Replies

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.

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.)

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 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.

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.

This is a PC Revisionist lie. The Lincoln administration and the Northern dominated Congress was only too happy to offer the Corwin Amendment which would have expressly enshrined protection of slavery effectively forever in the US Constitution.

The US Congress then passed a resolution stating that they were not fighting over slavery.

Meanwhile of the 7 original seceding Southern states only 4 issued declarations of causes. Of those 3 of them listed tariffs and unequal federal expenditures along with some added complaints about the failure to provide border security by Texas. THEN Lincoln chose to start a war. THEN 4 and arguably 5 more states seceded. Obviously they were not seceding over slavery but instead over the principle that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed as had been stated in the Declaration of Independence.