On Confederate Memorial Day, an honest annotation of the Mississippi Declaration of Secession

Mississippi Today ^ | 04/29/2024 | Michael Guidry

[DiogenesLamp]

Just because the South had more exports does not mean they paid more in tariffs.

It means exactly that.

When discussing this concept, I like to mention the movie "Kidco." It is about a bunch of kids that sold horse manure from their father's stables. It became quite a business.

The bad guy was a government official who was trying to fine them for not paying sales tax.

The climax of the movie was a court room scene where the Kid asked the man who sold feed to his father if he paid sales tax on the feed. The man said "yes."

So the kid pointed out that the poop coming out of the Horse is the same feed that went into the horse, and sales tax had already been paid on it when his father bought the feed.

"Your Honor, the state wants to tax both ends of the horse!"

Trade is exactly like that. Whether you put the tax on the front of the horse (exports) or the rear of the horse (imports) it is the exact same stuff getting taxed.

Money earned from exports has no value until it pays for imports. It is the exact same money being taxed whether you tax it before it gets to Europe, or after it has come back in trade goods from Europe.

One would think it unnecessary to have to explain basic trade economics to people on a conservative forum.

[FLT-bird]

One more thing....having lived in 4 foreign countries I was struck immediately of course by how differently a lot of foreigners viewed historical events than what we were taught. Some of their historical interpretations were clearly jingoistic nonsense and/or excuse making for horrible acts by the tyrants in charge. Clearly the propaganda had a big effect on what they were taught and what they believed.

I thought at the time that the US had a more open educational system and was less given to teaching fairy tales about the past that happened to suit the government narrative.

As I gradually learned there was a whole different side to this conflict I had been taught nothing about, I started realizing just how much Americans had been propagandized and taught fairy tales about American history to suit the government narrative.

For example, the British quite happily taught students about how John Adams insisted after the war on the return of escaped slaves who had gone over to the Brits, how the Prime Minister at the time refused and stayed loyal to them and how the King congratulated the Prime Minister on this. Are we ever taught this in American schools? Hell no.

Think you could EVER get something like this to air on US TV? Fat chance!

Abraham Lincoln Saint or Sinner
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1848q3

[FLT-bird]

One would think it unnecessary to have to explain basic trade economics to people on a conservative forum.

They can't seem to grasp....because it would be damned inconvenient for them to grasp....that the exporters were the importers. They had to rent the ships and pay the ship's crew and the insurance for the voyage. If the ships return empty with nothing in their holds, that is going to eat into their revenue from selling their cotton, etc considerably. So they filled the holds with manufactured goods they could sell in the US so the ships would not run empty back across the Atlantic. They then got hit with tariffs on those goods. As the owners of the goods, THEY and not the shipping company or the port where they landed paid the tariff.

its not a difficult concept to grasp. The owner of the goods pays the tariff. If Walmart brings a container ship full of Chinese crap and it lands at a US port it does not matter whether its Long Beach, CA or New Orleans, LA or New York, NY. Walmart has to pay the tariff. They own the goods. Exact same deal back then.

[DiogenesLamp]

For example, the British quite happily taught students about how John Adams insisted after the war on the return of escaped slaves who had gone over to the Brits, how the Prime Minister at the time refused and stayed loyal to them and how the King congratulated the Prime Minister on this. Are we ever taught this in American schools? Hell no.

I did not know about this. John Adams was from Massachusetts, wasn't he? Very interesting. Kinda undermines the narrative that BroJoeK and others have been trying to sell us about it being only the Southern states that cared about slavery.

[marktwain]

Money earned from exports has no value until it pays for imports. It is the exact same money being taxed whether you tax it before it gets to Europe, or after it has come back in trade goods from Europe.

Simply a false statement.

Money earned from exports can be used to buy locally produced products. It simply can. I didn't believe anyone thought otherwise, but I am incorrect.

People who buy imports are not necessarily the same people who produce exports.

They can easily be different people.

The idea you can simplify and claim Exports pay for Imports, and the people who are exporting are paying the tarriffs on imports, is simply false.

I think you are making a "balance of payments" argument, claiming money out of a country has to eventually be equalized by the money coming into the country. In theory, over a long time, it might be correct. However, "balance of payments" inequities have existed for decades.

In practice it is much more complicated and uncertain. As I recall, you ignore the production of gold and silver in California and the West.

But gold and silver could directly pay for imports, and they were not produced in the South.

The businesses in the USA earned large amounts from service in shipping which could directly be used to pay for imports.

Here is a paper on U.S. balance of payments from 1790 to 1860.

[DiogenesLamp]

People who buy imports are not necessarily the same people who produce exports.

Stop. Just stop. Money earned in Europe must be redeemed by purchasing European goods.

Whatever long winding way it takes to get back to Europe, it still begins as export value for which European money is paid.

If it is used to purchase local goods, whomever receives that European money must at some point buy goods or services from Europe to redeem the value of that money.

Like wise, the primary asserted purpose of the tariff taxation was to *FORCE* people to buy Northern produced goods so that money went into their pockets.

So even buying local goods, you are taxed by protectionist laws to the same degree as you would have been buying European goods.

You are trying to run from this, because you don't like where it leads.

The *NORTH* started the war with the South to protect their own financial interests. They did not give a sh*t about the slaves, they only cared about their own wealth and incomes, and so they launched the bloodiest war in history to protect their own wealth.

The economic evidence proves this quite well, and the only reason people buy the "War was about slavery" nonsense is because they have been taught this all their lives and they *WANT* to believe the Government is good and moral in having killed so many people to establish control over the Southern states.

We see the same phenomena of Northern Liberals proclaiming January 6ths an *INSURRECTION* and demanding all sorts of harsh penalties for everyone protesting election fraud.

No mention of election fraud or corrupt elections occur in our national propaganda system.

They don't mention it because it makes them look bad, but because they have the mass communications megaphone, they can convince everyone else that their lies are the truth.

Same thing with the civil war. The corrupt, fascist, Northeast was the winner of that war, and it had nothing at all to do with their hearts lamenting about slavery.

It was all about money, only about money, and about nothing else but money.

The South leaving was going to cost the North their control over about 750 million per year in Southern production.

They weren't going to stand for it.

[jeffersondem]

“Money earned from exports can be used to buy locally produced products. It simply can.”

That is an interesting comment.

Question: When the South sent wealth - in the form of cotton - overseas, how was wealth repatriated back to the South?

Or, is it your contention the South just sent wealth overseas year after year and never expected anything in return?

[marktwain]

You have your opinions.

You will not listen to contrary evidence.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

I have listened to evidence from the pro-south side, and from the pro north side.

I don't find the evidence of "the war was only about economic domination of the North" to be persuasive.

Probably a factor. Probably not the dominant factor.

[marktwain]

Or, is it your contention the South just sent wealth overseas year after year and never expected anything in return?

So, is it your contention the South did not get paid for the cotton and other goods they exported?

Why would sellers of southern cotton sell it without being paid for it?

[jeffersondem]

“Why would sellers of southern cotton sell it without being paid for it?”

They wouldn’t. Southerners repatriated their wealth from overseas, mostly in the form of imports.

It was the confiscatory rate of taxation on imports that caused a problem.

[DiogenesLamp]

You will not listen to contrary evidence.

I don't recall seeing anything that looked like contrary evidence to me.

We have the financial records for this time period. Perhaps you haven't seen them?

Now if you will take those figures from both the North and the South as 100%, then you will find the South produced 72% of the total, while the North produced 28% of the total.

So how was the North getting it's hands on more than 28% of the European money?

The North had 4-5 times the population, yet were only paying 1/4 of the total tax burden?

How does that work?

Probably a factor. Probably not the dominant factor.

700 million dollars per year in a 4 billion dollar per year GDP economy is a pretty serious factor.

The South produced 200 million per year in Trade value with Europe, and 500 million per year in Trade value with the North.

There was 700 million dollars per year at risk for the Northern power structure if the South got away from them.

But no, they only cared about the poor slaves whom their representatives voted to keep in slavery forever. (The Corwin Amendment.)

[FLT-bird]

It was the confiscatory rate of taxation on imports that caused a problem.

Bingo.

1) The Exporters WERE the Importers.

2) As Imports were reduced by the tariff, that reduced the income of Britain/France. They in turn could therefore afford LESS American ie Southern exports (imports to them) since their income was reduced. So as the Southerner, you sold LESS Cotton/Tobacco AND you got hit again because the manufactured goods you filled the holds with those ships making the return journey across the Atlantic were now subject to much higher tax. So you bought fewer of those goods and kept more cash to hand over at the port of entry.

Same amount of Cotton/Tobacco but now less demand for it, prices went down.

Southerners lost sales, paid higher taxes, got lower prices for the goods they exported AND THEN paid higher prices for manufactured goods. So for them it was Lose-Lose-Lose-Lose. Damn right they were angry about it. Especially when they knew it was all artificial. It was all for others' benefit. The cherries on top of this chit sundae were the they only got a very small share of the tariff money paid in the form of pork the federal government doled out and finally, they no longer had enough votes to stop this legalized plunder...and they knew that.

That's why they left.

They didn't leave to "protect" something which was not threatened and which only a very few of them participated in to begin with. It would be like the government saying you are no longer allowed to own a Ferrari. I'd be pissed because who the hell are they to tell me what I can and cannot buy with my money but realistically, I'm never going to be able to afford a Ferrari anyway so I'm certainly not going to be willing to fight over it. How about if the government started taxing me out of house and home? Now I'm ready to get my guns.

[marktwain]

We have the financial records for this time period. Perhaps you haven't seen them?

Here are some records which show a larger picture. It is not so simple as merely Southern exports of goods vs Northern exports of goods. Add in specie (gold and silver), which has to count, the balance for 1859 is much closer:

South 198 (rounded off) millions Non-South (rounded off) 135 millions.

Now add in contributions from immigrants (who brought money from overseas to the USA), which counts against exports, which was at least a few million dollars, mostly in non-south areas, and earning from services rendered overseas by US companies (most shipping) another few million (mostly from the North) and you are coming up with pretty near parity in non-South and South contributions to the balance of payments.

There are more complexities, of course. Many of the immigrants sent money back to Europe; money was invested (mostly by the British) in American companies, particularly railroads, mostly in the North. Loans were made from abroad to people in the US. Those may have been more in the South.

The balance of payments was not perfect, but bounced up and down from year to year. 1859 was a pretty high year for Southern exports, but also for export of gold and silver.

It is obvious the South was not being financially destroyed by the North. Some in the South may have thought so.

A serious problem for the South was the industrial revolution was undercutting the economic viability of slavery. A lot of people at the time could see a slave based economy would not be viable in the future. That undercut the entire slave owning culture of the South.

[Wallace T.]

From the end of Reconstruction to the 1970s, the Southern states were one party, Democrat states. A few areas, like East Tennessee and the Texas Hill Country, were Republican but they were in the decided minority. However, the Democrats included a full spectrum of ideology, from politicians more conservative than most Democrats, like Larry McDonald and Coke Stevenson, to extreme liberals like Claude Pepper and Ralph Yarbrough. The South did vote for FDR and Wilson, as well as LBJ, but the region also voted for conservatives like Grover Cleveland and John Davis.

[DiogenesLamp]

The balance of payments was not perfect, but bounced up and down from year to year. 1859 was a pretty high year for Southern exports, but also for export of gold and silver.

Gold and Silver came from mostly Nevada and California, and it is misleading to count them as the "North's" contribution.

Specie is not trade. Nations are loath to part with Specie and won't do it unless they have no choice.

Specie is not "trade", trade is "trade", and it was clearly in the South's best interest to get away from Northern laws taxing them at 12 times the per capita taxation of the Northern population.

Remaining in the Union made no money for the South, and caused them all sorts of problems. Leaving the Union would have gotten them an immediate 65 million per year taken out of Washington DC's coffers and put into Southern enterprises and infrastructure.

The swapping of Charleston for New York as the financial center would have netted them more still. The capitalization of their much smaller population would have had a massive effect on their economy.

You don't see the financial threat that the South posed to the entrenched powers in the North. You've never thought along those lines because no one pointed out to you the financial situation.

Nobody ponders how much of a money losing situation (for them) was Southern membership in the Union.

[marktwain]

Specie is not "trade", trade is "trade", and it was clearly in the South's best interest to get away from Northern laws taxing them at 12 times the per capita taxation of the Northern population.

The above is your claim. It is not convincing to me. Specie can clearly pay for imports. Very little gold or silver was produced in the South.

To claim it is irrelevant is disingenuous. I gave you several examples of ways in which imports can be offset in the balance of payments in other ways than direct exportation of goods. Ways which in fact, they *were* offset.

The only way "balance of payments" arguments make sense, is to look at all the inputs and outgo for the whole nation.

[jeffersondem]

I hate to be persistent but - when the South sent wealth in the form of cotton overseas, how was wealth repatriated back to the South?

[FLT-bird]

I hate to be persistent but - when the South sent wealth in the form of cotton overseas, how was wealth repatriated back to the South?

Money from sales of cash crops was used to buy manufactured goods to fill the holds of the ships. Those manufactured goods would then be hit by high tariffs - thus reducing the profitability of the whole trade.

[BroJoeK]

FKT-bird: "FIFY"

In this case obviously standing for "Falsified It For You". 😂

FKT-bird: "Your claim that only adult head of household White men were slaveholders is what is really not supported by any data.
We know of numerous examples of women being slave owners like Lee's and Grant's wives who inherited them from their families."

It turns out that you're right about women slaveholders -- I did not expect what I found when I looked into it.
In the 1860 census (and before) slaveholders were listed on slave schedules by county, and their slaves were listed by number (not by name) with information on the slaves' age, sex and race (black or mulatto).
In the samples I looked at a significant percentage of the slaveholders were women -- at least 10%, perhaps even 20%.
Further, in this book, Stephanie Jones-Rogers reports that during the 18th century in South Carolina, up to 40% of slave bills of sale included a woman as either buyer or seller.

However, what you are not correct about is your suggestion that women (or children) slaveholders significantly reduce the number of slaveholding families from 316,632 in the 11 Confederate states.
The reason is because there are no examples I could find of a Mr. & Mrs. Slaveholder listed on the slave-schedules, or of parent & children slaveholders.
In other words, there was only ever one slaveholder listed per family, though quite often that one was a woman.

This means that all the logic of circa 300,000 Confederate states' slaveholder families at 5.5 members per family results in approximately 1,650,000 Confederates belonging to slaveholding families, which is roughly 30% of 5.5 million free Confederates.
Of course, this number varied from around 50% in some counties of the Deep South to fewer than 1% in other counties, notably Appalachia.

FKT-bird: "You are simply ASSUMING that only the male head of household could possible be a slaveowner - in defiance of numerous examples - so you can maximize the number of slave owning families.
You couldn't be more transparent."

Yes, it turns out you are right to say a good percentage of slaveholders listed in 1860 slave-schedules were women -- between 10% and 20% in the samples I looked at.
However, I never saw even one example where both a husband and wife (or children) were both listed as slaveholders.
Therefore, it's entirely fair to say that the 316,632 Confederate slaveholders named in the 1860 census represent at least 300,000 slaveholder families.

FKT-bird: "Again, you are wrong.
Half of the 5.63% of the White population who were slaveowners fell into the more than 5 category.
So 2.8%, not 1%."

You missed my point -- it's this:

1. Of 316,632 named Confederate state slaveholders on the 1860 census, you say the median number of slaves was about 5, meaning half owned more than five, half fewer.
   Your number makes sense and I have no reason to dispute it.

2. If the average of those owning fewer than 5 slaves was half = 2.5 slaves then approximately 160,000 slaveholders owned 400,000 slaves or just over 10% of all slaves.

3. We also know the top 1% of slaveholders = 3,166 Confederate slaveholders, owned roughly 25% of all slaves, or about 900,000 slaves.

4. If we are going to find multiple slaveholders in one family, i.e., Mr. & Mrs. Slaveholder and their children each listed separately on census slave-schedules, then it would be amongst those 1%, logically.

In my samplings I didn't find any, but logically, they might well exist amongst the top 1% of slaveholding families.

FKT-bird: "Of course this only holds if the false assumption that only the male head of household could possibly own slaves and we know this to be false."

We now know that a significant percentage of slaveholders named in the 1860 census slave-schedules were women -- 10% to 20% in my samples.
However, I found no examples of a Mr. & Mrs. Slaveholder listed separately, or of children listed with their parents as slaveholders.
This means the number of named slaveholders -- 316,632 -- must also fairly represent the number of slaveholder families in Confederate states, which is roughly 30% of all families.

quoting BJK: "In Southern regions where slavery was weakest, there anti-slavery Unionism was strongest."

FKT-bird: "Not uniformly and this often had as much to do with social class and....the mountain folk were rather clannish.
They always had been and still are today.
Many of them weren't necessarily pro union though there were some.
More of them just wanted to be left alone and particularly did not want to be conscripted."

Agreed, generally, however, we should also notice that these anti-slavery Confederate regions produced significant numbers of white Union troops, including:

1. 21,000 from Eastern Tennessee
2. 3,000 from Western North Carolina
3. 20,000 from Western Virginia
4. 2,000 from Texas
5. 8,000 from Arkansas
6. 2,000 from Alabama

FKT-bird: "As I said, McPherson didn't provide any evidence backing up his guesstimate."

What you mean, truthfully, is that you never read McPherson and so you don't know what evidence he provided.
You are simply arguing from ignorance.

FKT-bird: "ROTFLMAO!!!! at the claim that almost all Confederate army officers were slaveholders.
Total BS.
You know how you became a captain and the head of a company in both armies North and South?
You got elected by the troops!
YES!
My G-G-Grandfather was one of those captains who was elected by his men.
I know from the 1860 US Census he was not a slaveowner nor were any of his 5 brothers who also served in the Confederate Army....nor his wife's two brothers who also served in the Confederate army nor my G-G-Uncle from the namebearing line who also served in the Confederate army. Not a single slaveowner among them.
Multiple officers.
Several other army officers were likewise not slave owners.
This is more of your PC Revisionist propaganda and lies."

Well, first, all promotions to higher ranks were made top-down, and of general grade Confederate officers the only non-slaveholder I know of was Patrick Cleburne, commander of Cleburne's Division in the Army of Tennessee.
He is famous for proposing enlisting Confederate slaves in exchange for their freedom.
He was passed over for promotion and killed at Franklin while attempting to carry out John Bell Hood's insane orders (attack! attack! attack!)

Second, you are obviously familiar with census slave-schedules, and may remember that they list slaveholders by county and so you could easily count the numbers of slaveholders in your ancestors' counties.
This would give you an idea of the percentages of slaveholder families and correspondingly, whether those counties more or less enthusiastically supported the Confederate war efforts.

FKT-bird: "And yet.....and yet....all your BS denials can't hide the fact that numerous Southern Political leaders had been complaining bitterly about the tariffs and grossly unequal federal expenditures for decades and the two largest newspapers from the original 7 seceding states made it quite clear that what was really driving all of this was the Tariff issue."

So, first of all, that "complaining bitterly" following the 1828 Tariff of Abominations and the 1832 Nullification Crisis resulted in four drastic reductions in tariffs:

1. The Tariff of 1832 (under Southern Democrat Pres. Jackson)
2. The Tariff of 1833 (under Southern Democrat Pres. Jackson)
3. The Walker Tariff of 1846 (under Southern Democrat Pres. Polk)
4. The Tariff of 1857 (under Northern Doughfaced Democrat Pres. Buchanan)

These reduced average tariffs from over 50% in 1830 to around 16% in 1860, their lowest since the early years of Pres. Washington's administration.

The predictable result was national debt doubled under Doughfaced Democrat Pres. Buchanan and that is why he signed the Morrill Tariff when it finally did pass.

Second, you only quote one newspaper, not two, from before the election, and that was, naturally, the Charleston Mercury, from the 1832 Nullification state, still nursing its wounds and plotting its revenge.
It clearly tells us that the globo-slaver elites of South Carolina were as rebellious as ever -- however, there was no way the vast majority of loyal Southern citizens could be convinced to declare secession and wage war against the United States over minor adjustments in tariff rates.

That's why Southern Fire Eaters made their propaganda all about slavery, slavery, slavery.

FKT-bird: "Slavery was a non issue in secession.
It was merely the pretext which allowed Southern states to argue truthfully that the Northern states had violated the compact."

The truth is that there was not even one in one hundred Southern citizens who would consider declaring secession and war against the United States over the Morrill plan to return tariffs to their 1846 Walker Tariff rates -- rates that were commended in Georgia's official "Reasons for Secession" document.

That's why Fire Eaters and Southern propagandists made it all about slavery, slavery, slavery.

FKT-bird #170: "Southerners saw the effects of the tariff when they got less money from Wholesalers for their cash crops."

quoting BJK: "That is such a bald-faced lie I can't even believe you'd claim it -- have you no intellectual honesty at all??"

FKT-bird: "Nope!
Its 100% true and your denial is the bald faced lie.
Talk about lack of intellectual honesty!"

Here's the truth:

1. You cannot provide either historical factual or logical connections between import tariff rates and prices paid for Southern cash crops -- so your claim here is just nonsense.

2. "Wholesaler" is not the correct term for that period.
   A "Factor" was very often the person who bought cash crops (like raw cotton) from producers, then transported and sold them to manufacturers.

FKT-bird: "Where a tariff is paid is IRRELEVANT.
WHO PAYS IT is what matters.
Southerners, being the exporters and importers, were the ones paying - not Northern ports.
As for Wholesale prices being depressed by high tariffs...OF COURSE THEY WERE.
Its basic economics.
If your imports are heavily tariffed, you are not going to make as much from the whole export/import venture. "

Sorry, but all of that is fact-free word-salad babbling nonsense, and you should well know better.
The truth is simple and straightforward:

1. During this period, 90% of imports came through Northern ports, especially New York, where they went into bonded warehouses, unsold.

2. When those imports sold, then tariffs were paid, and products shipped from these warehouses to customers anywhere in the US.

3. There is neither evidence nor logic suggesting that disproportionate percentages of imports shipped from, say, New York to Southern customers.

   

4. The major import US items and their customers were:
   • Woolens (for New England cloth manufacturers)
   • Brown Sugar (for Northern Big Cities)
   • Cotton (for New England cloth manufacturers)
   • Silks (for New York clothing manufacturers)
   • Iron (for Northern industrial manufacturers)
   • Coffee (everyone drank coffee)
   • Molasses (for Northern Big Cities)
   • Flax & Hemp (for ropes & canvas, i.e., on ships)
   • Tea (many also drank tea)
   • Wines (and many drank wine)

   None of these imports then shipped primarily to Southern customers.

   Of course, tariffs make imports more expensive, but nobody was forced to buy such products, nor did Southerners pay a disproportionate share of tariffs.

FKT-bird: "That's money out of your pocket.
You therefore are not going to be able to pay as much for the commodity you are exporting.
Also since their export sales are reduced due to the tariff, the English and French are not going to have as much money and will not be able to buy as much imports.
So as the Southern exporter, not only are your profits reduced, the sales of your commodity are reduced as well."

Regardless of your logic (or lack of) the facts remain that US cotton production & exports exploded between 1800 and 1860, with customers in Europe and elsewhere consuming every pound produced at prices which remained relatively stable over decades -- see the chart at right ------>

Overall prosperity in the US South was among the highest regions in the world, this growing prosperity reflected in the ever-increasing prices for slaves.

FKT-bird: "How can you not?....and how can you just sit there and lie about it?"

I would be lying if I said your words on this matter are factual and make good sense, which is why I've not said that.

FKT-bird: "And yet they saw their sales decline in the 1820s when tariff rates were about as high as the Morrill Tariff would go."

First, you can see yourself, what were the prices and production from 1800 to 1860.
The facts don't support your claims.

Second, the original Morrill rates simply returned tariffs to their 1846 Walker rates of circa 26%.
Even with later increases made necessary by the Civil War, tariffs never reached levels of the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations".

FKT-bird: "You forgot agricultural equipment which was a major item.
All of those goods could be and were manufactured by the English and French.
The English in particular had a massive textile industry.
The price of all those goods went up considerably as tariff rates were jacked up."

All such tariffs were intended to protect American manufacturers.
As Republican Pres. Trump said at that time, they Made America Great and Put Americans First.

FKT-bird: "Who was the low cost producer that was undercutting the South on price for those items?
Gee, that would be....errr.......nobody!
It wasn't the South that was clamoring for higher tariffs.
Quite the opposite."

The South already had 25% tariffs on its own exports, and yet despite those, cotton (#3) and sugar (#2) were still among the largest US import items.

FKT-bird: "Its true many Southern Politicians had supported high tariffs initially not understanding the effects they would have.
Once they saw it in the 1820s they very quickly changed their minds and wanted them repealed.
It was of course Northern manufacturers who loved those sky high tariffs."

And yet again, the Big Lie -- that it was all about "North vs. South" -- when in reality, most New Englanders opposed the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" and many Southerners supported it.
So, it wasn't about "where you lived" but rather it was about "what you did" for a living.
And the key point to remember here is that protective tariffs on Southern products like cotton and sugar were already as high as northern manufacturers wanted put on their products too.

FKT-bird: "Repeating your my BS is not going to make it any less false.
The national debt was not caused by low tariffs.
It was caused by excessive government spending - excessive demands by Northern Southern Democrat special interests for subsidies.
What the government needed to do was cut those subsidies."

F.I.F.Y.

quoting BroJoeK: "Tariffs were not a political issue in the South or anywhere else in 1860."

FKT-bird: "This is a bold faced lie as I have shown many times."

Naw, all you've shown is that globo-slaver elites in Charleston, SC, were still butt-hurting in 1860 over being taken to the woodshed by Southern Democrat Pres. Jackson in 1832, but the fact remains that none of the four political parties in 1860 made lower tariffs a party platform issue.

Nor did any Southern Fire Eater or politician in 1860 ever threaten to secede over tariffs.
Threats of secession were always about slavery and "Black Republicans".

FKT-bird quoting:

"The north has adopted a system of revenue and disbursements, in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the north ...
The South as the great exporting portion of the Union has, in reality, paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue,"
John C Calhoun Speech on the Slavery Question," March 4, 1850"

Well, first of all, Calhoun is lying here, what he says is simply not true, unless, unless, unless you define "the North" as everywhere North of South Carolina!
But, if you define "the South" normally, as South of the Mason Dixon line, then Calhoun is just lying.

Second, what's important to understand here is that outside of South Carolina's globo-slaver elites, nobody cared enough about tariffs to threaten secession over minor adjustments.

That is why Southern Fire Eaters -- like Yancey, Wigfall, Rhett, etc. -- shifted tactics from lying about tariffs to lying about slavery.

Jefferson complains because Massachusetts and Connecticut
didn't vote for his friend James Monroe in 1816:

FKT-bird quoting:

"Northerners are the fount of most troubles in the new Union.
Connecticut and Massachusetts exhaust our strength and substance and its inhabitants are marked by such a perversity of character they have divided themselves from the rest of America"
- Thomas Jefferson in an 1820 letter"

Assuming this quote is accurate, Jefferson is simply complaining about the two states which did not vote for the Democrat candidate in 1816.
In 1820 those states did vote for the Democrat, and since 1800 many Northerners voted for Jefferson and his friends:

1. In 1800, Northerners from Pennsylvania and New York supported Jefferson, that's how he got elected president.
   
2. In 1804, every Northern state except Connecticut voted for Jefferson.
   
3. In 1808, Northerns from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Vermont voted for Virginian, James Madison.
   
4. In 1812, despite Washington, DC's war against New England, Northerners from Pennsylvania and Vermont voted for Madison.
   
5. In 1816, Northerners from every state except Massachusetts and Connecticut voted for Virginian James Monroe.

6. In 1820, every Northern state voted for Pres. Monroe.

So, Jefferson in 1820 seems to be complaining that not every Northern state voted for Southern Democrats in every single election.

FKT-bird quoting:

"Before... the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....
Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing.
Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? ...
Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.....
Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures.
That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream.
This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North.
Federal legislation does all this."
----Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton, cited at page 49 of The South Was Right!, by James Ronald Kennedy & Walter Donald Kennedy"

So, there's quite a bit to unpackage here, including:

1. This Benton quote is from 1828, while Missouri Sen. Benton was a close ally of Andrew Jackson.
   Jackson supported the Tariff of Abominations, arguing that it would Make America Great and Put Americans First.
   So, Benton's opposition is almost as hard to understand as John C. Calhoun's original support for the Tariff of Abominations.

2. None of Benton's argument is factually true.
   In fact, the North always had substantial exports, including salted fish, manufactured textiles, iron manufactures, wheat, grain, leather goods and furs.

3. Benton claims that "Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue".
   This is the kind of nonsense Democrats specialize in -- it's how they make their livings, inventing lies just as clever as they are damaging.
   The truth is that while Southern exports certainly contributed to US economic prosperity, and therefore Federal tariff revenues, those exports were no more the "basis" of it than any other economic production.

4. Benton next claims, regarding Virginia, Carolinas and Georgia's exports: "...of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures."
   This is pure nonsense since, even in 1828, Federal spending was highly skewed toward slave-states, including 60% of all spending on forts, lighthouses and other infrastructure.

   But Benton here suggests that it's not even good enough that most Federal spending is in The South, but it needs to be in the four specific states of Virginia, Carolinas and Georgia.
   That's so ridiculous, I don't think even Benton believed it.
   So I suspect there was something going on between Benton and Calhoun regarding the Tariff of 1828, which passed Congress with strong support from Benton's state of Missouri and Benton's political ally, Andrew Jackson.

This is another good place to stop.

[FLT-bird]

BroJoeK: In this case obviously standing for "Falsified It For You". 😂

nah. Just fixed your usual lies and BS.

BroJoeK: It turns out that you're right about women slaveholders -- I did not expect what I found when I looked into it. In the 1860 census (and before) slaveholders were listed on slave schedules by county, and their slaves were listed by number (not by name) with information on the slaves' age, sex and race (black or mulatto). In the samples I looked at a significant percentage of the slaveholders were women -- at least 10%, perhaps even 20%. Further, in this book, Stephanie Jones-Rogers reports that during the 18th century in South Carolina, up to 40% of slave bills of sale included a woman as either buyer or seller. However, what you are not correct about is your suggestion that women (or children) slaveholders significantly reduce the number of slaveholding families from 316,632 in the 11 Confederate states. The reason is because there are no examples I could find of a Mr. & Mrs. Slaveholder listed on the slave-schedules, or of parent & children slaveholders. In other words, there was only ever one slaveholder listed per family, though quite often that one was a woman.

I too have looked at this and seen multiple examples of what I discussed. Wives who inherited slaves from their families....or who owned slaves at the time of marriage (sometimes given to her as a wedding gift by her parents), etc. I've seen examples of the adult children of slaveowners being given one or more slaves - sometimes these were sent off to the war with them to serve as bodyguards. The point is that yes, there were often multiple slave owners in one family particularly in the 2.5% of the population who were large slave owners.

BroJoeK: This means that all the logic of circa 300,000 Confederate states' slaveholder families at 5.5 members per family results in approximately 1,650,000 Confederates belonging to slaveholding families, which is roughly 30% of 5.5 million free Confederates. Of course, this number varied from around 50% in some counties of the Deep South to fewer than 1% in other counties, notably Appalachia.

It would mean that if your assumption of just one slave owner per family were accurate, but it is not.

BroJoeK: Yes, it turns out you are right to say a good percentage of slaveholders listed in 1860 slave-schedules were women -- between 10% and 20% in the samples I looked at. However, I never saw even one example where both a husband and wife (or children) were both listed as slaveholders. Therefore, it's entirely fair to say that the 316,632 Confederate slaveholders named in the 1860 census represent at least 300,000 slaveholder families.

LOL! No. I brought up the example of the two leading generals of each side both of whose wives inherited slaves from their families. This was not uncommon in slaveholding families. A young man might be given a manservant when he went off to school....a young woman given a personal servant as she approached adulthood (often the slaves given were childhood playmates of the slave owners' kids and were presumably close to them as a result). This sort of thing is not uncommon at all if you read about the period.

BroJoeK: You missed my point -- it's this: Of 316,632 named Confederate state slaveholders on the 1860 census, you say the median number of slaves was about 5, meaning half owned more than five, half fewer. Your number makes sense and I have no reason to dispute it. If the average of those owning fewer than 5 slaves was half = 2.5 slaves then approximately 160,000 slaveholders owned 400,000 slaves or just over 10% of all slaves.

Actually that's not what I said. I said half of slaveowners owned 5 or fewer. The other half owned more than 5. The large plantations with hundreds of slaves a la Terra from Gone With the Wind? That was less than 3% of the population.

BroJoeK: We also know the top 1% of slaveholders = 3,166 Confederate slaveholders, owned roughly 25% of all slaves, or about 900,000 slaves. If we are going to find multiple slaveholders in one family, i.e., Mr. & Mrs. Slaveholder and their children each listed separately on census slave-schedules, then it would be amongst those 1%, logically. In my samplings I didn't find any, but logically, they might well exist amongst the top 1% of slaveholding families.

Half of slaveowners owned more than 5 slaves. We are talking about roughly 2.7% of the population.

BroJoeK: We now know that a significant percentage of slaveholders named in the 1860 census slave-schedules were women -- 10% to 20% in my samples. However, I found no examples of a Mr. & Mrs. Slaveholder listed separately, or of children listed with their parents as slaveholders. This means the number of named slaveholders -- 316,632 -- must also fairly represent the number of slaveholder families in Confederate states, which is roughly 30% of all families.

No it does not mean that. When listing for the census they may well have listed all the community property under the head of household's name but we know women did own slaves in their own right. If you had a wife from a prominent slave owning family who married a man from the same social strata, they could easily both have entered the marriage with some slaves. Would they list them separately for the census taker?....or would they list the head of household and the total number of slaves in the household? It was the latter. You can't just ASSUME every slave in that household is exclusively his property which is what you're trying to do.

BroJoeK: What you mean, truthfully, is that you never read McPherson and so you don't know what evidence he provided. You are simply arguing from ignorance.

LOL! Wrong. I've read several of McPherson's books. One I would recommend to you is "What they Fought For" wherein he read the diaries and personal letters of Confederate soldiers. Guess what. They weren't fighting for slavery according to them but rather for their own liberty against a tyrannical federal government.

BroJoeK: Well, first, all promotions to higher ranks were made top-down, and of general grade Confederate officers the only non-slaveholder I know of was Patrick Cleburne, commander of Cleburne's Division in the Army of Tennessee. Second, you are obviously familiar with census slave-schedules, and may remember that they list slaveholders by county and so you could easily count the numbers of slaveholders in your ancestors' counties. This would give you an idea of the percentages of slaveholder families and correspondingly, whether those counties more or less enthusiastically supported the Confederate war efforts.

Higher level officers were appointed yes, but Lieutenants and Captains were elected. There were obviously many more of these officers than there were senior officers. As to what percentage of them were slaveowners I don't know since that data is not recorded anywhere. P.S. Lee did not own any slaves.

BroJoeK: So, first of all, that "complaining bitterly" following the 1828 Tariff of Abominations and the 1832 Nullification Crisis resulted in four drastic reductions in tariffs: The predictable result was national debt doubled under Doughfaced Democrat Pres. Buchanan and that is why he signed the Morrill Tariff when it finally did pass.

Maybe the federal government should have just cut subsidies to Northern Special Interest groups instead.

BroJoeK: Second, you only quote one newspaper, not two, from before the election, and that was, naturally, the Charleston Mercury, from the 1832 Nullification state, still nursing its wounds and plotting its revenge. It clearly tells us that the globo-slaver elites of South Carolina were as rebellious as ever -- however, there was no way the vast majority of loyal Southern citizens could be convinced to declare secession and wage war against the United States over minor adjustments in tariff rates.

The "adjustments" as you call them were anything but minor. They were doubling the tariff rates - and that was just the first step toward even higher tariffs. I've listed this before, I'll list it again.

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

BroJoeK: That's why Southern Fire Eaters made their propaganda all about slavery, slavery, slavery.

They listed slavery and the Northern states refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the US constitution because it gave them the pretext they wanted to be able to rightly say the Northern states violated the compact. They couldn't say that about their economic exploitation at Northern hands which they hated so much.

BroJoeK: The truth is that there was not even one in one hundred Southern citizens who would consider declaring secession and war against the United States over the Morrill plan to return tariffs to their 1846 Walker Tariff rates -- rates that were commended in Georgia's official "Reasons for Secession" document.

The Truth is that Southerners knew they were being exploited for other's benefit and they had had enough of it. They were perfectly content to live in peace and desired to live in peace. It was Lincoln who insisted on starting the war.

BroJoeK: That's why Fire Eaters and Southern propagandists made it all about slavery, slavery, slavery.

Violation of the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution gave them the grounds they needed to say the Northern states had violated the compact.

BroJoeK: Here's the truth: You cannot provide either historical factual or logical connections between import tariff rates and prices paid for Southern cash crops -- so your claim here is just nonsense.

Here's the truth. This was widely reported historical fact and it naturally follows that when demand is reduced, prices decline. Import tariffs reduced the incomes of foreign countries by slashing their exports. This resulted in them buying less cotton/tobacco. Its your denial here that is just nonsense.

"Wholesaler" is not the correct term for that period. A "Factor" was very often the person who bought cash crops (like raw cotton) from producers, then transported and sold them to manufacturers.

Yes, I know. I specifically listed Factors earlier. By saying Wholesaler, I was saying it in the modern parlance.

BroJoeK: Sorry, but all of that is fact-free word-salad babbling nonsense, and you should well know better. The truth is simple and straightforward:

I'm sorry but your denial here is laughable. You've never taken even a basic economics course have you? If you have, you've obviously learned nothing. When demand is reduced and supply stays the same, the price declines. European countries could not afford as many Southern imports if their exports to the US declined significantly due to higher tariffs.

BroJoeK: During this period, 90% of imports came through Northern ports, especially New York, where they went into bonded warehouses, unsold. When those imports sold, then tariffs were paid, and products shipped from these warehouses to customers anywhere in the US.

Tariffs are not paid when goods are sold to the end consumer. They are paid upon entry.

BroJoeK: There is neither evidence nor logic suggesting that disproportionate percentages of imports shipped from, say, New York to Southern customers.

Nobody said there was.

BroJoeK: The major import US items and their customers were: None of these imports then shipped primarily to Southern customers.

You're forgetting agricultural equipment, textiles (this was a big one....all those textile mills in England, etc

BroJoeK: Of course, tariffs make imports more expensive, but nobody was forced to buy such products, nor did Southerners pay a disproportionate share of tariffs.

Oh dear. You have no clue how the whole system worked and still works. Tariffs are paid by the owner of the goods upon entry. They are not paid by the end consumer. Prices will inevitably be higher because the owner of the goods/importer cannot eat the entire cost of the tariff himself. Domestic manufacturers will now be able to compete on price. In fact, they can raise their prices and now undercut import prices and gain market share. The importer will lose sales and feeling price pressure will reduce his profit margins (eating some of the tariff cost) to generate sales.

The importer loses market share and sees his margins squeezed. The domestic manufacturer can raise his prices thus increasing his margins and still gain market share. That's how tariffs actually work. It does not matter who the end consumer is. It does not matter which port the goods land in.

BroJoeK: Regardless of your logic (or lack of) the facts remain that US cotton production & exports exploded between 1800 and 1860, with customers in Europe and elsewhere consuming every pound produced at prices which remained relatively stable over decades -- see the chart at right ------>

Tariff rates fluctuated as we've discussed. Cotton Production increased and the value of exports thus increased. During the period when there were crushingly high tariffs, Southerners saw their sales decrease and their margins decrease. Meanwhile the cost of manufactured goods increased for them. They knew exactly what high tariffs meant for them.

BroJoeK: Overall prosperity in the US South was among the highest regions in the world, this growing prosperity reflected in the ever-increasing prices for slaves.

In relative terms the South was vastly richer than the North per capita at the time the Constitution was ratified. This had been the case before as well. By 1860, per capita income was about even. Part of that is a reflection of the fact that industrialization is much more efficient than the handcrafted industries it replaced. A significant part of that though was due to Southern trade being hit with tariff expenses and the federal government spending most of the money raised by tariffs in the Northern states.

BroJoeK: I would be lying if I said your words on this matter are factual and make good sense, which is why I've not said that.

Nah. What you're doing is lying.

BroJoeK: First, you can see yourself, what were the prices and production from 1800 to 1860. The facts don't support your claims.

Oh but they do. There weren't extremely high tariffs from 1800 to 1860. The period of really high tariffs was in the 1820s and early 30s.

BroJoeK: Second, the original Morrill rates simply returned tariffs to their 1846 Walker rates of circa 26%. Even with later increases made necessary by the Civil War, tariffs never reached levels of the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations".

Second, this is false. The Morrill Tariff proposed to double tariff rates. It eventually tripled them and was the highest in US history. This then stayed in place for over 50 years.

BroJoeK: All such tariffs were intended to protect American manufacturers.

By "American" manufacturers, you mean Northern manufacturers.

BroJoeK: As Republican Pres. Trump said at that time, they Made America Great and Put Americans First.

He of course was not speaking of that time.

BroJoeK: The South already had 25% tariffs on its own exports, and yet despite those, cotton (#3) and sugar (#2) were still among the largest US import items.

You mean when they were fighting a war of national survival started by Lincoln and were desperate to raise cash?

BroJoeK: and yet again, the Big Lie -- that it was all about "North vs. South" -- when in reality, most New Englanders opposed the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" and many Southerners supported it. So, it wasn't about "where you lived" but rather it was about "what you did" for a living.

Talk about Big Lies! You've just told a whopper of a lie here. New England was the most supportive of high tariffs while the South was most opposed. It was the South that was doing the vast majority of the exporting and importing. New England had far more of the manufacturing.

BroJoeL: And the key point to remember here is that protective tariffs on Southern products like cotton and sugar were already as high as northern manufacturers wanted put on their products too.

The key point to remember is nobody was competing against the South for cotton production nor much if at all for Sugar. The South was the low cost leader for Cotton and Tobacco. Some areas in the South were particularly good for sugar production, others less so.

BroJoeL: F.I.F.Y.

No you didn't. The Republicans were ALL ABOUT corporate welfare and subsidies for infrastructure projects. Lincoln was chief counsel and lobbyist for the biggest railroad which were THE biggest recipients of federal pork.

BroJoeL: Naw, all you've shown is that globo-slaver elites in Charleston, SC, were still butt-hurting in 1860 over being taken to the woodshed by Southern Democrat Pres. Jackson in 1832, but the fact remains that none of the four political parties in 1860 made lower tariffs a party platform issue.

Nah. I've shown over and over again in quote after quote from leading politicians as well as the largest newspapers as well as the Declarations of Causes that the Southern states knew they would be much better off financially if they were independent. I've also shown via the same sources, that the Northern states knew full well that Southern states were their cash cows and that they would be worse off if the Southern states left.

BroJoeL: Nor did any Southern Fire Eater or politician in 1860 ever threaten to secede over tariffs.

Which were not unconstitutional

BroJoeL: Threats of secession were always about slavery.

In which the conduct of the Northern states was actually unconstitutional.

BroJoeL: Well, first of all, Calhoun is lying here, what he says is simply not true, unless, unless, unless you define "the North" as everywhere North of South Carolina! But, if you define "the South" normally, as South of the Mason Dixon line, then Calhoun is just lying.,/p>

Well firstly, you're lying here and Calhoun is telling the truth.....as all those other statements by politicians on both sides, newspapers at the time on both sides as well as foreign and as economists who have studied the period all attest.

BroJoeL: Second, what's important to understand here is that outside of South Carolina's globo-slaver elites, nobody cared enough about tariffs to threaten secession over minor adjustments.

What's important to understand here is that you are lying. Southerners knew they had long been economically exploited by the Northern states. They knew it was about to get much much worse and they had had enough of it.

BroJoeL: That is why Southern Fire Eaters -- like Yancey, Wigfall, Rhett, etc. -- shifted tactics from lying about tariffs to lying about slavery.

They talked about slavery because it gave them the pretext they were looking for. The Northern states really had violated the fugitive slave clause of the US COnstitution. They could finally leave and rightfully say it was the other side that broke the deal.

BroJoeL: Jefferson complains because Massachusetts and Connecticut didn't vote for his friend James Monroe in 1816:

He specifically said they exhaust our substance - which at that time means money. Geez, you're really bad at lying.

BroJoeL: Assuming this quote is accurate, Jefferson is simply complaining about the two states which did not vote for the Democrat candidate in 1816. In 1820 those states did vote for the Democrat, and since 1800 many Northerners voted for Jefferson and his friends: In 1800, Northerners from Pennsylvania and New York supported Jefferson, that's how he got elected president. In 1804, every Northern state except Connecticut voted for Jefferson.

No, he specifically said they exhaust our strength and substance. Texas used exactly the same wording in its declaration of causes. That means of course, money.

BroJoeL: So, there's quite a bit to unpackage here, including: This Benton quote is from 1828, while Missouri Sen. Benton was a close ally of Andrew Jackson. Jackson supported the Tariff of Abominations, arguing that it would Make America Great and Put Americans First. So, Benton's opposition is almost as hard to understand as John C. Calhoun's original support for the Tariff of Abominations. None of Benton's argument is factually true.

Ah but you see, ALL of Benton's argument is factually true. I've cited similar numbers from others several times.

BroJoeL: In fact, the North always had substantial exports, including salted fish, manufactured textiles, iron manufactures, wheat, grain, leather goods and furs.

This is simply false. The only significant Northern export was Midwestern Grain and that didn't really start becoming a significant export until nearing the middle of the 19th century. New England and the Northeast exported practically nothing. This is why they were much poorer than the Southern states in the early years of the Republic. This is why they screamed constantly for subsidies.

BroJoeL: Benton claims that "Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue". This is the kind of nonsense Democrats specialize in -- it's how they make their livings, inventing lies just as clever as they are damaging. The truth is that while Southern exports certainly contributed to US economic prosperity, and therefore Federal tariff revenues, those exports were no more the "basis" of it than any other economic production.

This is yet another lie on your part. Even Lincoln admitted as much. "If I do that, what would become of my revenue? I might as well shut up housekeeping at once!" ~ Lincoln, in response to the suggestion by the Virginian Commissioners to abandon the custom house of Fort Sumter. (Housekeeping is a euphemism for federal spending.)

BroJoeL: Benton next claims, regarding Virginia, Carolinas and Georgia's exports: "...of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures." This is pure nonsense since, even in 1828, Federal spending was highly skewed toward slave-states, including 60% of all spending on forts, lighthouses and other infrastructure.

Here you are wrong again. Subsidies for the fishing fleet, for mines, for infrastructure projects such as the Erie Canal, various infrastructure for NYC and railroads were the biggest subsidy hogs of all. All of this went overwhelmingly to the Northern states.

BroJoeL: But Benton here suggests that it's not even good enough that most Federal spending is in The South, but it needs to be in the four specific states of Virginia, Carolinas and Georgia.

Its very simple. The VAST majority of federal spending was in the North, not the South.

BroJoeL: That's so ridiculous, I don't think even Benton believed it. So I suspect there was something going on between Benton and Calhoun regarding the Tariff of 1828, which passed Congress with strong support from Benton's state of Missouri and Benton's political ally, Andrew Jackson.

Its hilarious watching you lie and try to weasel in the face of quote after quote after quote saying the exact oppose of what you so desperately want to believe.