Replies

But it should be clear by now that slave states and free states were evolving very different cultures. Lincoln was being true to the best side of his free state culture by opposing the expansion of slavery.

And more importantly, opposing the expansion of the representation vote for the people who were paying 80% of the bills.

You see, this is the sort of thing that makes me cynical. Three years ago I didn't know the South was paying the vast majority of the bills. I didn't know that New York was collecting the money and sending a good chunk to Washington DC.

I didn't know about the money side of this part of history. When I found out about it, I started looking more deeply at it.

What would happen if slavery "expanded" into Kansas, and Nebraska, and other western territories? (where it couldn't really expand because you couldn't make plantation farming work in any of these territories) Well those areas would vote with the Southern coalition against the Chicago/NewYork/WashingtonDC coalition.

They would lower tariffs, and they would probably modify the shipping laws to make it easier for competitors to carry their shipping traffic.

This would deprive New York of a lot of money. It was therefore in New York's best interest to hype the horrors of slavery so as to manipulate people into siding with their coalition.

Of course they wanted people to focus on the horrible horrible possibility that slave masters might be whipping poor people in Kansas and Nebraska, and they didn't want people to pay any attention to the fact that the status quo kept 200 million funneling through New York.

Lincoln repeatedly said he thought slavery was wrong, but wasn't going to do anything about it where it existed.

Because where it existed was a minority voting block in terms of congressional power. The one thing he absolutely would not tolerate is the possibility of it becoming the majority power, and able to stop the money stream going into New York.

The fact that slavery in any of the territories was implausible was irrelevant. The point was the power of Congressional representation, and the South must under no circumstances gain ally states which would interfere with the lucrative money stream they had set up to enrich the wealthy men of power in New York and Washington DC.

Realizing that control of the money stream oddly coincides with every activity pursued by Lincoln and the New York power block was eye opening.

Perhaps i'm cynical, but every path I see always leads back to the money. Not morals, Money. The morals are always camouflage for the money. Same as today in the modern Democrat (Urban Liberal) Party.

The one thing he absolutely would not tolerate is the possibility of it becoming the majority power, and able to stop the money stream going into New York.

You are apparently laboring under the misconception that Abraham Lincoln was a New Yorker, rather than an Illinoian (or an Illinoisian or an Illinoisan). Why would he care about the particular interests of New York City businessmen?

If Lincoln were as cynical a politician as you think and if it were all about the money, why didn't he throw in with the slave states? His friend and fellow Whig Alexander Stephens did so with a vengeance. If they would have all the money and the power it would seem like a logical move for an opportunist.

It was therefore in New York's best interest to hype the horrors of slavery so as to manipulate people into siding with their coalition.

More fantasy. Why would it be in the best interests of New York businessmen to antagonize the South if they were making so much money off it? Why would New York businessmen who lived or died from trade favor high tariffs? Then, as now, New York businessmen were flexible and capable of working with whatever party was in power.

The one thing he absolutely would not tolerate is the possibility of it becoming the majority power, and able to stop the money stream going into New York.

That is also foolish. Southern or Southern-oriented Democrats controlled the government for most of the period 1800-1860. They didn't do anything to keep New York from being the nation's largest port and financial center. Nor were they likely to do so since New York's well-being did not disadvantage them.

Overheated rhetoric aside, there were sound geographic and economic reasons why New York predominated. Your constant demands of moving trade away from New York look like the "crony capitalism" that you claim to oppose.

And seriously, it's hard to know just what you are talking about. What was going on in the 1840s and 1850s was very different from what people wanted or expected or feared in 1860, yet you talk as if attitudes and interests and realities were the same throughout.

All the overheated rhetoric about evil New York was a result of the animosities aroused by slavery. New York and the Cotton states had gotten along well enough before that.

P.S. What gets lost in all the talk about the tariff is that the country was running a deficit after 1857. Not a large deficit by today's standards (or even by Civil War standards), but large enough to cause concern. There was going to be an upwards revision of the tariff in order to reduce the deficit, and there was less argument about that than some people today realize.

“What would happen if slavery “expanded” into Kansas, and Nebraska, and other western territories? (where it couldn’t really expand because you couldn’t make plantation farming work in any of these territories)”

Great question.

There was considerable fear among abolitionists about the expansion of slavery into the western territories.

In 1848, the Mexican Cession territory included all land from TX to California. Its status regarding slavery was the leading major issue nationally. Had the Democrats prevailed, there could have been slave states from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Spanish and Anglo landholders had been enslaving Indians there for generations.

While there was only about 24 slaves brought from the South in the territory, and plantation farming was unlikely, it was a hot topic.

In 1859, New Mexico passed an elaborate slave code that permitted the owning of African-American slaves by former Mexicans and supported the rights of all slave owners.

DiogenesLamp: "And more importantly, opposing the expansion of the representation vote for the people who were paying 80% of the bills.
You see, this is the sort of thing that makes me cynical.
Three years ago I didn't know the South was paying the vast majority of the bills."

Here's what makes me cynical of DiogenesLamp's endless repetitions:

80% is absolutely not true, even 50% ($200 million) is overstating because the South imported about $200 million per year from the North, meaning they had tons of help, not to mention slaves, getting their work done.
That alleged 80% was not mentioned in any 1861 "Reasons for Secession" document by secessionists themselves to justify disunion.
That alleged 80% was not mentioned by any Unionists in 1861 as reasons to justify Union.

DiogenesLamp: "I didn't know that New York was collecting the money and sending a good chunk to Washington DC.
I didn't know about the money side of this part of history.
When I found out about it, I started looking more deeply at it."

You didn't know it because it's not true, and what you "found out" is a crock of lies packaged in Lost Causer mythology.
And what you "looked more deeply at" was simply more Lost Causer lies.

The fact is that New York did collect a lot of Federal tariffs, all of which went into Federal bank accounts.
But the reasons were, duh... by 1800 New York was the largest city, harbor, transportation, warehousing & finance center.
Nothing to do with "crony capitalism" and everything to do with its many natural advantages.

DiogenesLamp: "What would happen if slavery "expanded" into Kansas, and Nebraska, and other western territories? (where it couldn't really expand because you couldn't make plantation farming work in any of these territories) "

But you didn't need cotton plantations to make slavery work.
All you needed was something (anything) to produce for cash and a population willing to tolerate slave-holders.
And what made slavery especially amenable in the Deep South was precisely what Mississippians said in their "Reasons for Secession" document:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun."

In other words, Mississippians told us the reason slavery worked so well there was because white folks couldn't work in tropical heat.
Slaves could also work in states like Kansas and Nebraska, but there they'd have to compete with white workers who didn't want slave-holders around.

DiogenesLamp: "They would lower tariffs, and they would probably modify the shipping laws to make it easier for competitors to carry their shipping traffic.
This would deprive New York of a lot of money.
It was therefore in New York's best interest to hype the horrors of slavery so as to manipulate people into siding with their coalition."

And yet that is not what any of the 1861 "Reasons for Secession" documents complained about.

DiogenesLamp on Lincoln: "The one thing he absolutely would not tolerate is the possibility of it [slavery] becoming the majority power, and able to stop the money stream going into New York."

Total fantasy, you have no quotes from Lincoln or anybody else to that effect.
It is a figment of your imagination and nothing else.

DiogenesLamp: "Perhaps i'm cynical, but every path I see always leads back to the money.
Not morals, Money.
The morals are always camouflage for the money.
Same as today in the modern Democrat (Urban Liberal) Party."

I'd not call that "cynical", but rather extreme partisan blindness -- you've latched onto Lost Causer narratives to the point where no contrary fact of any kind matters to you any more.

They would lower tariffs, and they would probably modify the shipping laws to make it easier for competitors to carry their shipping traffic.

Why? They might want lower tariffs than some Easterners, but what possible reason would the Plains States have for joining your economic jihad against New York?

Most of the customers for their wheat and beef were in the big cities of the East. They could sell grain and meat abroad, but they would never be in the position cotton growers were in with respect to Britain.

There were too many other sources of grain and meat around the world, and there were other markets Westerners could sell to. The big cities of the East were their biggest markets. What reason would they have for hating them at this point in history?

What possible reason would Plains farmers have for wanting New Orleans or Charleston or Norfolk to replace New York City? Wouldn't it just be replacing one faraway metropolis with another? What would be in it for them?

Indeed, Middlewesterners benefited from having other means of transportation than just the Mississippi River. Being able to send products east to New York by rail or down the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence was advantageous to them. Ruining New York to make oneself subservient to New Orleans wasn't smart economics.

And that's all before we even get to slavery and the cultural differences that separated the two regions.