FLT-bird:
"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" 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.
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:
Ridiculous. The overwhelming majority could see that industrialization was the way forward by then.
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.
One man does not speak for the entire South. Maybe he had no desire to industrialize. It was already underway in the Upper South. Everybody could see that those who had industrialized first in Europe were wealthier and more powerful. Of course most would want that for themselves.
BJK post #208: “What’s not true is the claim that Federal spending went disproportionately to the North.
It didn’t.”
BS. It did and I’ve provided plenty of evidence already showing that.
BJK post #218: “Only in the propaganda from certain Southern sympathizers.”
In reality. I’ve provided plenty of comments from politicians and newspapers and foreign sources showing it.
IOW, truth tellers. ;-)
The exact opposite.....though why does it not surprise me y’all would side with Leftist Wackademics?
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.
You cling desperately to one 1928 book in the face of comments from people at the time in Northern Newspapers, Southern Newspapers, Foreign Newspapers, comments from Southern Political Leaders, the declarations of secession issued by the Southern states and the analysis of a tax expert in the 1990s and others that the North did indeed get far more by way of federal expenditures. Not surprising since to admit the truth would undermine your whole case.
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.
What’s insane is your claim that Southerners could just snap their fingers and make Northern Democrats do their bidding....because they were in the same party. As if Northern politicians were just going to ignore the special interest groups in their regions in favor of an oath of fealty to Southerners which they undertook for, ummm....well I guess you’re still working on that part.
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.
Again ridiculous. The Sumner-Brooks affair happened because Sumner was such an incredible jerk that he was not satisfied with disagreeing with and debating his political opponents, he took to publicly mocking one of them, Andrew Butler, over Butler’s speech impediment due to a recent stroke Butler had suffered. Butler was in ill health and was in no position to defend himself. Brooks was Butler’s cousin and gee surprise surprise, took offense at Sumner for being such a jerk.
Once again your claim that Northern Democrats were nothing more than lackeys to Southern Democrats is just ridiculous.
Which is why Southerners demanded and received some of the lowest tariff rates in the world.
Note declining tariff rates from 1830 to 1860:
Yes as we have previously gone over as part of the compromise which ended the Nullification Crisis brought about by the Tariff of Abominations, the tariff rate was lowered. It was still higher than that of Great Britain, but it was lower....right up until the Northern special interests were about to push through a massive tariff hike in 1861.
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.
Much like the ridiculous claim that the North did not get the overwhelming majority of federal expenditures which one 1920s era book claimed, you cling like grim death to ONE stat in ONE year in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even Northern newspapers at the time admitted that the South was providing the overwhelming majority of total exports. Foreign observers like the English who were trading directly with them said the same. Southerners said the same. Others who have looked at this issue like Charles Adams and Charles Beard have said the same. You inevitably respond with “but but but....1861....so therefore that means the North was producing large amounts of sugar, rice, indigo, tobacco, etc”. Laughable.
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.
Unvarnished truth. The Brits offered the colonies seats in the British Parliament to soothe their concerns about havin no representation. What is rubbish and nonsense is your claim that Southerners had ruled the federal government in Washington DC despite being in the minority.
The comparison of being taxed for the benefit of others while not having enough representation to prevent it is perfectly analogous to 1775.
And as it has already been refuted, since the facts say otherwise.
Your BS has already been refuted. The facts say otherwise.
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.
Nope! False. The data says the South supplied the overwhelming majority of all exports and thus paid the overwhelming majority of the tariff burden. The statements of everybody at the time on all sides as well as the analysis of Charles Beard and and Charles Adams conclusively prove what everybody was saying then. Its just inconvenient for you to admit it so you desperately search for one thing to cling to and then make some laughable broad sweeping denial of reality based on that.
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.
Your claim that somehow Northern Democrats were just shills for the South because they happened to be in the same party as Southerners is ridiculous. Northern business interests wanted sky high protectionist tariffs to gain market share while being able to jack up prices to fatten their wallets. Both they and the working class wanted federal government handouts for corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects which would be paid by those tariffs they knew Southerners would be paying as owners of the imported manufactured goods. Many of these same corporate interests got the government to use the very same generals to commit ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Plains Indians...because those Indians were in the way of their choo choos.....
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.
Total denial of reality on your part. Yes railroad iron through Savannah would not have been a good business proposition. How about through New Orleans? Here is what Sherman who was in New Orleans at the time said to his brother in the US Senate:
[the North relied on money from tariffs] “so even if the Southern states be allowed to depart in peace, the first question will be revenue. Now if the South have free trade, how can you collect revenues in eastern cities? Freight from New Orleans, to St. Louis, Chicago, Louisville, Cincinnati and even Pittsburgh, would be about the same as by rail from New York and imported at New Orleans having no duties to pay, would undersell the East if they had to pay duties. Therefore if the South make good their confederation and their plan, The Northern Confederacy must do likewise or blockade. Then comes the question of foreign nations. So look on it in any view, I see no result but war and consequent change in the form of government. William Tecumseh Sherman in a letter to his brother Senator John Sherman 1861.
“Down here they think they are going to have fine times. New Orleans a free port, whereby she can import Goods without limit or duties, and Sell to the up River Countries. But Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore will never consent that N. Orleans should be a Free Port, and they Subject to Duties.” William T. Sherman
Here is what the NY Slimes was saying:
The predicament in which both the government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over....If the manufacturer at Manchester (England) can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage....if the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers. Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty free. The process is perfectly simple. The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North. We now see whither our tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated power of the State or Federal Government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad. We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched.” New York Times March 30, 1861
Here’s the leading Boston paper:
On the very eve of war, March 18, 1861, the Boston Transcript wrote: If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon the imports, no doubt the business of the chief Northern cities will be seriously injured thereby. The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union and that of the Confederated States, that the entire Northwest must find it to their advantage to purchase their imported goods at New Orleans rather than New York. In addition to this, the manufacturing interest of the country will suffer from the increased importations resulting from low duties….The…[government] would be false to all its obligations, if this state of things were not provided against.
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.
Daily Chicago Times, “The Value of the Union,” December 10, 1860, in Howard Cecil Perkins, ed., Northern editorials on Secession (Gloucester,MA: Peter Smith, 1964), (Vol.II, 573-574
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.
LOL! Still clinging to one year’s trading data to try to explain away what everybody at the time on both sides as well as foreign sources were saying and what generations of historians have said. The South was providing the overwhelming majority of total exports for the country. Cotton alone was 60% of total exports. Northern business interests knew that without their cash cow - the Southern states, they would be a lot poorer. They weren’t exporting much at all. Their manufacturers could not compete with British and French manufacturers.
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.
Nope. The BS and propaganda comes from the PC Revisionists.