FLT-bird:
"Laughable BS.
Most people could see by then that industrialization was the way forward.
All anyone needed to do was look at the world. Those countries that were industrialized were the most powerful and wealthiest.
The South just wanted to industrialize on its own terms and not have to pay for somebody else’s industrialization." Sure, and I'll believe that as soon as you produce a quote from the time of any recognized Southern leader who said as much.
Until then, what you say here is total fantasy, or, dare I say it, "Laughable BS".
FLT-bird: "Yes it did."
Only in the propaganda from certain Southern sympathizers.
FLT-bird: "This is patently absurd.
The North had an equal number of states from the start and later had more - thus more Senators.
The North always had more people - thus more Representatives."
Totally irrelevant.
What matters is that Southern Democrats ruled the national Democrat party which ruled over Washington, DC, almost continuously from 1800 to secession in 1861.
Throughout those years Southern Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, the Presidency, Supreme Court and Military.
And Southerners had a name for those Northern Democrat allies who made their rule in DC possible -- they called them "Doughfaced", and not with affection.
FLT-bird: "To say that Southerners got what they wanted and did not get what they did not want is simply absurd.
From the early high protectionist tariffs to tariffs being on manufactured goods but not raw materials to unequal federal expenditures favoring the Northern states to the Tariff of Abominations to the Morrill Tariff, it was clear the reality was exactly the opposite of what you claim."
Never happened.
The 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" was originally supported by Southerners like John C. Calhoun and Andrew Jackson, while opposed by many New Englanders.
When it passed, then Calhoun announced he'd somehow been tricked and really didn't want it.
But President Jackson kept most of it because he wanted to pay off the national debt -- the only US president to ever do so.
Regardless, over the following years Southern Democrats steadily reduced the Tariff of Abominations until by 1860 tariffs were about as low as they had ever been.
As for alleged "unequal Federal expenditures", the facts say otherwise.
So Southerners always got what they truly wanted, even if it wasn't always instant gratification.
FLT-bird: "Simply false as I laid out above.
The North always had more congressmen and the balance shifted ever further in their favor as time went on."
But what you refuse to "get" is that Congress was not divided by strictly "Northerners" vs. "Southerners".
Rather it was Democrats controlled by Southerners but with many Northern Doughfaced Democrat allies versus mostly Northern Federalists / Whigs / Republicans with very few Southern allies.
That's why Southern Democrats ruled Washington, DC.
FLT-bird: "False.
The South provided the overwhelming bulk of the exports from 1791 right up until 1861.
Only in the last few years did Midwestern grain become a significant export."
False, and the absolute proof of it came in 1861 when all products from the Confederate South were deleted from Union exports, especially cotton, whose exports fell 80% that year.
But overall exports fell only 35% and some alleged "Southern products" (i.e., clover seed & hops)actually increased significantly in 1861.
Typical was the second largest export crop -- tobacco.
With Confederate products deleted, tobacco exports fell only 14%.
It tells us all that yammering about "Southern products paying for Federal government" was just propaganda stuff & nonsense.
FLT-bird: "Total BS on both counts."
Referring to your own arguments, of course.
![]()
Sure, and I’ll believe that as soon as you produce a quote from the time of any recognized Southern leader who said as much.
Until then, what you say here is total fantasy, or, dare I say it, “Laughable BS”.
Davis repeatedly talked about the South “and their industry” and how the money being bled out of the South slowed down economic development in the Southern states. Its laughable BS to think they did not see that industrialization was the way things were going in the world by 1860
Only in the propaganda from certain Southern sympathizers.
The denial is only from Northern sympathizers and PC Revisionists.
Totally irrelevant.
What matters is that Southern Democrats ruled the national Democrat party which ruled over Washington, DC, almost continuously from 1800 to secession in 1861.
Throughout those years Southern Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, the Presidency, Supreme Court and Military.
And Southerners had a name for those Northern Democrat allies who made their rule in DC possible — they called them “Doughfaced”, and not with affection.
Laughable propaganda and BS to claim that the North which had more representatives was ruled over in the federal government by the South which had fewer....especially in light of how federal economic policy consistently took money from Southern states and transferred it to Northern states via the Tariff and federal expenditures.
Never happened.
The 1828 “Tariff of Abominations” was originally supported by Southerners like John C. Calhoun and Andrew Jackson, while opposed by many New Englanders.
When it passed, then Calhoun announced he’d somehow been tricked and really didn’t want it.
But President Jackson kept most of it because he wanted to pay off the national debt — the only US president to ever do so.
Regardless, over the following years Southern Democrats steadily reduced the Tariff of Abominations until by 1860 tariffs were about as low as they had ever been.
As for alleged “unequal Federal expenditures”, the facts say otherwise.
So Southerners always got what they truly wanted, even if it wasn’t always instant gratification.
Most certainly did happen.
George McDuffie of South Carolina stated in the House of Representatives, “If the union of these states shall ever be severed, and their liberties subverted, historians who record these disasters will have to ascribe them to measures of this description. I do sincerely believe that neither this government, nor any free government, can exist for a quarter of a century under such a system of legislation.” While the Northern manufacturer enjoyed free trade with the South, the Southern planter was not allowed to enjoy free trade with those countries to which he could market his goods at the most benefit to himself. Furthermore, while the six cotton States — South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas — had less than one-eighth of the representation in Congress, they furnished two-thirds of the exports of the country, much of which was exchanged for imported necessities. Thus, McDuffie noted that because the import tariff effectively hindered Southern commerce, the relation which the Cotton States bore to the protected manufacturing States of the North was now the same as that which the colonies had once borne to Great Britain; under the current system, they had merely changed masters.
and as has already been discussed, the facts show that federal government expenditures for corporate subsidies and “internal improvements” massively favored the Northern states.
False, and the absolute proof of it came in 1861 when all products from the Confederate South were deleted from Union exports, especially cotton, whose exports fell 80% that year.
But overall exports fell only 35% and some alleged “Southern products” (i.e., clover seed & hops)actually increased significantly in 1861.
Typical was the second largest export crop — tobacco.
With Confederate products deleted, tobacco exports fell only 14%.
It tells us all that yammering about “Southern products paying for Federal government” was just propaganda stuff & nonsense.
False. As has been shown by numerous quotes from both sides as well as foreign observers as well as Tax Expert Charles Adams. The South provided the overwhelming majority of exports.
“The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more than all other trade. It is very clear the South gains by this process and we lose. No, we must not let the South go.” The Manchester, New Hampshire Union Democrat Feb 19 1861
That either revenue from these duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed, the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up. We shall have no money to carry on the government, the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe....allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten percent which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York. The Railways would be supplied from the southern ports.” New York Evening Post March 12, 1861 article “What Shall be Done for a Revenue?”
December 1860, before any secession, the Chicago Daily Times foretold the disaster that Southern free ports would bring to Northern commerce: “In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwide trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow.”Chicago Daily Times Dec 1860
Referring to your own arguments, of course.
No. Referring instead to your BS and propaganda.