Its laughable BS to think they did not see that industrialization was the way things were going in the world by 1860"
Sure, and I'll believe that when you find a quote from a leading Confederate in early 1861 who says essentially what you did in post #212:
- "The South just wanted to industrialize on its own terms and not have to pay for somebody else’s industrialization."
I don't believe industrialization was their goal at all, just the opposite, they wanted to remain as they were, mostly agrarian.
I base this on the famous 1861 quote from Texas Senator Lois Wigfall to the Times of London correspondent:
- "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."
Remember, Wigfall was a leading Fire Eater pushing the South towards secession, so his opinion here would count more than somebody else's (i.e., Senator Davis) who apparently sat back & let events unfold until asked to lead the Confederacy.
BJK post #208: "What’s not true is the claim that Federal spending went disproportionately to the North.
It didn’t."
FLT-bird #212: "Yes it did."
BJK post #218: "Only in the propaganda from certain Southern sympathizers."
FLT-bird #212: "The denial is only from Northern sympathizers and PC Revisionists."
IOW, truth tellers. ;-)
OK, here's what we know for certain: some Southerners claimed there was too much Federal spending in the North, but the only real data on that comes from a 1928 book by John van Deusen, "Economic bases of Disunion in South Carolina".
The data shows that in the 1830s spending favored the South, in the 1840s it favored the North and in the 1850s both equally.
Of course, if you select out any particular category and ignore all others, you can make any case you wish, which seems to me what our antebellum secessionists were doing.
FLT-bird: "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."
What's insane here is your total refusal to see US politics in terms of political parties -- i.e., Democrats, Whigs, Republicans, etc.
And yet it was parties, not geographic regions, who elected presidents, Congresses and selected Supreme Court justices.
For over 150 years, beginning around 1800, Democrats were the party of the Solid South, and when they ruled in Washington, DC, it was with Northern Democrat allies who supported the South's agenda.
And the fact that Southerners dominated the Democrats can be seen clearly in 1860 when Southerners walked out of their Democrat party convention rather than submit to Northern Democrat policies.
FLT-bird: "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...' "
Nobody disputes the fact that Southerners frequently tried to increase their influence on Congress by threatening secession over bills they didn't like.
And it worked!
That's why they called their Northern Democrat allies "Doughfaced", because whenever the Slavepower shook its fists in Congress, Northern Doughfaces came running to appease them.
And when Northerners actually stood up for themselves in Congress... well, that's what the 1856 Sumner-Brooks Affair was all about.
FLT-bird: "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."
Which is why Southerners demanded and received some of the lowest tariff rates in the world.
Note declining tariff rates from 1830 to 1860:
FLT-bird: "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..."
A most curious claim, since cotton was also grown in Texas, Tennessee, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia.
But cotton's total was 50%, not two thirds, and nearly every other commodity claimed as "Southern products" was also produced outside the Deep South, and much of it outside the Confederate South altogether.
We know this from the 1861 effects of eliminating Confederate exports from US totals.
We should also note here that the one-eight representation from the six listed states is considerably more than the one-tenth of free-white citizens who lived there.
Those states were over represented in Congress.
FLT-bird: "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."
Total hyperbole, rubbish & nonsense, since 1776 Americans had zero representation in Britain's parliament, while 1860 Southern Democrats were overrepresented and had ruled in Washington, DC, along with their Northern Democrat allies, since 1800.
So there was no legitimate comparison between 1776 colonists and 1860 secessionists.
FLT-bird: "and as has already been discussed, the facts show that federal government expenditures for corporate subsidies and 'internal improvements' massively favored the Northern states."
And as it has already been refuted, since the facts say otherwise.
FLT-bird: "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 data says otherwise.
Deep South cotton made up about 50% of US exports.
Everything else classified as "Southern products" could be and was also produced in other regions.
This was proved conclusively in 1861.
FLT-bird quoting: "...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"
Nobody disputes the fact that some Northern Democrats were damaged economically by secession & Confederacy.
But people like DiogenesLamp here claim such people were really secret Republicans, not Northern Democrats, and as such they were Lincoln's masters, issuing orders for Lincoln to start civil war to save their own businesses.
Sorry, but the facts say otherwise.
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.
The Railways would be supplied from the southern ports.' New York Evening Post March 12, 1861 article 'What Shall be Done for a Revenue?' "
Total hyperbole, even if from an abolitionist newspaper, because the fact remained that any merchant would be a fool to import railroad iron through Savanah for re-export to, say, Chicago, since that would mean paying double duties, first to the Confederacy, then to the US, plus the extra transportation costs from Savanah.
Furthermore, in March 1861, the Union population outnumbered the first seven Confederate states by 10 to one, so there would be no incentive for 90% of imports to use Confederate ports.
FLT-bird quoting: "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"
The first thing we should note is that the Chicago Daily Times did not exist until 1929, so if the quote is legitimate it came from some other source.
So my first suggestion is: before you throw out this quote again, confirm its source & legitimacy.
Second, we know now that's all just nonsense.
Nothing like what this alleged newspaper predicted happened.
Yes, in 1861 cotton exports did decline 80% and that was huge, but all other "Southern exports" declined much less and some even rose substantially, for examples, clover seed and hops.
Of course, then as now, newspapers must grab their readers' attentions and nothing serves to sell more than predictions of doom, no matter how far fetched.
FLT-bird: "No. Referring instead to your BS and propaganda."
Sorry, but in this discussion, all the "BS and propaganda" comes from our Lost Causer FRiends.
We are only here to keep the facts straight.