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.
“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.
BS. It did and I’ve provided plenty of evidence already showing that.
In reality. I’ve provided plenty of comments from politicians and newspapers and foreign sources showing it.
The exact opposite.....though why does it not surprise me y’all would side with Leftist Wackademics?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your BS has already been refuted. The facts say otherwise.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
Nope. The BS and propaganda comes from the PC Revisionists.
“The data says the South supplied the overwhelming majority of all exports and thus paid the overwhelming majority of the tariff burden.”
Can somebody please explain how this works? Tariffs were on imports, not exports!!!
I quoted that as well, maybe on this very thread. You should realize, though, that you have a major disagreement with Diogenes, who really does believe that the Confederacy would rapidly industrialize, if only they could free themselves of their commercial ties with New York City. That doesn't make much sense to me, but you guys might want to hash it out among yourselves.
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.....
Northern businessmen never spoke with one voice. Pennsylvania iron and steel men really wanted tariffs to protect themselves from foreign competition.
New York businessmen were often involved in shipping, and those who were had no great love for tariffs. They also had no love for war with the cotton growers who gave them so much business.
New England mill owners were conflicted. Protective tariffs may have sounded like a good idea to some of them, but they got their cotton from the South and didn't want to antagonize Southern interests.
Political views cut across these categories, though. Some capitalists and industrialists were ardent abolitionists. Others had no use at all for abolition, and only wanted to keep the country together on almost any terms.
I really doubt any of these groups was the main driver of western expansion. Some capitalists, industrialists, and railroad men benefited from settling the frontier, but the main impulse for expansion was always the land hunger of agricultural interests -- very much including Southern planters.