On this date in 1863

But the acts of ratification did create or affirm a federated nation and an American people, and a convention in one state breaking with the Constitution and the nation was bound to be problematic.

I think the union of such diverse and competing interests as it was from 1800 (or earlier) to 1860 would have eventually broken apart whether secession was legal (psst, it was) or not.

I am reminded of what the visitor from France, Alexis de Tocqueville, said in his book, Democracy in America [my emphasis below]:

However strong a government may be, it cannot easily escape from the consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation of its constitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their sovereignty, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right. In order to enable the Federal government easily to conquer the resistance that may be offered to it by any of its subjects, it would be necessary that one or more of them should be specially interested in the existence of the Union, as has frequently been the case in the history of confederations.

If it be supposed that among the states that are united by the federal tie there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of union, or whose prosperity entirely depends on the duration of that union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the central government in enforcing the obedience of the others. But the government would then be exerting a force not derived from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature. States form confederations in order to derive equal advantages from their union; and in the case just alluded to, the Federal government would derive its power from the unequal distribution of those benefits among the states.

If one of the federated states acquires a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other states as subject provinces and will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union. Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal government, but in reality that government will have ceased to exist.

de Tocqueville was pretty perceptive in 1831. I see some de Tocqueville predictions coming true in the Civil War:

First red bold area above. All four items are true. He was just reporting how things were in 1831.

Second and Third red bold areas above. The North was especially interested in retaining the Union. The South provided more than 70 percent of the value of the exports of the US, which enabled the US to import a like value without a large balance of payments problem. There was no personal income tax, so tariff income from imports paid the expenses of government, a government that had greatly increased the national debt in the few years since the 1857 tariff became effective. The government was almost out of money in early 1861. Northern port cities were dependent on the import business. Northern manufacturers and suppliers sold over 200 million dollars of products to the South, often at tariff-raised prices. The manufacturers made more money, Northern workers got jobs, and the South was being "fleeced" as the New Orleans Picayune newspaper said. If the South left the Union, many of the benefits the North received from the South decreased or disappeared.

Fourth red bold area above. The North was treating the South like a colony. "It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters." [Source]. Even before the 1861 Morrill Tariff, the 1857 US tariff was transferring many millions of dollars from the South to the North to pay tariff protected prices for Northern manufactured goods. When Lincoln finally allowed the US Congress to reconvene in July after he had invaded the South, spent money on things Congress had not authorized it for, expanded the size and extended the service of the military, pronounced a blockade of Southern ports, and gotten us into war (things he didn't have the power to do in the Constitution). When Congress reconvened, it passed resolutions that said "this war is ... not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States; but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union.

Dadgum, that de Tocqueville was prescient.

In my post 180, I missed putting in the word “ratified” after the 71%.

rustbucket: "Sorry, I fail to see your distinction.
I believe you are straining at a gnat (look it up)."

I know the reference, it was mentioned again last Sunday.
You have swallowed the camel, FRiend.

rustbucket: "In both cases, states separately seceded from a government that they believed had failed them. "

First, you understand, of course, that we greatly strain the definition of "seceded" when applied to 1788?
That's why it should be put in quotes whenever used for 1788 -- "seceded".

Second, even if we consider, for sake of argument, that 1788 represented "secession" from the old Articles along with ratification of the new Constitution, there is still a huge difference from 1861, since both secession and ratification were done in one vote, mutually consented by all parties.

rustbucket: "In both cases, a new Constitution was developed by delegates from different states."

But in 1787 those were delegates from every state, thus allowing for mutual consent.
By contrast in 1861 only six of 34 states sent delegates, thus guaranteeing no mutual consent.

rustbucket: "In both cases, the new Constitution was subsequently ratified by states that had seceded from a former Union."

Wrong, and an important distinction.
In 1788 votes to ratify the new Constitution were simultaneously votes to "secede" from and abolish the old Articles of Confederation.
These were acknowledged by the old Continental Congress in 1788 after which it dissolved itself in 1789.
That is the very definition of "mutual consent" and it's far from what happened in 1861.

rustbucket: "In both cases, the new Constitution became effective after a certain number of states had ratified it."

But in 1788 it was 3/4 of every state, meaning mutual consent, while in 1861 it was a much smaller number, meaning no mutual consent.

rustbucket: "In 1861, had fewer than 5 of the then seceded states (71%), the new Constitution would be defunct, and the seceded states would have remained free, sovereign, and independent states like North Carolina and Rhode Island were until they ratified the US Constitution.
That's mutual consent, and it happened in 1861."

Unlike 1788 there was no mutual consent in 1861 from the entire Union, and that's the difference.

Our Founders practiced and supported disunion (independence, "secession", etc.) from necessity as in 1776 or by mutual consent as in 1788.
No genuine Founder ever proposed or supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure which is what happened in 1861.

rustbucket quoting de Tocqueville: "If one of the federated states acquires a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other states as subject provinces and will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union.
Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal government, but in reality that government will have ceased to exist."

We should remember that de Tocqueville was French and France is ruled from Paris, so he is here merely describing his own country's situation.
DiogenesLamp's jihad against New York not withstanding, the US has never been so centralized.

rustbucket: "The South provided more than 70 percent of the value of the exports of the US, which enabled the US to import a like value without a large balance of payments problem."

The Deep South provided one crop -- cotton -- which in 1860 totaled roughly $200 million in exports, or 50% of total US exports of $400 million, including specie see here, page 605.
Confederates in early 1861 well understood that cotton was the only export they had of any real value, see here, post 7.
Everything else sometimes classified as "Southern products" could be and was also produced in Union states.
This was clearly demonstrated in 1861 when Confederate exports were 100% deleted from US export totals, and yet those totals fell only 35%.

rustbucket "Northern manufacturers and suppliers sold over 200 million dollars of products to the South, often at tariff-raised prices."

Right and that's a key point because it helps explain why well over half of US imports went to states outside the South.
Eastern, Northern & Western states earned some of the money to pay for imports by "exporting" to Southern states.

rustbucket: "...government that had greatly increased the national debt in the few years since the 1857 tariff became effective.
The government was almost out of money in early 1861."

Maybe, but the Federal government had no problem borrowing as much money as it needed in 1861, or throughout the Civil War.
Much has been made of the new Morrill Tariff, blaming it after the fact for what happened before it passed, but it did do two very important things:

Protected US manufacturing (put America First).
Increased Federal revenues from imports, i.e., from $53 million in 1860 to $102 million in 1864.

rustbucket "The manufacturers made more money, Northern workers got jobs, and the South was being "fleeced" as the New Orleans Picayune newspaper said.
If the South left the Union, many of the benefits the North received from the South decreased or disappeared."

Maybe, but three points to be made here:

There was no clamor in the South for more manufacturing jobs, just the opposite, most Southerners considered industrialization and merchanting... well, uncivilized.
As former Texas Senator Louis Wigfall told William Russell from the Times of London in early 1861:
The great Northeastern merchants & bankers were, then as now, Democrats, social, political and economic allies to the Southern slave-power who voted with them in Congress and supported them financially.
These Northern Democrats were at first sympathetic to Southern secession and wanted to join them, until... until... until they began to realize secession was first & foremost aimed specifically at themselves.
This became especially obvious when Confederates began renouncing their debts, suspending & diverting payments and even withholding exports -- "cotton diplomacy".
That produced an extraordinary rarity in US politics: a united political front, Democrats joining Republicans in opposition to Confederate actions.
But it's sometimes claimed -- by DiogenesLamp & others -- that these Northern Democrats were somehow "pulling Lincoln's strings" and ordering him to "start war at Fort Sumter" and such talk is pure fantasy, so far as I've ever seen.

rustbucket quoting: "It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters."

Thanks again for that quote because, unlike others which repeat the 40% number, it makes clear that much of this comes from goods sold to Southern planters -- in short, they did receive items of value in exchange for their 40%.

rustbucket: "Even before the 1861 Morrill Tariff, the 1857 US tariff was transferring many millions of dollars from the South to the North to pay tariff protected prices for Northern manufactured goods."

But even with the Morrill Tariff overall US tariffs were among the world's lowest, see here.
Further, US tariffs protected all producers, not just those in the North.
Nor was the South totally lacking in its own industries -- Tredegar and Cumberland Iron Works come to mind.
So the real issue here may be simply one group of politically connected interests hoping to take business away from another.

rustbucket "When Lincoln finally allowed the US Congress to reconvene in July after he had invaded the South, spent money on things Congress had not authorized it for, expanded the size and extended the service of the military, pronounced a blockade of Southern ports, and gotten us into war (things he didn't have the power to do in the Constitution)."

Well... first, there was no "invasion" until after Confederates:

Provoked war by seizing dozens of major Federal properties -- forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc., threatened Federal officials, fired on US ships, imprisoned Union soldiers (in Texas) and renounced their debts.
Started war at Fort Sumter by military assault forcing Union surrender.
Formally declared war, on May 6, 1861.
Waged war in Union states -- Missouri & Maryland.

In the Civil War's first 12 months, 30 of 52 larger battles were fought in Union states & territories, see here.

Second, it was clearly an emergency situation, in which Congress approved all of Lincoln's actions.
Nor did the US Supreme Court (Chief Justice Taney notwithstanding) strike down any of Lincoln's responses.

well done.

[you quoting part of my post about what de Tocqueville said]: If one of the federated states acquires a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other states as subject provinces and will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union."

"Departments" or "Regions" were the French terms for small areas of France after 1790 when the French provinces were terminated. Departments or regions would have been the French equivalent of the US states, although there were more than 80 Departments. There were only 18 "regions" in France - maybe "regions" are more equivalent to US states. Those would have been the terms for de Tocquiville to use in 1831 if he was referring to France when he wrote "Democracy in America." "Federated states" or "states" refer to states in the US. "Union" is a US term, not a French term.

We should remember that de Tocqueville was French and France is ruled from Paris, so he is here merely describing his own country's situation.

Guffaw! You are simply amazing, BJK. I mean it. In the first block of red letters I highlighted from his book "Democracy in America," de Tocqueville:

- speaks of the "Union" (is that how he refers to France?)

- talks about the "voluntary agreement" of "states" (does he call French departments or regions states?) (Also cue up Madison saying that states were only bound by their voluntary agreement.)

- says states "in uniting together, have not forfeited their sovereignty" (Do French departments or regions retain their sovereignty? By the time of de Tocqueville's book, I doubt they retained sovereignty, but US states do, or did in 1860.)

- says they (the people or perhaps the people of the states) "nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people" (cue up, Madison, Marshall, and probably others saying the same thing about the people of the United States).

- says "If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so." (That is clearly like the situation in the United States - see my post 108 on this thread).

- He also said, but I didn't highlight: "and the Federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right." (The prohibitions against coercing American states comes to mind).

Seriously, BJK, we have argued much of the rest of your post before and not come to agreement. I don't want to waste my time, and you shouldn't waste your time either. I am sorry, but I do not have the time or inclination to keep dissecting your long posts.

We do not agree on much, BJK, although I agree with you about the abilities of Nathan Bedford Forrest. Forrest grew up in the same Tennessee county as some of my ancestors. I don't believe my ancestors lived close enough to the Forrests to know them personally.

Enjoy your day.

The North was treating the South like a colony.

Very offensive, since Southern slave owners preferred being treated like a colony by Britain.

Economic relations between Northerners and Southerners worked to the material benefit of both sides, until the perceived rise of abolitionism and a short-term boom in the price of cotton started giving slaveowners ideas.

Also, as has been said over and over again, who was it who actually had power in America in the 1830s and 1840s? Southerners, Democrats, planters. It was only when their ascendancy came to be seen as threatened by opposition to slavery that the grievance-mongering started in earnest.

Some of the "internal improvements" that Northerners wanted and Southerners opposed were efforts to promote navigation on the Great Lakes. Westerners wanted surveys and lighthouses and port development, and Southerners opposed federal spending on such projects. Rivers and Harbors bills were vetoed by Polk in 1846 and by Pierce in 1854. Both presidents expressed constitutional concerns.

Sounds nice? Small government? Two problems, though. First, in 1846 the Westerners had been promised Southern support for the bill by Calhoun in exchange for support on tariff reduction. When Polk, the Southern Democrat and slaveowner, betrayed what was believed to be a done deal, Westerners were irate.

Second, the Army Corps of Engineers had been doing the same kind of work on the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers for years. Southerners had no qualms about activist government when it benefited them. It was only when somebody else wanted federal funding that it became a constitutional question.

To be fair, Pierce also vetoed funds for necessary dredging on the Mississippi, but by that time, Westerners were already convinced that Southerners were denying them the kind of work that the federal government had already been doing for the South.

I don't think federal projects would have created a sea path from the lakes to the ocean. That only came in with the Saint Lawrence Seaway a century later during the Eisenhower administration. But the projects might have helped bring lumber and ores from the upper lakes to the growing industrial cities. They could also have given farmers alternatives to the railroads and the Mississippi River traffic, bringing prices down.

So here's the upshot: all this talk about New York City and its evil dominance of trade and Southerners' righteous desire to redirect money away from New York, and we find out that some Southerners were determined that nothing challenge New Orleans's position as a major port of international trade. Quite a surprise.

It can be hard to separate out what's a free market result and what reflects prior government intervention, or what's "natural" from what's man-made or the product of human effort. The further back you dig, you may find government involved somehow. So when they tell you about the Navigation Acts, remind them of the Rivers and Harbors bills and the earlier federally-funded dredging and clearing on the Mississippi.

The South provided more than 70 percent of the value of the exports of the US, which enabled the US to import a like value without a large balance of payments problem.

Money circulates. If you use money to buy things domestically, the people you give the money to are then able to buy things from foreign vendors.

The government was almost out of money in early 1861.

The deficit and debt had been growing since 1857. By the standards of the day, it was a problem, but not a great problem when compared to what has happened at other times in the history of the world. The increase in the tariff was expected to fix the deficit.

Northern port cities were dependent on the import business.

They also exported things, and produced goods for the domestic market. Many of the panic stories you could find in the newspapers may be exaggerated.

But let's say the country was facing a dire crisis in 1860-1. What are we to think of people who would bail out and reject their native land?

Just so we're clear, here is the offending sequence:

gandalftb post #73: "When religiously driven abolitionists, like my family, chose their faith over the rule of law, the resistance and eventual fighting over slavery began."

BJK post #110: "Total nonsense, what is this rubbish you keep posting?.
You sound like a poser, pretending to be sympathetic to the Union but in fact making our Lost Causer arguments for them, including a key one here."

gandalftb post #133: "There is also a book “The History of Clayton County”, published in 1873.
It talks a great deal about the run up to the war from an IA perspective.
But then again, this could all be utter nonsense by some poser that continues this endless debate, hoping to enlighten both sides."

gandalftb post #141 to rockrr: "Also, it is irritating when BroJoeK descends into name calling and insults, no need for that in an adult discussion."

BJK post #143: "And yet you're here hand-wringing over your family's contributions to the Civil War, and I'm here to tell you: knock it off, that's ridiculous."

jeffersondem post #169: "The problem is that somewhere along the way you contradicted northern orthodoxy about something - perhaps Lincoln's decision to fight the war 'at pleasure.' "

No, the offending word seems to be "poser", my response to some gandalftb argument which made no sense, to me.
It's this: on the one hand, all "virtue signaling" aside, gandalftb has a very proud family history of service on the Underground Railroad -- I'm hugely impressed, would guess not one family in a thousand today could make such a claim.
On the other hand, gandalftb seemed to be blaming his own family for helping to start & fight the Civil War, and that has nothing to do with "northern orthodoxy", it's just nonsense.
Deep South secessionists did not declare secession because gandalftb's ancestors helped the Underground Railroad, but rather because Northern states did not do enough, secessionists claimed, to stop it.

So, if "poser" sounds a little, ah, harsh to you, then I'd say, it's the mildest term I could think of for someone who'd use their own family history against slavery to make the Lost Causer argument for them: the Underground Railroad caused secession & war.
It didn't, at most it helped create the excuse secessionists used to justify their actions.
But that excuse was based on alleged inadequate Northern states' enforcement of Federal Fugitive Slave laws.

If "poser" was the worst name I've been called on Free Republic, I'd feel fortunate.
You need a thick skin here.

rustbucket: "There were only 18 "regions" in France - maybe "regions" are more equivalent to US states. Those would have been the terms for de Tocquiville to use in 1831 if he was referring to France when he wrote "Democracy in America." "Federated states" or "states" refer to states in the US. "Union" is a US term, not a French term."

Sorry, I did not use the word "projection", probably should have.
What I intended to mean is that de Tocqueville actually described the situation of France but projected it onto the USA as some potential eventual outcome.
I noted that, Diogeneslamp's anti-New York jihad notwithstanding, it never happened here.

rustbucket: "- says 'If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so.' (That is clearly like the situation in the United States - see my post 108 on this thread). "

As indeed happened in 1861 -- President Buchanan made speeches opposing secession but used no force to stop it.
And that was also Lincoln's intention, when he announced secessionists could not have a war unless they themselves started it.

rustbucket: "- He also said, but I didn't highlight: 'and the Federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right.' (The prohibitions against coercing American states comes to mind)."

That "prohibition" is found in which document?
Is that what President Jackson referred to when he said, in 1830:

"... 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]"

rustbucket: "I am sorry, but I do not have the time or inclination to keep dissecting your long posts. "

I'd only note that you did take the time to make some very long posts of your own.
My time for such exercises varies from day to day, some days none, other days plenty.
And likely I enjoy it more than most?

rustbucket: "We do not agree on much, BJK, although I agree with you about the abilities of Nathan Bedford Forrest."

One of my great-grandfathers met Forrest in battle, twice, the first in late 1862 at Dyer station, Tennessee, on the Mobile & Ohio railroad, the second in July 1864 at Tupelo.
My great-grandfather survived the first because Forrest was a decent & honorable man and Forrest survived (though wounded) the second, imho, for the same reason.

x: "Second, the Army Corps of Engineers had been doing the same kind of work on the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers for years.
Southerners had no qualms about activist government when it benefited them.
It was only when somebody else wanted federal funding that it became a constitutional question."

Exactly, well said.
That is also true of allegedly "conservative" Southern Democrats is the years before, say, 1964.
In fact they were always happy to "tax the rich" Northerners to pay for Federal programs benefitting their own constituents.

“Show us where the word “slavery” appears in the original Constitution.”

I guess still water really does run shallow.

“someone who’d use their own family history against slavery to make the Lost Causer argument for them: the Underground Railroad caused secession & war”

I discussed my family history to push back on your name calling that I was some kind of poser.

Your insulting comments calling posts “utter nonsense” is not only inaccurate, but trivialize your own points.

People won’t listen to all-or-nothing responses. This is not an absolute issue, there are obviously points and counter-points.

Speak civilly and you’ll get more thoughtful responses.

Those that name-call and insult are usually looking for attention rather than pushing back with historical analysis.

Some of the "internal improvements" that Northerners wanted and Southerners opposed were efforts to promote navigation on the Great Lakes. Westerners wanted surveys and lighthouses and port development, and Southerners opposed federal spending on such projects.

Well if *I* was paying 70-80% of all the taxes, I probably wouldn't want the money spent on the other portion of the population that was paying only 25% of the taxes.

So let's see. Tax people with money, to fund government projects for the people who didn't pay the bills. *LIBERAL*.

Two problems, though. First, in 1846 the Westerners had been promised Southern support for the bill by Calhoun in exchange for support on tariff reduction.

Wait, westerners? You mean Chicago? I always thought "west" was west of the Mississippi. I guess some of this stuff was to be on the Mississippi and the Great Lakes.

Second, the Army Corps of Engineers had been doing the same kind of work on the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers for years. Southerners had no qualms about activist government when it benefited them. It was only when somebody else wanted federal funding that it became a constitutional question.

Well they were paying for the bulk of the costs. If I was paying the vast lion's share of the bills, I would be less bothered that some of the money got spent back on me. And yes, people are hypocrites.

“Show us where the word “slavery” appears in the original Constitution.”

Indirectly here:

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

Just so we're clear on this point: no law of nature or humans restricted slavery to cotton plantations. Slaves could be, and were, used anywhere slavery was tolerated.

There were slaves in Deleware up till the 1860s. There were slaves in a lot of Northern states, but the great body of people in the North were not concerned so much with these small bits of slavery here and there, they objected mostly to the large scale plantation farming that employed thousands of slaves.

They would have tolerated this small scale slavery in the territories just as much as they tolerated it in their own states, were it not for the hyped propaganda which had them believing new plantations would be opening up in the territories.

It appears more and more that the whole "expansion of slavery" argument was just histrionic astroturf.

gandalftb: "I discussed my family history to push back on your name calling that I was some kind of poser."

First, a little googling turned up this piece on slavery in Iowa, which gives a pretty good idea of the situation before 1861.

Second, in the overall scheme of things "poser" is a pretty mild term and easily deflected
But again, my point here is simply, why else would you make a Lost Causer argument for them, especially when it's not even true?

gandalftb: "Your insulting comments calling posts “utter nonsense” is not only inaccurate, but trivialize your own points."

"Utter nonsense" referred to your claim that your ancestors "chose faith over law".
In fact there was no conflict between faith and Iowa state laws, which as early as 1839 had declared slaves in Iowa free, by virtue of living in a free state.
As for Iowa's Governor Grimes, in 1855 he contravened Federal law by insisting an alleged captured Fugitive be given a fair trial, in which he was pronounced innocent and released.
My point is the state of Iowa, in this example, did not vigorously enforce Federal Fugitive laws and that (not the Underground Railroad itself) was the constitutional issue used by secessionists in 1860 & 1861.

Where the law itself is contradictory and/or weakly enforced, the choice is not as simple as "faith over law".
For a current analog, think of Federal vs. some state marijuana laws, or the misnamed "sanctuary cities".

gandalftb: "People won’t listen to all-or-nothing responses.
This is not an absolute issue, there are obviously points and counter-points."

Your claim here would have much merit if both "points and counter-points" were equally true & important.
Sadly, that is infrequently the case.

gandalftb: "Speak civilly and you’ll get more thoughtful responses."

I'm certain that posters here whose entire arguments consist of insults & name-calling are enjoying this little exchange with great guffaws!

gandalftb: "Those that name-call and insult are usually looking for attention rather than pushing back with historical analysis."

Rough guess: for every poster here hoping to do serious historical analysis, there's at least one more interested in name-call & insult.
So far as I've seen you've been treated with kid gloves.

Wait, westerners? You mean Chicago? I always thought "west" was west of the Mississippi. I guess some of this stuff was to be on the Mississippi and the Great Lakes.

Before 1850 or so, Chicago and Milwaukee were "the West." Before the Civil War, much of Minnesota was Indian country.

Read any book about the Jacksonian Era. Back then Cincinnati and Louisville were "the West."

It wasn't until after the Civil War that "the West" came to be restricted to the land west of the Mississippi.

Well they were paying for the bulk of the costs. If I was paying the vast lion's share of the bills, I would be less bothered that some of the money got spent back on me.

Guy, you gotta take an economics class sometime.

Guy, you gotta take an economics class sometime.

Because some sort of magical ownership transfer to New York occurs when products are shipped to Europe?