy so detrimental... there will remain to us... the well-known resources for retaliation upon the commerce of an enemy."

On Day One, weeks before Lincoln's inauguration, Davis threatened war on land & sea.
And Lincoln's response:

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war.
The government will not assail you.
You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors."

Lincoln did not think his resupply mission to Fort Sumter "assailed" Davis, but Davis disagreed and launched war to prevent it.
As a reward for war Davis received four new states into the Confederacy and doubled its white population.

FLT-bird: "Lincoln sent a heavily armed flotilla to invade South Carolina’s territorial waters WITHOUT the consent of Congress."

Just as President Jackson did in response to the nullification crisis of 1830.
But there was no "invade" in it, any more than routine US resupply missions to Guantanamo Cuba.
If unhindered it was a resupply mission only, just as Lincoln told SC Governor Pickens.

FLT-bird: [Lincoln] "called up 75,000 volunteers to invade the Southern States BEFORE the CSA declared war and prepared to defend itself against this invasion."

Right, after Fort Sumter, on April 15, to retake Federal properties unlawfully seized by Confederates.
But remember: on March 6, 1861 Confederates called up a 100,000 man army, at a time when the entire Union army was about 16,000 men, most scattered in small forts out west.
By April 15 this new Confederate army was already in use against Union troops at Forts Pickens & Sumter and in Texas to guard captured Union troops.

On May 9 Confederates called up another 400,000 troops (now 500,000 total), so there was no time in the early months when Confederate armies did not hugely outnumber the Union's.

FLT-bird: "First there was a violation of the compact by the Northern states when they actively hindered the return of fugitive slaves acting against federal agents."

One more time: just as today we don't declare "secession" over, say, California's sanctuary laws, neither was it appropriate to use Fugitive slaves as their pretext in 1861.
Had the matter been seriously important to the Southerners who ruled Washington, DC, they could simply have enforced the 1850 Compromise more vigorously.
Indeed, doesn't this contradict your claims that it was not all about "slavery, slavery, slavery"?

FLT-bird "Second Lincoln openly offered the Corwin Amendment to the original 7 seceding states.
Its right there in his inaugural address.
Try reading it some time."

I quoted it above!
It does not say what you repeatedly claim.

FLT-bird on Georgia's reasons: "Nah, they went on at length about all the bounties paid to Northern interests at Southern expense."

Sorry, one paragraph in 14 is not "at length", it's a brief mention, in passing.
Furthermore, it was total nonsense, since "bounties" available anywhere were available everywhere to anyone who qualified.
Finally, "at Southern expense" was a Big Lie as conclusively demonstrated in 1861.

FLT-bird on Georgia's reasons: "No they were very clear that the slavery issue was being used to further the interests of those Northerners interested in jacking tariff rates back up 'each side began casting about for new allies' "

Right, thus demonstrating yet again that slavery was the core issue for Deep South secessionists.

BJK previously: "It takes a special kind of self-imposed blindness not to see that 13 of 14 paragraphs in the Georgia reasons are devoted to slavery.
Only one paragraph is devoted to all other reasons."

FLT-bird: "So you admit it was not 'all about'.
Good! You could have just said that from the start and saved a lot of time."

Sure, 13 of 14 paragraphs is 93% "all about" slavery.
I'd happily grant that for some secessionists in early 1861 it was only 93% "about slavery".
But for many more it was 100% "all about" slavery.

FLT-bird on Lee in Texas: "But that’s horsecrap.
The 2nd in command of one of the regiments is entirely to blame? LOL!"

No, here is a brief summary of Lee's work in Texas.
It says in 1855 Congress authorized Secretary of War Jefferson Davis four new regiments (regiment = ~1,000 men = five squadrons of cavalry) to help defend Texas, and Lee was second in command behind Albert S. Johnson.
Lee was in direct command of one regiment in June 1856 which rode 1,600 miles in 40 days, from Fort Mason through Llano Estacado and captured three Comanches.
In 1860 Lee chased the "banditti" Juan N. Cortina, but didn't catch him.

From this report, which is entirely laudatory towards Lee, one gets the impression that he really didn't do much in Texas between 1856 and secession in 1861.
And certainly Texans didn't think much of that gang of Union officers who was supposed to protect them from "Indian savages" and "banditti".
Those implied included not just Johnson & Lee, but a long list who became well known in just a few years.

FLT-bird on Lee in Texas: "Texas made it quite clear they had received insufficient resources from the federal govt for defending the border.
You then try to twist that to somehow blame not even the commander but the 2nd in command....of one of the brigades.
Yep, irrational hatred on your part.
Gosh, why might you be so focused on trying to blame one of the junior officers for this mission?
Just the standard lies from PC Revisionists."

Nonsense because, first of all, those resources were considered totally adequate by the Secretary of War who requested them, Jefferson Davis.
Second, Lee as second in command was hardly a "junior officer", so as Hamlet's mother, Queen Gertrude, said to Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Third, in fact there were more than a dozen future-famous officers serving with Lee & Johnson, some of whom, like Thomas, became renowned in the Union army.

So, sure, Lee gets to share the blame with many other worthy's, starting with Jefferson Davis who organized the mission, but it's still most curious that Texans thought so little of the army's performance they made it an issue in declaring secession.

FLT-bird on "Another cause in the train of abuses...very similar to the Declaration of Independence in listing a train of abuses."

The 1776 Declaration of Independence lists about two dozen reasons, none specifically involved slavery.
The 1861 Texas "reasons for secession" document has 22 paragraphs, 19 of which specifically involve slavery.
None mention tariffs, taxes, duties, bounties, or protections for Northern industries.

FLT-bird on Texas reasons: "They don’t talk about one of the 2nds in command of one of the brigades.
This is a lie on your part."

No, they indict the entire effort, which would include Jefferson Davis, Lee, Johnson & many other future-famous officers, Confederate & Union.
The Big Lie here is your refusal to confess the real source of Texans' unhappiness: other Southerners.

FLT-bird on Texas reasons: "They list a train of abuses INCLUDING refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause....INCLUDING sending terrorists into the South to cause death and destruction.
Is that about slavery? No Yes.
Its about the irrational hatred the North had for the South and how the Southern states could no longer live with them."

Fixed it.
Of course it was all about slavery, and very little else, especially including John Brown's raid.
As for "irrational hatred", that's just your own inner Democrat crying out, as Democrats always do, to project on others their own mental state.

FLT-bird defending Rhett: "Nah, he used the best and strongest argument first - sectional partisan legislation which drained money out of the South and lined Northerners’ pockets.
He was wordy about the North’s bad faith on the slavery issue but he laid out the North’s bad faith and economic exploitation first."

Your suggestion that Rhett was himself more concerned about other issues than slavery is fully noted and rejected.
But certainly the Upper South & Border states were less concerned about slavery than other issues, so it's likely Rhett intended to address their concerns first.

Regardless, in the overall picture, Fire Eater Rhett was less important than others like Georgia's Alexander Stephens, Confederate Vice President, who made 100% clear:

"Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition.
This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.[1]...

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions -- African slavery as it exists among us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.
This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split."
He was right.
What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact..."

FLT-bird "The fact remains that this is BS.
They listed a variety of causes ranging from the tariffs to unequal federal government expenditures to refusal to provide border security to sending terrorists into the South to kill to refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution.
The overarching theme is the bad faith of the Northern states."

Sure, "bad faith" first, last and foremost relating to slavery.
No other issue, singly or combined, had remotely enough power to drive Southerners to secession.

And that's enough for now...

We’ve long since passed the point at which we are just repeating ourselves for the 20th or 15th time now. We’re never gonna to agree and it’s not worth spending literally hours each day to repeat ourselves again. Anybody who is interested can read this thread and see a variety of different quotes and sources for each POV and decide for himself what he thinks to be true.

I’m a glutton for punishment.

Lincoln-Douglas Debates

FLT-bird: "We’re never gonna to agree and it’s not worth spending literally hours each day to repeat ourselves again."

Believe me, I enjoy every minute of it, learn something new with each post and only thank God for the extra time it takes and for a sparring partner not easily discouraged, sir.

As time permits I'll continue to work down the list issues.
Please feel no obligation to respond, and don't be surprised if/when my free time suddenly disappears and I'm gone from the thread.

Have a great day, sir.

FLT-bird: "Lincoln said on the campaign trail and over and over again that he had no intention of interfering with slavery.
He even promised to strengthen fugitive slave legislation.
He did that BEFORE South Carolina seceded."

Not true, remember those were quite different times from today.
During the campaign Lincoln remained studiously silent, answering reporters questions by telling them to read his public speeches.
He was very concerned not to say something during the campaign which opponents might twist to use against him.

After the November 6, 1861 election day South Carolina began immediately to organize for declaring secession, and without any reference to Lincoln's actions or words.
Indeed, for many South Carolina Democrats it was totally adequate to say the words: "Ape" Lincoln and his Black Republicans.
That's because Democrats then as now care nothing about logic, reasons or facts, but only emotions and "Ape" Lincoln called up enough emotional revulsion to fuel any number of declarations of secession.

We saw the same Democrat response after the November 8, 2016 election, though this time because Dems still rule the Deep State, they simply employed it to destroy the new big ape in the Washington swamp.
And just as in 1861, it took many months and still not clear if they will succeed.

FLT-bird: "You just blithely CLAIM 'they weren’t going back'.
You don’t know that.
You only know that they did not accept explicit protections of slavery + high tariffs.
You don’t know that they would not have accepted something different....like no tariff hike and equal federal government expenditures for example....because that was never offered."

Of course we do know it because there is no record of any Confederate ever discussing, publicly or privately, possible reunion with the USA, until very late in the war.
We also know there were no offers made to Confederates before February 1865 at Hampton Roads.

Indeed, Jefferson Davis himself, in early 1861, while still in the US Senate was not working on the Morrill Tariff, he was working on his version of the Corwin amendment.
Clearly that should tell us more than anything where Southern concerns lay.
It makes me wonder if Davis' version of Corwin's amendment isn't the "offer" and "rejection" you keep yammering about?

FLT-bird: "Corwin was from Ohio by the way. Nice try."

Of course, near Cleveland, and Ohio was one of very few Northern states to ratify Corwin's amendment, on May 13, 1861.
Ohio withdrew its ratification on March 31, 1864.

FLT-bird: "...Southerners got wealthy earlier since they had valuable exports while the North did not until Midwestern grain starting really in the 1850s.
As we have shown already, Southerners paid most of the tariff burden while most federal government expenditures went to the North.
The North saw fit to use its majority to vote itself other people’s money right from the start."

Complete rubbish.
First, Southerners before 1861 were the majority of the majority Democrat party.
The data shows they protected their own interests quite well, thank you.

So once again I draw your attention to the important distinction between "Southern products" and "Confederate products".
Consider 1839: products of the future Confederacy (cotton & rice) totaled $64 million or 53% of 1839's $121 million total exports.
By 1860 those products totaled $195 million or 49% of $400 million total exports, including specie.
It means: between 1839 and 1860 Confederate products multiplied three times, but so did all other exports -- Western, Eastern and Union South, indeed a bit more than three times.

Second, Southerners paid no more tariff burden than anybody else, since their foreign imports were a small percentage of the totals.
But here is data which takes some study to grasp.
It shows first that Northern "exports" to the South in 1860 were $200 million, in every commodity from fish, soap & woolen goods to stoves and railroad iron.
So, whenever you're tempted to say, "the North produced squat", well... $200 million in "squat" for the South along with several times that for their own use.

It also attempts to show US 1860 import tariffs and how much of them were paid by North vs. South.
The results are not satisfying, but it does suggest that virtually all US imports in 1860 were bulk raw materials such as woolens, brown sugar, raw cotton, silks, iron & iron manufactured, coffee, molasses, flax & hemp, tea & wines, in that order of importance -- woolens most, wines the least.
Point is, any suggestions that Southerners "paid for" 80% or even 50% of these imports are clearly nonsense, since they would need, at most 25%.
The rest had to be paid for by people outside the South.

FLT-bird: "Charles Adams and Charles Beard are very clear on the statistics.
You should read them."

I read the statistics posted by DiogenesLamp in post #157.
See my response in post #566.

FLT-bird: "You obviously haven’t read even the nauseating hagiographies of his supporters like Doris Kearns-Goodwin who praises him for orchestrating it.
He was the president elect.
He was the de facto leader of the party.
This did not happen without his knowledge, approval or support."

I've read plenty of other books which accurately say Corwin was "orchestrated", passed & signed under Democrat President Buchanan.
If Lincoln "orchestrated" anything it was the states' refusal to ratify Corwin.
And Corwin was never "offered" to or "rejected" by Confederate states, only Union states like Kentucky and Maryland.

FLT-bird: "The Corwin Amendment was the offer to the Southern states.
They turned it down."

FLT-bird: "Where was the offer made?
In his inaugural address. Duh.
Try reading it some time."

Complete Lost Causer wet dream fantasies.

FLT-bird: "Oh and Lee did not even lead one of the only 3 brigades sent to Texas.
He was 2nd in command of one brigade but don’t let that stop you from spewing hate at him. LOL!"

No "hate" from me, only from Texans in early 1861.
As posted previously, Lee was second in command of four new regiments sent to Texas by Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis, in 1856.
Lee directly commanded a cavalry regiment chasing Indians for 40 days over 1,600 miles near Llano Estacado, returning with three captured Comanches.
Lee also chased banditti including Juan N. Cortina in 1860 but never caught him.

Of course Texans never mentioned Lee by name, but everybody then knew who all the officers were in charge of Jefferson Davis' Texas regiments.

FLT-bird: "Oh and Southerners did not dominate Washington DC.
They were in the minority.
Claims that they dominated it are nothing more than your fantasies based on laughable claims that Northern Democrats followed orders from Southerners because they were Democrats."

Yet again: Southerners were the majority of the majority Democrats and their Doughfaced Northern Democrat allies certainly did often "follow orders", because that's just what it meant to be a Democrat then.
But if you doubt me on this, then simply consider Democrats today: who is hurt worst by their insane immigration ideas?
The poor and black poor especially, and yet there are no more loyal Democrats today than blacks.
So don't tell me that Southern Democrats before 1861 couldn't force their Northern Doughfaces to follow orders.
Democrats are nothing if not disciplined.

FLT-bird: "The fact that the Southern states did not return when offered slavery forever... "

Once again: Confederate states were offered nothing in 1861.
Yes, at Hampton Roads in February 1865, compensated emancipation was discussed, but Jefferson Davis would have none of it.
Of course by then, Davis was nearly insane and becoming, ahem, gender challenged.

FLT-bird: "I never said non slave holders couldn’t have lived near slave holders.
I said you fail to take into account that in slave holding families, often more than one person in the family owned slaves. Furthermore you make this 'calculation' because you wish to maximize the number of families directly involved with slaveowning because that suits your anti-Southern agenda..."

And you wish to minimize slave-holding in the Deep South through ludicrous calculations averaging in Upper South & Border State figures and pretending that every slave-holder lived in isolation with no family, friends or neighbors nearby, also invested in slavery's success.
It's total nonsense.

The most important point from these calculations is that while Deep South states had from 1/3 to 1/2 slaveholding families, in Border States it was far less -- in Delaware only 3% of families owned slaves, and that explains fully why they refused to secede.
So it was all about slavery.

FLT-bird: "How much does that lower it to?
20% instead of 25%? 15%?
It is unknown exactly but regardless the overwhelming majority of Southerners did not own slaves."

True enough in Border States where at least 85% of families did not own slaves, and in the Upper South where on average 75% did not have slaves.
But even in those states there were regions of much higher slave ownership, and those regions supplied their sons to the Confederate army.
Where slave ownership was less, there many more served the Union army.
But the Deep Cotton South was much different and slaveholding much higher.

FLT-bird on Missourians: "They didn’t exactly have the opportunity for a free and fair vote.
Missouri was mostly occupied from early on."

Missourians certainly did vote against secession, free & fair, 99-1 on March 19, 1861, despite Missouri's governor's best efforts to encourage secession.
But after the May 6, 1861 Confederate declaration of war any "aid and comfort" was defined as treason, so there were no more such votes.

FLT-bird: "Maryland was occupied early on and several members of the state legislature jailed by Lincoln without charge or trial before a vote could be held.
Any votes held after that are not exactly reliable."

Maryland's 53-13 vote against secession came on April 29, 1861 when no legislators were arrested, none.
But after the May 6, 1861 Confederate declaration of war it became a matter of treason to give them "aid and comfort".
So there were no more votes on it.

FLT-bird: "Lincoln’s call up of invaders was a de facto declaration of war."

Only if Jefferson Davis' orders to prepare for and then assault Fort Sumter were also "defacto" declarations of war.
Sure, we can "defacto" all day long, but the fact remains that at the time of Confederates' May 6, 1861 declaration of war not a single Confederate soldier had been killed in battle by any Union force and not a single Union army had invaded any Confederate state, nor would it until after Virginians ratified secession and declared war against the United States.

FLT-bird: "The Congress did not approve of him starting the war in the first place by sending a heavily armed flotilla to invade South Carolina’s territorial waters"

Congress approved everything Lincoln did and fully supported his war efforts.

FLT-bird: "Ah so they were 'undesirables' in Lincoln’s mind.
Of course many of them were residents of border states and most of them were Democrats - ie his political opponents.
No surprise there."

According to the US Constitution (you should read it someday), when an enemy wages war against the USA, "aid and comfort" are not matters of "undesirables" but of treason.
Big difference.

FLT-bird quoting on Davis & habeas corpus: "During most of that time he exercised this power more sparingly than did his counterpart in Washington. "

Still, there was the small matter of 3,000 East Tennessee Unionists arrested & held without trial, a percentage of the Confederate population equivalent to Lincoln's arrests.
And that's not to mention events like the Shelton Laurel massacre in Western NC.
So don't tell me Confederates treated their opposition better than Lincoln did.

FLT-bird: "It was offered.
Anybody who reads Lincoln’s inaugural address can see that this was the offer made to the original 7 seceding states to return."

No "offer", no "rejection".
So repeat that as often as you like, it's still nothing more than Lost Causer wet dream fantasy.

FLT-bird: "Over time, Industrialization kills off slavery.
This is exactly what happened in the Northern states and throughout the Western world over the course of the 19th century.
It was already killing off slavery in the Upper South as the figures I posted show (lower percentage of families owned slaves, higher percentage of Blacks were freedmen, etc)."

More Lost Causer wet dream fantasy, in this case reversing the true cause & effect.
In the North, which had few slaves to begin with, slavery was abolished first, then came industrialization.
In Border States it wasn't industrialization killing off slavery, it was 1) very high prices for Deep South slaves made slavery unprofitable in Border States and 2) they were so close to Northern free states that many slave-holders promised their slaves freedom in exchange for so many years of faithful service.
Over time that created a huge population of freed slaves in states like Maryland and Delaware.

The fact is that industrialization was completely compatible with slavery, as the 50% slaves working at Richmond's Tredegar Iron works amply demonstrates.

FLT-bird: "It is not a coincidence that Slavery which had existed since before writing suddenly died all over the place in the western world from Russia to the Americas over the course of about 75 years in the 19th century.
Its not like people suddenly and magically became more moral in country after country.
You can’t possibly be that naive."

Oh, but that's exactly what happened, with increasing literacy more people read their bibles and learned its opposition to slavery (i.e., Exodus).
In the North, first came religious revival, then came abolitionism.

As for Russia, their serfs were a different situation and "freedom" meant far less than in countries where freed men voted.

FLT-bird: "It was ALL ABOUT money and you know it, you just don’t want to admit imperial Washington was fighting for grubby motives like war and empire."

Only in the same sense that's true of, for example, the Second World War.
But money alone does not drive nations to war, else WWII would have started for the US in, say, 1930, because of the Great Depression.
So Lost Causers' focus on "money, money, money" is nothing more than your typical inner Democrat accusing others of the very things you are most guilty of.

FLT-bird: "The parties today are nothing like the parties of 150 years ago.
Its ridiculous to even try to compare them."

They are much more like their political ancestors than you want to confess.
Acorns, even political acorns, don't fall far from their trees.

Here are some fun quotes I found for everyone to enjoy!

“The South went to war on account of slavery. South Carolina went to war, as she said in her secession proclamation, because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was the cause for her seceding.“

“Now while I think as badly of slavery as Horace Greeley did I am not ashamed that my family were slaveholders. It was our inheritance. Neither am I ashamed that my ancestors were pirates and cattle thieves... People must be judged by the standard of their own age. If it was right to own slaves as property it was right to fight for it.”

“I’ve always understood that we went to war on account of the thing we quarreled with the north about. I’ve never heard of any other cause of quarrel than slavery.”

Colonel John S. Mosby
Commander, 43rd Battalion, Virginia Cavalry, Confederate States Army

I don't see any financial numbers in your response. It's about money. It's always about money. The "It's about slavery!" dodge is just an attempt to cover up the fact that it was about money.

What do you mean there were no numbers in my response! Now 43 isn’t a number?

By the way it wasn’t a response.