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

FLT-bird quoting:

"South Carolina Senator James Hammond had declared that the South paid about $50,000,000 and the North perhaps $20,000,000 of the $70,000,000 raised annually by duties.
In expenditure of the national revenues, Hammond thought the North got about $50,000,000 a year, and the South only $20,000,000. "
When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Succession Charles Adams"

And yet again, a globo-slaver elite from South Carolina, the 1860 butt-hurt state, still smarting from Pres. Jackson's 1832 Nullification trip to the woodshed.
Hammond was a long-time SC politician, former SC governor, who served in the US Senate from 1857 to 1860.

Turns out, according to his own confessions, that Hammond was not only an original SC globo-slaver, but he was also a globo-homo and pedophile.

Regardless, the fact remains that in 1860, US cotton exports accounted for roughly half of all US exports, while other Confederate state exports (i.e., tobacco) added perhaps another 5%.
Union state exports, including California gold and Nevada silver, accounted for the rest.

Further, Hammond's claim (repeating Calhoun & others), that this meant "the South" "paid for" $50 million of US Federal revenues (71%), is just nonsense.
The truth is that Federal tariff revenues were paid for by whomever purchased US imports and so paid those tariffs -- and those were overwhelmingly Northerners, Easterners and Westerners, not Southerners.
As I noted in post #199 above, US imports went everywhere in the US, only occasionally to the South.
Here again are US major import tariff items -- from most to least, and their (biggest destinations):

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)

Finally, we should note that Hammond died at age 56 on November 13, 1864.
His cause of death was reported as mercury poisoning, mercury being the usual treatment for syphilis in those days.

FLT-bird quoting:

[To a Northern Congressman] "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers.
You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals.
You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us.
You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of Northern Capitalist.
You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and our institutions."
Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas"

I can't confirm this quote, however Texas Congressman Reagan was rewarded for such sophistry by being appointed the CSA's Postmaster General -- by all accounts did a good job and was eventually returned to Congress (1874) and the US Senate (1887) before passing away in eastern Texas at age 86 in 1905.

Reagan's accusations, although doubtless heartfelt, are pure nonsense, except in that they confirm the centrality of slavery to Confederates' Reasons for Secession.

FLT-bird quoting:

"What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party?
Do you propose to better the condition of the slave?
Not at all.
What then do you propose?
You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery.
Is the slave to be benefited by it?
Not at all.
What then do you propose?
It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country.
It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds.
It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement.
It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim.
You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why?
Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.”
Senator Jefferson Davis 1860

Again, I can't confirm the quote or the circumstances, but it does sound like the kind of words that made Jefferson Davis the new Confederacy's president.
It's pure nonsense, yet another Democrat Big Lie, but it certainly helped to inspire Southerners that slavery was under assault by Northerners intent on "cheating" the South with "unjust legislation" for "Northern aggrandizement" to promote New England industry at the expense of Southern industry.

None of these quotes reduce the roll of slavery as a central cause of 1860 and 1861 Declarations of Secession.

FLT-bird quoting:

"On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill."
The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists."
Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."

We've dealt with Toombs before and can do so again.
Here are the key points:

The first point to notice is that this was November 19, 1860, after the November 6 election, during which opposition to the proposed Morrill Tariff was not mentioned in any of the four party platforms -- Southern Democrats, Northern Democrats, Constitutional Unionists or Republicans.
Nor did Southern Fire Eaters threaten secession, before the election, over the Morrill Tariff.
Southern Democrats killed the Morrill Tariff in the 36th Congress (1860) and could have easily killed it again in the 37th Congress (1861-1863) had they not resigned due to secession.
So, the Morrill Tariff was not a serious threat to the South in 1860 or 1861 -- nor did the vast majority of Southerners treat it as such.
Former Mississippi Democrat Sen. Robert Walker:
Toombs' arguments here against the Morrill Tariff are just typical Democrat BS nonsense.
In fact, all Morrill seriously needed to do was reduce the Federal debt by increasing tariff rates from the 16% of the 1857 Tariff back to the 25% of the 1846 Walker Tariff -- the Walker Tariff was named after former Mississippi Democrat Sen. Robert Walker, who proposed it, under Southern Democrat Pres. Polk and so it passed without serious Democrat opposition.
Regardless, notice that yet again Toombs paired the tariff with slavery as threats against Georgia.
This is the same pattern we've seen with others, notably Rhett.
Finally, we should notice that Georgia's official "Reasons for Secession" document does list tariffs, but pairs them with slavery and also commends the 1846 Walker Tariff as the example setter of a good tariff.
After the 1860 elections, Southern Democrats would still retain power in Congress to at least insure there was no significant difference between the 1846 Walker Tariff and the 1861 Morrill Tariff.

FLT-bird: "Gosh......looks like a live political issue to me both long before 1860 and right through 1860."

Of course, tariffs were always at issue in Washington -- tariffs were "politics as usual" -- but outside of South Carolina in 1832, tariffs were never the source of threats of Southern secession.

FLT-bird: "The North had a sectional party that in its party platform called for high tariffs.
The South was dominated by a political party that supported low tariffs.
Each of those parties saw little opposition in their regions."

Sure, but calls for lower tariffs -- or complaints about high tariffs -- were not mentioned in any of the 1860 party platforms.
Nor did any Southern politician ever threaten secession over the Morrill Tariff -- at least not that has ever been presented in these threads.

FLT-bird: "There had been other tariffs in the past and for all they knew could be others in the future.
The Morrill Tariff was but the latest attempt.
It was jacking tariff rates up and the grossly unequal federal government expenditures they complained of - not just one particular attempt to jack those tariff rates up one time."

Sure, but tariffs were always "politics as usual", where specific rates could go up or down with each new Congress and political alignment.
With the sole exception of one state, South Carolina, and one episode, the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations", tariffs were never weaponized to threaten secession or war against the United States.

FLT-bird: "As we've already discussed the Morrill Tariff proposed doubling tariff rates and everyone knew they would not stop there.
That was just the first bite of the apple.
Also, we need to remember that even the 16 tariff was considerably higher than the Southern States wanted as evidenced by them setting 10% as the maximum tariff rate allowable under the Confederate Constitution."

Sorry, but now you're just repeating your talking points.
The truth is the original 1860 Morrill proposal increased average rates from 16% to around 26%, and that was defeated by Southern Democrats in Congress.
So, there was no "first bite of the apple", much less a "second bit" -- all that is just nonsense.

Finally, we've covered this before -- your alleged 10% CSA tariff is a total fantasy because nobody in the CSA congress ever proposed it, and that congress never enacted such a rate.
The actual rates in March 1861 (the only rates ever effectively enforced) were about the same as the US Tariff of 1857 or 15%.

FLT-bird: "Oh, and of course only 4 states issued declarations of causes, not 7."

Yes, before the Battle of Fort Sumter, four states issued official "Reasons for Secession" documents -- SC, MS, GA & TX -- plus two individuals wrote highly influential statements -- Rhett and Stephens -- plus one state, Alabama, included a reason in its Declaration of Secession, and that reason was, of course, slavery.

FLT-bird: "Southern political leaders thought the tariffs and subsidies of Northern "infant industries" would be TEMPORARY.
They did not think they were signing up to have their and their children's pockets picked for generations. "

Here's how you can know those words are 100% nonsense -- the first US tariff was enacted in 1789:

"The Tariff Act of 1789 was the first major piece of legislation passed in the United States after the ratification of the United States Constitution.
It had two purposes: to protect manufacturing industries developing in the nation and to raise revenue for the federal government.
It was sponsored by Congressman James Madison, passed by the 1st United States Congress, and signed into law by President George Washington.
The act levied a 50¢ per ton duty on goods imported by foreign ships; American-owned vessels were charged 6¢ per ton...
Charges up to fifty percent were imposed on selected manufactured and agricultural goods, including "steel, ships, cordage, tobacco, salt, indigo [and] cloth."

In 1789, tobacco was the US number one export, and notice it is protected by the highest possible tariff, 50%.

So all of the essential features of tariffs in, for example, 1860 were also present in the very first tariff under Pres. Washington, as submitted to Congress by Congressman James Madison.

This is a good place to stop for now...

BroJoeL: And yet again, a globo-slaver elite from South Carolina, the 1860 butt-hurt state, still smarting from Pres. Jackson's 1832 Nullification trip to the woodshed. Hammond was a long-time SC politician, former SC governor, who served in the US Senate from 1857 to 1860. Turns out, according to his own confessions, that Hammond was not only an original SC globo-slaver, but he was also a globo-homo and pedophile.

Uh huh. So all you've got are ad hominem attacks - just like one would expect from a grade schooler. Pathetic.

BroJoeL: Regardless, the fact remains that in 1860, US cotton exports accounted for roughly half of all US exports, while other Confederate state exports (i.e., tobacco) added perhaps another 5%. Union state exports, including California gold and Nevada silver, accounted for the rest.

The fact remains that the South had provided 70-75% of all exports since the ratification of the US Constitution.

BroJoeL: Further, Hammond's claim (repeating Calhoun & others), that this meant "the South" "paid for" $50 million of US Federal revenues (71%), is just nonsense.

No its not.

BroJoeL: The truth is that Federal tariff revenues were paid for by whomever purchased US imports and so paid those tariffs -- and those were overwhelmingly Northerners, Easterners and Westerners, not Southerners.

Once again, you do not have the slightest clue how tariffs work. You display your ignorance for all to see yet again. The owner of the goods pays the tariff. Not the port. Not the end customer. The owner of the goods.

BroJoeL: As I noted in post #199 above, US imports went everywhere in the US, only occasionally to the South.

As I've noted over and over again, where the goods land and the tariff is paid or who the end customers are is irrelevant. The owner of the goods pays the tariff.

BroJoeK: Here again are US major import tariff items -- from most to least, and their (biggest destinations): blah blah blah

Once again we should note that who buys the final product is irrelevant. They do not pay the tariff. The owner of the goods does. To illustrate, when President Trump slapped tariffs on a bunch of Chinese goods, did you pay the tariff when you went to Wal-Mart, Target, etc to buy goods? Of course not. Prices on those goods may have been raised to cover the cost of the tariff, but there was no tariff surcharge on your receipt....and that's because as the end consumer, you don't pay the tariff.

BroJoeK: Finally, we should note that Hammond died at age 56 on November 13, 1864. His cause of death was reported as mercury poisoning, mercury being the usual treatment for syphilis in those days.

Finally, we should note that this is irrelevant.

BroJoeK: Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas" I can't confirm this quote, however Texas Congressman Reagan was rewarded for such sophistry by being appointed the CSA's Postmaster General -- by all accounts did a good job and was eventually returned to Congress (1874) and the US Senate (1887) before passing away in eastern Texas at age 86 in 1905. Reagan's accusations, although doubtless heartfelt, are pure nonsense, except in that they confirm the centrality of slavery to Confederates' Reasons for Secession.

Irrelevant personal biography. His complaints here were both completely valid AND consistent with what many other Southern political leaders and Newspapers (and doubtless ordinary people) had been saying for many many years. They show that the economic exploitation of the Southern states by the North was at the heart of Southerners' discontent with the union.

BroJoeK: Again, I can't confirm the quote or the circumstances, but it does sound like the kind of words that made Jefferson Davis the new Confederacy's president. It's pure nonsense, yet another Democrat Big Lie, but it certainly helped to inspire Southerners that slavery was under assault by Northerners intent on "cheating" the South with "unjust legislation" for "Northern aggrandizement" to promote New England industry at the expense of Southern industry.

Its all completely true. What was going on was a power struggle between North and South. Slavery was an issue only in so far as it provided a convenient wedge issue for Northerners to use. What the two sides were really fighting over was the North wanted to use the federal government to line their own pockets at the South's expense. The South naturally opposed this. This is exactly what secession and Lincoln's war of aggression were about. The North stood to lose a lot of money if their cash cows departed.

BroJoeK: All of these quotes reduce the roll of slavery as a central cause of 1860 and 1861 Declarations of Secession and show that professed concerns about slavery were a mere pretext for Southerners real concerns which were economic.

FIFY

BroJoeK: We've dealt with Toombs before and can do so again. Here are the key points: The first point to notice is that this was November 19, 1860, after the November 6 election, during which opposition to the proposed Morrill Tariff was not mentioned in any of the four party platforms -- Southern Democrats, Northern Democrats, Constitutional Unionists or Republicans.

We've dealt with this before and we can deal with it again. The Republicans were a protectionist party entirely beholden to Northern corporate interests. As such everyone knew they favored high tariffs. The Southern Democrats were fiercely opposed to high tariffs as they had long been and as everyone knew.

BroJoeK: Nor did Southern Fire Eaters threaten secession, before the election, over the Morrill Tariff.

the tariff which was not unconstitutional?

BroJoeK: Southern Democrats killed the Morrill Tariff in the 36th Congress (1860) and could have easily killed it again in the 37th Congress (1861-1863) had they not resigned due to secession.

False. It passed the House in the Spring of 1860 and was sure to pass the Senate in 1861. All that was needed was to pick off one or at most 2 Senators.

BroJoeK: So, the Morrill Tariff was not a serious threat to the South in 1860 or 1861 -- nor did the vast majority of Southerners treat it as such.

the Morrill Tariff absolutely was a serious threat to the South in 1860-61 and Southerners knew it full well. There is a reason why the largest newspapers in the two largest port cities of the Southern states published editorials saying exactly that.....yes, even though they didn't say the words "Morrill Tariff" directly.

BroJoeK: Toombs' arguments here against the Morrill Tariff are just typical Democrat BS nonsense.

No they're not. They're exactly on point.

BroJoeK: In fact, all Morrill seriously needed to do was reduce the Federal debt by increasing tariff rates from the 16% of the 1857 Tariff back to the 25% of the 1846 Walker Tariff.

paying off government debts incurred from giving lavish subsidies to Northern Special Interests was not the reason Republicans and Northern Industrialists wanted a high tariff. They wanted a high tariff to line their own pockets by increasing margins while at the same time allowing them to gain market share in the US.

BroJoeK: Regardless, notice that yet again Toombs paired the tariff with slavery as threats against Georgia. This is the same pattern we've seen with others, notably Rhett.

Notice what Rhett and Toombs were saying. Northern corporate interests who wanted a high tariff were using slavery as a wedge issue to get their tariff passed. Specifically - as Rhett lays out - to keep Midwesterners on side given that large swathes of the Midwest were given to grain production and they too had no interest in a high protective tariff. It is not that Northern industrialists really gave a damn about slavery. It was just a convenient political tool for them to use. Notice the very first bargaining chip the Republicans offered up was express constitutional protection of slavery effectively forever. What they really wanted was the high tariffs. What the Southern states really wanted was not to be stuck with a very damaging high tariff - so they rejected the Corwin Amendment.

BroJoeK: Finally, we should notice that Georgia's official "Reasons for Secession" document does list tariffs, but pairs them with slavery and also commends the 1846 Walker Tariff as the example setter of a good tariff.

The Georgia Declaration lists the one issue that allowed them to legitimately claim the Northern states had violated the US Constitution - ie slavery. They also went on at length talking about tariffs and the grossly unequal federal expenditures favoring the North even though these were not unconstitutional.

BroJoeK: After the 1860 elections, Southern Democrats would still retain power in Congress to at least insure there was no significant difference between the 1846 Walker Tariff and the 1861 Morrill Tariff.

No they wouldn't. All that was needed for the Morrill Tariff to pass was picking off a Senator or two.

BroJoeK: Of course, tariffs were always at issue in Washington -- tariffs were "politics as usual" -- but outside of South Carolina in 1832, tariffs were never the source of threats of Southern secession.

Because the US Constitution set no limit on how high tariffs could be. Raising the tariff to the point that it greatly damaged one section of the country to the benefit of another was not unconstitutional. No matter how much Southerners hated it and thought it grossly unfair - and I've provided ample evidence they did - they could not claim high tariffs and grossly unequal federal expenditures were unconstitutional.

BroJoeK: Sure, but calls for lower tariffs -- or complaints about high tariffs -- were not mentioned in any of the 1860 party platforms.

The Republican made it clear they supported high tariffs. Lincoln made it extra special clear he supported high tariffs.

BroJoeK: Nor did any Southern politician ever threaten secession over the Morrill Tariff -- at least not that has ever been presented in these threads.

The tariff that was not unconstitutional?

BroJoeK: Sure, but tariffs were always "politics as usual", where specific rates could go up or down with each new Congress and political alignment.

by "politics as usual" you mean they had been fighting over it for a long time...that they had been engaged in a long power struggle over this issue.

BroJoeK: With the sole exception of one state, South Carolina, and one episode, the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations", tariffs were never weaponized to threaten secession or war against the United States.

Tariffs were not unconstitutional. Nobody proposed or wanted war against the United States. Lincoln started the war to prevent the North's cash cows from leaving.

BroJoeK: Sorry, but now you're just repeating your talking points.

What do you think you've been doing for years on this topic?

BroJoeK: The truth is the original 1860 Morrill proposal increased average rates from 16% to around 26%, and that was defeated by Southern Democrats in Congress.

The Truth is the Morrill tariff raised rates to approximately double their previous rate and the tariff passed the House in 1860. They were only one or at most two votes away in the Senate and were confident they could get one or two Senators with the right incentives/threats.

BroJoeK: So, there was no "first bite of the apple", much less a "second bit" -- all that is just nonsense.

LOL! Not its not. The denial is what is nonsense. They raised rates to TRIPLE what they were before AND left them in place for over FIFTY YEARS.

BroJoeK: Finally, we've covered this before -- your alleged 10% CSA tariff is a total fantasy because nobody in the CSA congress ever proposed it, and that congress never enacted such a rate.

Your denial here is the real joke. Read the Confederate Constitution. It says tariff for revenue not protective tariff. They only raised it higher than that when under dire threat of invasion and in desperate need of money to pay for their defense.

BroJoeK: The actual rates in March 1861 (the only rates ever effectively enforced) were about the same as the US Tariff of 1857 or 15%.

When you have the then largest army in the world on your doorstep threatening invasion, you will engage in extreme and desperate measures to defend yourself.

BroJoeK: Yes, before the Battle of Fort Sumter, four states issued official "Reasons for Secession" documents -- SC, MS, GA & TX -- plus two individuals wrote highly influential statements -- Rhett and Stephens -- plus one state, Alabama, included a reason in its Declaration of Secession, and that reason was, of course, slavery.

Alabama issued no declaration of causes and of course Stephens' statement was not influential. Stephens was the powerless VP who spent all his time sitting at home in Georgia he had so little power or influence with the Confederate Government.

BroJoeK: Here's how you can know those words are 100% nonsense -- the first US tariff was enacted in 1789: "The Tariff Act of 1789 was the first major piece of legislation passed in the United States after the ratification of the United States Constitution. It had two purposes: to protect manufacturing industries developing in the nation and to raise revenue for the federal government. It was sponsored by Congressman James Madison, passed by the 1st United States Congress, and signed into law by President George Washington. The act levied a 50¢ per ton duty on goods imported by foreign ships; American-owned vessels were charged 6¢ per ton... Charges up to fifty percent were imposed on selected manufactured and agricultural goods, including "steel, ships, cordage, tobacco, salt, indigo [and] cloth." In 1789, tobacco was the US number one export, and notice it is protected by the highest possible tariff, 50%.

Why would any country need to protect their big export? That was simply thrown in as a meaningless sop as everyone well knew. Southerners were indeed willing to subsidize infant industry in the newly created country. They were also willing to enact the Navigation Act similar to what Britain had in order to ensure there would be a large amount of domestic shipping and a shipbuilding industry in case of war. Its nonsense to say that because they agreed to high tariffs and subsidies for these infant industries right at the beginning, that means they were agreeing to it for the long term. Infant industries are not meant to stay infant for generations. Infants are supposed to grow up.

BroJoeK: So all of the essential features of tariffs in, for example, 1860 were also present in the very first tariff under Pres. Washington, as submitted to Congress by Congressman James Madison.

It was 70 years later. That was more than enough time for those infant industries to have grown up and weened themselves off the government tit. Also, by 1860, the North had caught up to the South in per capita wealth. The South was no longer vastly richer than the North which it had been 70 years earlier. Enough was enough.

All the above statements were further supported by President Davis in his first speech to the Confederate Congress:

"The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other. And the danger of disruption arising from this cause was enhanced by the fact that the Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control." Jefferson Davis Address to the Confederate Congress April 29, 1861

So contrary to the PC Revisionist claims that economic complaints like this were somehow only invented after the fact, Southerners had been making the same complaints for decades leading up to secession and even after secession.

FLT-bird: "Notice what Rhett was saying."

It's worth noticing, yet again, what all the "Reasons for Secession" documents said:

"Reasons for Secession" Documents before Fort Sumter -- % of words devoted to each reason *

Reasons for Secession	S. Carolina	Mississippi	Georgia	Texas	Rbt. Rhett	A. Stephens	AVERAGE OF 6
Historical context	41%	20%	23%	21%	20%	20%	24%
Slavery	20%	73%	56%	54%	35%	50%	48%
States' Rights	37%	3%	4%	15%	15%	10%	14%
Lincoln's election	2%	4%	4%	4%	5%	0%	3%
Economic issues**	0	0	15%	0%	25%	20%	10%
Military protection	0	0	0	6%	0%	0%	1%

* Alabama listed only slavery in its "whereas" reasons for secession.
** Economic issues include tariffs, "fishing smacks" and other alleged favoritism to Northerners in Federal spending.

Rhett was concerned about other economic issues, but he was equally concerned about slavery.

FLT-bird: "Slavery was being used as a wedge issue by Northern corporate interests to keep the Midwest from siding with the South.
Their interests otherwise aligned and they would have had no more cause to support high tariffs than the Southern states did.
THAT is the sense in which Rhett meant the slavery issue here."

Again you illustrate how your brain is fried with ideas like "The North" and "The South" when reality then, as now, was far more complex and nuanced.
Consider, for example, Congressional votes on the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations":

The TOA was originally supported by SC Democrat Sen. Calhoun, Tennessee Democrat Andrew Jackson and Kentucky Whig Sen. Clay.
The TOA was most strongly supported by Mid-Atlantic and Mid-Western manufacturing states -- from New York to Missouri.
The TOA was opposed by the majority of New Englanders in Congress (16 for, 23 against) because it taxed their raw materials.
This opposition was led by NY Democrat Sen. Martin Van Buren.
The TOA was most strongly opposed by Deep South and Upper South states (4 for, 64 against)

So, again, the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" was not "North vs. South", but rather multiple regional interests and principles (i.e., "MAGA") at work in the US political process.

FLT-bird: "None of the other declarations of causes goes on to the length Rhett does in describing Tariffs as a big driver of secession.
Georgia focuses much more on grossly unequal federal expenditures.
Texas does talk about the economics but has complaints that the federal government is failing to secure the border (sound familiar?) and failing to protect them adequately against the Commanche who were as savage in their raids as Hamas AND that this was done maliciously ie because Texas was a Southern state and allowed slavery.
They also talked about the specific attempts by Northern terrorists to foment slave rebellions using the US mail, etc.
So Texas had broader concerns than the other Southern states."

None of that is under dispute here.
Rather, the issue is the centrality of slavery in the various "Reasons for Secession" documents, and the fact remains that, whatever other issues were mentioned, every "Reason for Secession" included slavery and for some (i.e., Mississippi & Alabama) slavery was their only reason.

FLT-bird: "Again, there was no need to mention one specific tariff when the issue had been tariffs in general and grossly unequal federal expenditures.
Of course, the Morrill Tariff passed the House in the Spring of 1860 and was sure to pass the Senate in the Spring of 1861 as everyone knew.
So yes, this latest attempt to jack the tariff rate up very high which everyone knew was coming was very much an issue in 1860."

All of that is pure nonsense because:

The proposed Morrill Tariff was defeated in the 36th Congress (1860), by Senate Southern Democrats.
These same Southern Democrats could have easily defeated Morrill in the 37th Congress (1861-1863), where they would still hold the US Senate majority, except... except... except... for the fact that they had walked out over secession.
In other words, secession caused Morrill to pass, and without secession there would be no new Morrill Tariff.
But, typical of Democrats, you want to reverse cause and effect and blame Morrill for what it was, in fact, the direct result of secession, not the cause.
A good-faith effort by Southern Democrats to negotiate what they objected most to in Morrill could easily have produced compromises which would have reduced some of Morrill's increases, increased Federal spending on Southerners' favorite boondoggle projects, plus reduced the wasteful Federal spending which had doubled our national debt under Democrat Pres. Buchanan.

In short, tariffs were always highly negotiable and even in the 37th Congress (1861 to 1863), Southerners in Congress had the upper hand to achieve their aims, if that's what they wanted.

Finally, I should mention again that your claims of what supposedly "everyone knew" are not valid and amount to a confession that whatever follows your words "everyone knew" is just nonsense of your own concoction.

FLT-bird: "Everybody knew the Morrill Tariff passed the House in 1860 and was just one or two votes shy of passing the Senate.
They also knew that the Republicans were staunchly in favor of high tariffs.
The only question was which Senator or two would be picked off first."

What your argument here amounts to is a confession that even Southerners didn't care enough -- about preventing a return to the 1846 Walker Tariff levels -- to have stood strong against it, which is just what I've been saying.
The fact remains that Morrill could not have passed the Senate unchanged in 1861, or later, had Southern Democrats stood strong against it.
Morrill only passed in 1861 after many Southerners walked out of Congress.

FLT-bird: "But the balance between the two sections had been thrown off with the admission of California so now Southerners knew they no longer had the votes in the Senate to protect themselves."

That's just nonsense because, first, even in the 37th Congress (1861-63), Democrats were the Senate majority, which meant Southern Democrats could easily influence Northern Democrats to support matters of their vital interest.

Second, even in the House, in 1860 and 1861 there were enough anti-Republican votes to form a coalition Democrat majority, if that's what Southern Democrats wanted to do.
This coalition anti-Republican majority would have included Southern Democrats, Northern Democrats, American "Know Nothings", Constitutional Unionists, and "Opposition" Southerners.
Of course... that would have required negotiations, diplomacy, and playing nice with others, something not all Southerners were highly skilled at, it seems.

FLT-bird: "the actual historical fact is that even the 16% tariff was considerably higher than the South wanted and Washington DC did not have a revenue problem.
It had a spending problem (sound familiar?).
That spending went overwhelmingly to Northern special interests by way of subsidies."

Sorry, but regardless of how often you repeat such nonsense, it remains fact-free because:

There is no serious evidence that "The South" wanted tariffs lower than the 16% average from the Tariff of 1857.
Doubling the national debt under Democrat Pres. Buchanan (1857 to 1860) did result from a combination of reduced revenues after the Tariff of 1857 plus increased Federal spending.
The increased Federal spending had nothing to do with alleged payments "overwhelmingly to Northern special interests by way of subsidies."
Instead, the biggest cause, by far, of extra Federal spending was on the US military for such projects as:
- Building US forts in the South and West, such as Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, SC.
- US Army military adventures such as the Mormon War in Utah -- 1857 to 1858.
  This adventure was commanded by Gen. Albert Syndey Johnson, from Kentucky.
- US Navy foreign adventures such as the Paraguay Expedition -- 1858 to 1859.
  This adventure was commanded by Admiral Wlm. Shubrick, from South Carolina.
- US Army border patrols in Texas to protect against "ruthless Indian savages" and "Mexican banditti".
  The US Army there was commanded by, among others, Col Rbt. Lee, from Virginia.
There is no evidence of unfair subsidies of "northern special interests" -- yet again, unless you define "The North" as everywhere north of South Carolina!
Instead, Federal spending was biased towards The South, defined as slave-states, which received about 60% of Federal dollars on Forts, Lighthouses and other Infrastructure.

FLT-bird: "Buchanan was a Pennsylvanian.
Pennsylvania was staunchly in favor of high tariffs.
It would benefit them greatly."

Buchanan was also a Doughfaced Northern Democrat, which means he was highly solicitous of, and beholden to, the special interests of his Southern Democrat allies.
Had they used Buchanan effectively, they could well have negotiated deals which satisfied their major concerns.
Remember, Buchanan was instrumental in both the Tariff of 1857 and the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision.
Buchanan was the South's man for everything except secession.

FLT-bird: "All of your BS denials fall flat.
They DID go for round two which DID jack tariff rates up higher than they had ever been and they left these rates in place for over FIFTY YEARS! "

All of that is fact-free nonsense, which you are now repeating, even after being told the truth of it.

Your alleged "round two" came during the Civil War, and so had nothing to do with events or debates in 1860.
US tariffs remained high after the Civil War to generate revenues needed to pay down the national debt from the war.
However, as I reported before, total tariffs were slowly reduced beginning in 1868, as you can see on this graph.

Have to stop here for now...

BroJoeK: It's worth noticing, yet again, what all the "Reasons for Secession" documents said: blah blah blah

Its worth noticing that only 4 states issued declarations of causes. Of those 4, 3 of them went on at length about the economic causes of secession (as well as other causes in the case of Texas) even though these were not unconstitutional and the Northern states' refusal to enforce the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution was unconstitutional.

BroJoeK: Rhett was concerned about other economic issues, but he was equally concerned about slavery.

Sure he thought that was an issue. I haven't denied it was an issue....though I have long argued that the Northern states' refusal to prosecute terrorist supporters was a big part of the "slavery" issue. BUT while it was an issue, the economic issues were more important. P.S. another issue was the North wanted to centralize power and the South was fiercely opposed to concentrating power in imperial Washington.

BroJoeK: Again you illustrate how your brain is fried with ideas like "The North" and "The South" when reality then, as now, was far more complex and nuanced.

the North was dominated by the corporate fatcats/Special interests.

BroJoeK: None of that is under dispute here. Rather, the issue is the centrality of slavery in the various "Reasons for Secession" documents, and the fact remains that, whatever other issues were mentioned, every "Reason for Secession" included slavery and for some (i.e., Mississippi & Alabama) slavery was their only reason.

As I've already pointed out numerous times, refusal to enforce the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution by the Northern states WAS actually unconstitutional while the other issues the Southern states were upset about were not unconstitutional.

BroJoeK: All of that is pure nonsense because:

No its not. Its all 100% true.

BroJoeK: The proposed Morrill Tariff was defeated in the 36th Congress (1860), by Senate Southern Democrats. These same Southern Democrats could have easily defeated Morrill in the 37th Congress (1861-1863), where they would still hold the US Senate majority, except... except... except... for the fact that they had walked out over secession.

Nope. The Senate was close to passing the Tariff which was already passed by the House. All that was needed even with the full Southern delegation in the Senate was to pick off one or at most two Senators. They could easily do that.

BroJoeK: In other words, secession caused Morrill to pass, and without secession there would be no new Morrill Tariff.

Pure BS. It was going to pass. Its not hard to pick off one or two legislators with the right blend of incentives and scare tactics.

BroJoeK: But, typical of Democrats, you want to reverse cause and effect and blame Morrill for what it was, in fact, the direct result of secession, not the cause.

More of your BS.

BroJoeK: A good-faith effort by Southern Democrats to negotiate what they objected most to in Morrill could easily have produced compromises which would have reduced some of Morrill's increases, increased Federal spending on Southerners' favorite boondoggle projects, plus reduced the wasteful Federal spending which had doubled our national debt under Democrat Pres. Buchanan.

What would have happened is the supporters of the Morrill Tariff would have thrown in some benefit to this or that Senator's district to get them to flip. They would have done this by offering 4-5 Senators they thought the most wobbly and would have told each of them the first 1-2 to flip would get the benefit. Anybody who was too slow would get nothing. They'd have gotten 1-2 Senators and that was all they needed. The Morrill Tariff was going to pass.

BroJoeK: In short, tariffs were always highly negotiable and even in the 37th Congress (1861 to 1863), Southerners in Congress had the upper hand to achieve their aims, if that's what they wanted.

In Short the Morrill Tariff with its massive increase in the Tariff rate was always going to pass and this was always going to be just the first step. The same corporate interests would be back for more.

BroJoeK: Finally, I should mention again that your claims of what supposedly "everyone knew" are not valid and amount to a confession that whatever follows your words "everyone knew" is just nonsense of your own concoction.

I'd like to point out this is just pure BS on your part yet again. They could do basic math back then just as well as now. They knew it only needed 1-2 votes in the Senate to pass. Whenever its that close, a bill's supporters invariably find the right bit of pork to buy enough votes.

BroJoeK: What your argument here amounts to is a confession that even Southerners didn't care enough -- about preventing a return to the 1846 Walker Tariff levels -- to have stood strong against it, which is just what I've been saying.

No it doesn't. It just means they weren't naive children and understood perfectly well how pork barreling and arm twisting in Congress go.

BroJoek: The fact remains that Morrill could not have passed the Senate unchanged in 1861, or later, had Southern Democrats stood strong against it. Morrill only passed in 1861 after many Southerners walked out of Congress.

The fact remains they were only 1-2 votes in the Senate away from getting it to pass the first time. All they needed was the right set of inducements thrown in to get a Senator or two to flip. Welcome to politics!

BroJoeK: That's just nonsense because, first, even in the 37th Congress (1861-63), Democrats were the Senate majority, which meant Southern Democrats could easily influence Northern Democrats to support matters of their vital interest.

That's just nonsense because you are assuming Southern Democrats and Northern Democrats had the same interests. They did not. Northern Democrats were influenced by the special interests and corporate fatcats in their region just like Republicans were.

BroJoeK: Second, even in the House, in 1860 and 1861 there were enough anti-Republican votes to form a coalition Democrat majority, if that's what Southern Democrats wanted to do.

You're repeating the mistake of thinking Northern and Southern Democrats had the same interests. They did not.

BroJoeK: This coalition anti-Republican majority would have included Southern Democrats, Northern Democrats, American "Know Nothings", Constitutional Unionists, and "Opposition" Southerners. Of course... that would have required negotiations, diplomacy, and playing nice with others, something not all Southerners were highly skilled at, it seems.

It would just require you to not be either very naive or disingenuous to grasp that Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats were not the same thing.

BroJoeK: Sorry, but regardless of how often you repeat such nonsense, it remains fact-free because: There is no serious evidence that "The South" wanted tariffs lower than the 16% average from the Tariff of 1857.

Sorry but that's a ridiculous lie because when they had control over the tariff rate, Southern delegates set 10% as the maximum tariff rate in the Confederate Constitution.

BroJoeK: Doubling the national debt under Democrat Pres. Buchanan (1857 to 1860) did result from a combination of reduced revenues after the Tariff of 1857 plus increased Federal spending.

The problem was too much spending. The federal government did not have a revenue problem. They just couldn't resist handing out public money to various special interest groups in the Northern states.

BroJoeK: The increased Federal spending had nothing to do with alleged payments "overwhelmingly to Northern special interests by way of subsidies."

An utterly laughable lie. The subsidies for public works and especially railroads were massive.

BroJoeK: Instead, the biggest cause, by far, of extra Federal spending was on the US military for such projects as: Building US forts in the South and West, such as Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, SC. US Army military adventures such as the Mormon War in Utah -- 1857 to 1858. This adventure was commanded by Gen. Albert Syndey Johnson, from Kentucky. US Navy foreign adventures such as the Paraguay Expedition -- 1858 to 1859. This adventure was commanded by Admiral Wlm. Shubrick, from South Carolina. US Army border patrols in Texas to protect against "ruthless Indian savages" and "Mexican banditti". The US Army there was commanded by, among others, Col Rbt. Lee, from Virginia.

Fort Sumter was built in 1829. Get out of here with that laughable BS.

here is US Defense spending by year. See how flat the chart is in the 1850s? No, your claim that the budget deficit was due to spending more on Defense is exposed as just another ridiculous lie.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/rev/google_vis.php?title=Defense%20Spending%20Spikes&units=p&size=800_600&legend=Defense-fedy&year=1792_2024&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=g&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_b&spending0=0.53_0.47_1.49_0.76_0.39_0.36_0.84_1.21_1.25_0.74_0.48_0.43_0.40_0.42_0.47_0.52_0.75_0.84_0.56_0.53_2.00_2.67_2.55_2.52_2.43_1.49_1.27_1.74_1.42_1.08_0.89_0.96_1.02_0.96_1.11_0.99_0.99_0.96_0.91_0.93_0.93_1.30_0.97_0.85_1.39_1.46_1.31_1.08_0.99_1.02_1.00_0.47_0.80_0.76_0.90_1.94_1.45_1.04_0.72_0.83_0.62_0.67_0.63_0.73_0.79_0.79_0.98_0.87_0.66_0.78_7.45_8.57_8.14_11.69_3.77_1.74_2.09_1.59_1.36_1.16_1.01_1.11_1.18_1.11_1.01_0.92_0.90_0.95_1.02_0.89_0.96_1.03_0.93_0.96_0.89_0.95_0.95_1.07_1.11_1.25_1.24_1.50_1.56_1.38_1.36_1.35_1.60_2.15_1.56_1.50_1.24_1.18_1.23_1.13_1.09_1.03_1.19_1.16_1.15_1.16_1.10_1.08_1.16_1.09_0.85_2.67_15.68_21.79_5.23_3.98_1.76_1.47_1.42_1.34_1.24_1.26_1.31_1.31_1.59_2.02_2.81_2.41_1.62_2.52_3.13_2.32_1.89_2.04_2.10_5.60_16.31_34.68_38.37_41.12_23.44_9.15_7.19_8.07_8.09_8.42_14.07_14.55_13.51_10.96_10.44_10.70_10.65_10.28_9.77_10.04_10.45_9.97_9.45_8.22_8.49_9.68_9.91_9.20_8.72_7.88_7.34_6.48_6.31_6.45_6.07_5.74_5.47_5.39_5.88_5.94_6.58_6.68_6.58_6.73_6.81_6.56_6.25_6.03_5.69_5.16_5.31_5.00_4.59_4.25_3.89_3.75_3.54_3.44_3.48_3.46_3.84_4.17_4.41_4.57_4.48_4.48_4.90_5.50_5.59_5.61_5.14_4.83_4.49_4.36_4.30_4.17_4.13_4.33_4.67_4.34_4.28_4.31_4.69&inline=

BroJoeK: There is no evidence of unfair subsidies of "northern special interests" -- yet again, unless you define "The North" as everywhere north of South Carolina! Instead, Federal spending was biased towards The South, defined as slave-states, which received about 60% of Federal dollars on Forts, Lighthouses and other Infrastructure.

Yet another lie right after the claim of big increases in the military budget. As numerous politicians on both sides long noted, the vast majority of federal spending went to Northern special interests, not Southern. Here is what well know Tax expert Charles Adams saidL

"What were the causes of the Southern independence movement in 1860? . . . Northern commercial and manufacturing interests had forced through Congress taxes that oppressed Southern planters and made Northern manufacturers rich . . . the South paid about three-quarters of all federal taxes, most of which were spent in the North." - Charles Adams, "For Good and Evil. The impact of taxes on the course of civilization," 1993, Madison Books, Lanham, USA, pp. 325-327

Don't worry. I fully expect your usual childish lashing out at Adams now. This is what you do anytime anybody says anything you find inconvenient.

BroJoeK: Buchanan was also a Doughfaced Northern Democrat, which means he was highly solicitous of, and beholden to, the special interests of his Southern Democrat allies.

Obviously not. He was only too happy to sign the Morrill Tariff.

BroJoeK: Had they used Buchanan effectively, they could well have negotiated deals which satisfied their major concerns.

No they couldn't have. Lincoln was coming into office and he was a staunch advocate of sky high tariffs.

BroJoeK: Buchanan was the South's man for everything except secession.

Obviously not. He signed the Morrill Tariff first chance he got.

BroJoeK: All of that is fact-free nonsense, which you are now repeating, even after being told the truth of it.

All of that is true and anybody who bothers to look can see you are lying. The Morrill Tariff was the highest in US History and remained in place until 1913.

BroJoeK: Your alleged "round two" came during the Civil War, and so had nothing to do with events or debates in 1860.

As if they were ever going to stop with the first increase. They were going to keep pushing it higher and higher until they had effectively pushed all foreign manufactured goods out of the US Market.

BroJoeK: US tariffs remained high after the Civil War to generate revenues needed to pay down the national debt from the war.

Obviously ridiculous since those sky high tariffs remained in place for over 50 years.

FLT-bird: "By the way......since the goods landed in Northern ports mostly shouldn't the lack of tariff revenue from Southern ports have been no problem?
Gosh....its almost as if the ports weren't paying the tariff but instead the OWNERS OF THE GOODS were paying the tariff and the owners of those goods were overwhelmingly Southerners....thus the massive drop in revenue."

Map posted by DiogenesLamp many times
until he finally realized it doesn't support his argument:

Sadly, that's a lot of nonsense to unpackage; we'll start here:

As we can see from the map at right, well over 90% of all tariffs were paid from Union ports like New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore and San Francisco.
The 1846 Warehousing Act was proposed by former Texas Sen. Robert Walker, then Southern Democrat Pres. James Polk's (TN) Secretary of Treasury -- along with what became the 1846 Walker Tariff, which was so highly commended by Georgians in their "Reasons for Secession" document.
Walker's Warehousing Act set up bonded warehouses in ports like New York, which allowed unsold import goods to be stored duty free until they were sold.
Once sold, duties were paid and those imports were then shipped anywhere in the country.
There's no evidence that more than a small fraction of US imports shipped to Southerners, for the primary reason that most imports were raw materials for manufacturers, such as wool, cotton, silk and iron.
Other imported consumables -- like sugar, coffee, tea and wines -- would obviously ship to major centers of population, such as New York, Philadelphia, etc.

This table shows 1860 tariff revenues from the top US imports, while noting where those materials were also produced in the US:

TOP 1860 US IMPORT TARIFF ITEMS

Commodity	1860 revenue $	Also US Produced?
Cotton	6,500,000	in the South
Brown Sugar	7,430,000	in the South
Molasses	1,800,000	in the South
Flax & Hemp	1,728,000	in the South
Total collected	$17,458,000	Southern products
**
Woolens	8,155,000	in the North
Iron & Iron mfg	4,458,000	in the North
Total collected	$12,613,000	Northern products
**
Silks	5,589,000	only China
Coffee	3,962,000	only South America
Tea	1,339,000	only China
Wines	1,134,000	France
Total collected	$12,024,000	No US made

Finally, "...thus the massive drop in revenue," is more myth than real.
- In 1861 US cotton exports fell by over 80% -- due to Southern secession and Civil War.
- However, by 1862, US merchandise imports fell only about half from 1860 levels.
- Further, from 1860 to 1862, Federal tariff revenues fell by only 12%.
  For comparison -- US tariff revenues fell 1/3 after the Panic of 1857.
- Compared to their low in 1861, Federal tariff revenues had doubled by 1864 and doubled again by 1866.

FLT-bird: "No, they reached HIGHER than the Tariff of Abominations.
The Morrill Tariff was the highest in US history and stayed in place for over FIFTY YEARS.
This played a large role in reducing the South from the richest region of the country to the poorest in that time.....exactly as Southern political leaders knew it would when they opposed it."

I'm sorry, but -- contrary to what they taught you in propaganda school -- you can repeat and repeat that lie as often as you like, you still can never make it true.

Here is the truth, laid out in graphic form:

First, notice there are two lines on this chart, the blue line is the important one, because it represents the total average tariff rate each year.
Second, notice both lines reach a peak, nearly 60%, around the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations", then rapidly fall.
Notice, after the Tariff of 1857, by 1860 the total blue-line rate fell to it's lowest, so far, on this chart of circa 16%.
These were roughly the same levels of Pres. Washington's earliest years.
During the Civil War the total blue-line rate nearly tripled, but never reached levels of the 1828 Tariff of Abominations.
After the Civil War the total blue-line rate quickly fell back to the 1842 Black Tariff levels.
These levels were thought necessary to Make America Great, Put Americans First and also generate enough revenues to pay down the national war debt.
Also, interesting to notice that during the Democrat administrations of the 1890s (Grover Cleveland), total blue-line tariffs were reduced to roughly levels of the Democrat 1846 Walker Tariff.
Finally, as to what caused post-Civil War relative Southern poverty -- tariffs were the least of the South's problems and would have been no problem.
He's what did keep the South relatively backward:
- Climate, especially before widespread air-conditioning kept the Northern industrial revolution bottled in the North.
- Health issues like malaria and yellow fever, which helped prevent Northern industries from moving into the South.
- Civil War destruction of physical and financial wealth in the South.
- Statistics!
  The average standard of living of a white family in, say, Alabama in 1890 was not necessarily less than a similar family in, say, Pennsylvania, once you've adjusted for different costs of living.
  But statistics which included impoverished blacks, and did not adjust for costs of living, made it look like Alabamians were much poorer.
- Falling cotton prices after 1865.
- Agricultural issues such as boll weevil and exhausted farmland.

Bottom line: after 1865, US tariff rates were the very least of the South's problems.

FLT-bird: "Straight from wikipedia if anybody cares to look:

'The tariff inaugurated a period of continuous protectionism in the United States, and that policy remained until the adoption of the Revenue Act of 1913, or Underwood Tariff.
The schedule of the Morrill Tariff and both of its successors were retained long after the end of the Civil War.'

"Though this is hardly a definitive source, the general thrust here is undeniable.
It is exactly as I said above.
Starting with the Morrill Tariff, Tariff rates remained very high until passage of the 16th amendment allowed the federal government to impose an income tax in 1913."

Well, then, far be it from me to dispute Wikipedia, especially since I use their numbers myself whenever I can. 😂

Not!
We're obviously looking at a "glass half full vs. glass half empty" situation.
The graph I posted above clearly shows what average US tariff rates were since 1820, and it shows total blue-line rates reduced drastically after 1870, even returning to pre-Civil War levels briefly during the 1890s.

FLT-bird: "Nope!
Its completely true and furthermore everyone can see that its completely true.
The Confederate Constitution did not allow a protectionist tariff - only a tariff for revenue which was universally understood to never be more than 10%."

Your words, "universally understood" and "everyone can see" can't mask the fact that you are using the same ad populum argument as "everyone knows".
In reality, such arguments mean what follows is just your own concoction, with no supporting data.

Here, yet again, is the truth of this: This March 15, 1861 act of the Confederate Congress puts average tariff rates at 15%, not 10%.
There was never an act proposed or enacted in the Confederacy which would further reduce average rates to 10%.

FLT-bird: "So you're saying due to having to fight a war of national survival forced on them by the Lincoln administration, the Confederate Government jacked tariff rates up to raise additional revenue???? Shocker!"

Those sound like your words to me.
I'm simply saying that your alleged 10% tariff rate, which supposedly "everyone knows", is pure fantasy.
The reality was 15% at best, or roughly the same rates as the US Tariff of 1857, with the CSA 15% rate passed on March 15, 1861 -- well before any military conflict between USA and CSA.

FLT-bird: "Sorry but the denial is simply an unfactual pack of lies.
The historical records make quite clear that the vast majority of federal subsidies went to the Northern states, not the Southern states."

Naw... the fact is that outside the babblings of some Southern politicians, you have not a single fact to confirm such claims.
What both logic and available data suggest is that Federal spending was balanced out pretty well according to each region's congressional representations, such that any serious claims in one Congress were addressed in the next.

FLT-bird: "Not all Democrats were Southern.
Northern Democrats were often as motivated to support the federal pork going to their districts as Northern Republicans were.
And yes, the vast majority of federal expenditures went to the Northern states."

Now you're just ignoring the facts -- from the beginning in the 1790s, Southerners dominated their Democrat party.
While Northerners frequently switched parties -- from Federalists to Democrats, to National Republicans, to Whigs, to Republicans -- Southern Democrats remained in control of their Democrat party until they walked out in 1861.

And despite your constant repetitions of the claim alleging disproportionate Federal expenses "in the North", you cannot present a single fact to support it.

FLT-bird: "This is so much nonsense.
The push to raise tariff rates was about protectionism much more than about raising revenue for the federal government.
Northern manufacturers stood to benefit directly from high tariff rates."

All US tariffs -- even the first one in 1789 -- were protectionist, including protection for Southern products like tobacco, cotton and rice.
The only question is what exact rates were necessary to fund Federal expenses, and the Southern Democrats' Tariff of 1857 proved itself inadequate for Southern Democrats' profligate Federal spending.

Ergo, the proposed Morrill Tariff in 1860.

BroJoeK: Sadly, that's a lot of nonsense to unpackage; we'll start here: As we can see from the map at right, well over 90% of all tariffs were paid from Union ports like New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore and San Francisco.

There certainly is a lot of nonsense to unpackage.They may have been paid FROM union ports but they were paid BY Southerners who owned the goods.

BroJoeK: The 1846 Warehousing Act was proposed by former Texas Sen. Robert Walker, then Southern Democrat Pres. James Polk's (TN) Secretary of Treasury -- along with what became the 1846 Walker Tariff, which was so highly commended by Georgians in their "Reasons for Secession" document. Walker's Warehousing Act set up bonded warehouses in ports like New York, which allowed unsold import goods to be stored duty free until they were sold. Once sold, duties were paid and those imports were then shipped anywhere in the country. There's no evidence that more than a small fraction of US imports shipped to Southerners, for the primary reason that most imports were raw materials for manufacturers, such as wool, cotton, silk and iron. Other imported consumables -- like sugar, coffee, tea and wines -- would obviously ship to major centers of population, such as New York, Philadelphia, etc.

You're still clinging to the false notion that somehow the port or the city - presumably out of the goodness of their hearts? - is going to pay the tariff. No. The owner of the goods pays the tariff. It does not matter where he sells them. He has to pay the tariff.

If Target has a shipload of cheap Chinese crap, they have to pay the tariff whether than ship lands in Long Beach, CA or NYC. It doesn't matter. The city does not pay. The state does not pay. The customers in the locality do not pay the tariff (directly). Target is the one who has to pay. Why? They own the goods. It worked the same way back then. You seem determined not to understand this.

BroJoeK: Finally, "...thus the massive drop in revenue," is more myth than real. In 1861 US cotton exports fell by over 80% -- due to Southern secession and Civil War. However, by 1862, US merchandise imports fell only about half from 1860 levels.

LOL! They were importing all kinds of war materials and racking up debt to pay for it.

BroJoeK: Further, from 1860 to 1862, Federal tariff revenues fell by only 12%. For comparison -- US tariff revenues fell 1/3 after the Panic of 1857. Compared to their low in 1861, Federal tariff revenues had doubled by 1864 and doubled again by 1866.

See above. What do US exports look like during these years? Oh I see.

BroJoeK: I'm sorry, but -- contrary to what they taught you in propaganda school -- you can repeat and repeat that lie as often as you like, you still can never make it true.

Obviously you never learned that lesson because you keep repeating your lies hoping that will somehow make them true. It won't.

BroJoeK: t, notice there are two lines on this chart, the blue line is the important one, because it represents the total average tariff rate each year. Second, notice both lines reach a peak, nearly 60%, around the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations", then rapidly fall. Notice, after the Tariff of 1857, by 1860 the total blue-line rate fell to it's lowest, so far, on this chart of circa 16%. These were roughly the same levels of Pres. Washington's earliest years. During the Civil War the total blue-line rate nearly tripled, but never reached levels of the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. After the Civil War the total blue-line rate quickly fell back to the 1842 Black Tariff levels.

The Morrill Tariff raised the average dutiable ad valorem tax on imports from just under 20 percent in 1860, regulated by the low-tariff 1857 Act, to an average of over 36 percent in 1862, with dutiable rates scheduled to go to 47 percent within three years. First page of a Google search. It was that easy to find.

more

In 1860, the South accounted for almost 82 percent of U.S. export business. 5 Over 58 percent was from cotton alone. 6 The South was largely dependent, however, on Europe or the North for the manufactured goods needed for both agricultural production and consumers. U.S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for over 83 percent of the total, even before the Morrill Tariff. Furthermore, the population of the South was less than half that of the North. Still more galling was that 75 to 80 percent of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South.

https://www.timesexaminer.com/mike-scruggs/8856-the-morrill-tariff

BroJoeK: These levels were thought necessary to Make America Great, Put Americans First and also generate enough revenues to pay down the national war debt.

By "make America Great and Put Americans First" you of course mean Make the North Great and put Northerners first.

BroJoeK: Finally, as to what caused post-Civil War relative Southern poverty -- tariffs were the least of the South's problems and would have been no problem. He's what did keep the South relatively backward: Climate, especially before widespread air-conditioning kept the Northern industrial revolution bottled in the North. Health issues like malaria and yellow fever, which helped prevent Northern industries from moving into the South. Civil War destruction of physical and financial wealth in the South.

Laughable to try to simply waive away the exact thing - high tariffs - which had caused so much economic damage to the Southern states in the 1820s and which the Southern states seceded to avoid in 1860-61.

BroJoeK: Falling cotton prices after 1865.

That was a factor and was going to be a factor no matter what. The reality is that all commodities decreased in relative price during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Still, given the high earnings of cotton and other cash crops, an Independent South would have had the time and money to industrialize at a much faster pace. You are wrong by the way to say climate hindered industrialization in the Southern states. The States of the Upper South were already industrializing to a significant degree by 1860. That's what was starting to kill off slavery there just as it did elsewhere.

BroJoeK: Bottom line: after 1865, US tariff rates were the very least of the South's problems.

Bottom line, that's ridiculous. It was among the very greatest of their problems.

BroJoeK: Well, then, far be it from me to dispute Wikipedia, especially since I use their numbers myself whenever I can. 😂 Not! We're obviously looking at a "glass half full vs. glass half empty" situation. The graph I posted above clearly shows what average US tariff rates were since 1820, and it shows total blue-line rates reduced drastically after 1870, even returning to pre-Civil War levels briefly during the 1890s.

And I've posted several different sources which say something very different from your graph - namely, that the Morrill Tariff was the highest in US History.

BroJoeK: Your words, "universally understood" and "everyone can see" can't mask the fact that you are using the same ad populum argument as "everyone knows". In reality, such arguments mean what follows is just your own concoction, with no supporting data.

Again this took no time to refute

"As long as, the import tax was ten percent or less it was classified as a “revenue tax” to which the South did not object. In fact, the new Confederate Constitution adopted in March of 1861, placed a maximum tax on imports of ten percent. However, when an import tax or tariff exceeded ten percent, it became known as a “protective tariff” for the protection of domestic (Northern) industry."

Furthermore it seems rather strange that several Northern sources reacted in horror that the Confederate Constitution set the tariff rate so low - directly contrary to what you are trying to claim.

On 18 March 1861, the Boston Transcript noted that while the Southern states had claimed to secede over the slavery issue, now "the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."

[the North relied on money from tariffs] “so even if the Southern states be allowed to depart in peace, the first question will be revenue. Now if the South have free trade, how can you collect revenues in eastern cities? Freight from New Orleans, to St. Louis, Chicago, Louisville, Cincinnati and even Pittsburgh, would be about the same as by rail from New York and imported at New Orleans having no duties to pay, would undersell the East if they had to pay duties. Therefore if the South make good their confederation and their plan, The Northern Confederacy must do likewise or blockade. Then comes the question of foreign nations. So look on it in any view, I see no result but war and consequent change in the form of government. William Tecumseh Sherman in a letter to his brother Senator John Sherman 1861.

“Let the South adopt the free-trade system and the North’s commerce must be reduced to less than half of what it now is.” Daily Chicago Times Dec 10 1860

BroJoeK: Here, yet again, is the truth of this: This March 15, 1861 act of the Confederate Congress puts average tariff rates at 15%, not 10%. There was never an act proposed or enacted in the Confederacy which would further reduce average rates to 10%.

Here is the truth of this: when the largest army in the world is right on your border threatening to invade and you are thus forced to fight a war of national survival, you too will do whatever you can to raise money and resources with which to defend yourself during the emergency. So would anybody.

BroJoeK: Those sound like your words to me. I'm simply saying that your alleged 10% tariff rate, which supposedly "everyone knows", is pure fantasy. The reality was 15% at best, or roughly the same rates as the US Tariff of 1857, with the CSA 15% rate passed on March 15, 1861 -- well before any military conflict between USA and CSA.

I'm saying that your claims are pure fantasy. A revenue tariff was considered anything up to 10%. Oh and

"The Confederate Constitution outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether, calling only for a modest “revenue tariff” of ten percent or so."

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/11/thomas-dilorenzo/the-causes-of-the-civil-war-in-the-words-of-abraham-lincoln-and-jefferson-davis/

BroJoeK: Naw... the fact is that outside the babblings of some Southern politicians, you have not a single fact to confirm such claims.

Yeah. I've already provided ample evidence to show this. Your denial is just a lie.

BroJoeK: What both logic and available data suggest is that Federal spending was balanced out pretty well according to each region's congressional representations, such that any serious claims in one Congress were addressed in the next.

ROTF! A ridiculous like countered by commentators and newspapers on both sides as well as by economists who have looked at the issue.

BroJoeK: Now you're just ignoring the facts -- from the beginning in the 1790s, Southerners dominated their Democrat party. While Northerners frequently switched parties -- from Federalists to Democrats, to National Republicans, to Whigs, to Republicans -- Southern Democrats remained in control of their Democrat party until they walked out in 1861.

Now you're trying to ignore what I said. I did not say Southern Democrats did not in fact dominate the Democrat Party. What I said was that there were Northern Democrats too AND they were as likely as Republicans to support federal pork going to their districts.

BroJoeK: And despite your constant repetitions of the claim alleging disproportionate Federal expenses "in the North", you cannot present a single fact to support it.

I've provided numerous comments from politicians on both sides as well as newspapers on both sides. You're just lying here as usual.

BroJoeK; All US tariffs -- even the first one in 1789 -- were protectionist, including protection for Southern products like tobacco, cotton and rice.

Laughable since Southern products did not need protection. The US or more specifically the South was a huge net exporter of those goods. The North meanwhile exported very little.

BroJoeK: The only question is what exact rates were necessary to fund Federal expenses, and the Southern Democrats' Tariff of 1857 proved itself inadequate for Southern Democrats' profligate Federal spending.

Except it wasn't Southern Democrats who spent so profligately. It was Republicans and Northern Democrats. Overwhelmingly directing the federal pork to their districts in the North.

BroJoeK: Ergo, the proposed Morrill Tariff in 1860.

See what it says on the bottom there? It wasn't about raising revenue. It was about protectionism. This was the Republicans' 1860 campaign poster.

FLT-bird to marktwain: "South Carolina Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett had estimated that of the $927,000,000 collected in duties between 1791 and 1845, the South had paid $711,200,000, and the North $216,000,000.
South Carolina Senator James Hammond had declared that the South paid about $50,000,000 and the North perhaps $20,000,000 of the $70,000,000 raised annually by duties.
In expenditure of the national revenues, Hammond thought the North got about $50,000,000 a year, and the South only $20,000,000."
When in the Course of Human Events: Charles Adams

"As Adams notes, the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860.
They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports.
The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North."

All of that is pure nonsense because:

It conflates "Southern Exports" with Federal import tariffs.
In reality, "Southern products" were bought and sold several times on their way to European customers, as were European and other products on their way to American customers.
So the idea, that somehow Southerners "paid for" Federal tariff revenues, is ridiculous nonsense.
The truth is most Southerners (or any other producer) were paid for their products when they sold at local markets, or to men called "Factors".
In fact, nearly all import tariffs were paid by end users of those products, including Northern manufacturers in wool, cotton, silk and iron, plus big city consumers of coffee, tea and wine.
However, seemingly, Rhett's, Hammond's and others' claims were and remain, highly effective Democrat propaganda.
In 1860 about 95% of all "Southern products" -- meaning exports from Confederate states -- consisted of just one item: King Cotton.
Cotton alone represented roughly 50% of US exports with every other "Southern product" combined adding another 5%.
Northern, Eastern and Western products, including Union slave-states, also including gold and silver, made up the remaining 45%.
There are no facts to support claims that disproportionate Federal spending went "to the North", unless you define "the North" as everywhere north of South Carolina.
In reality, such data as we have says about 60% of Federal spending on forts, lighthouses and other infrastructure went to states south of the Mason-Dixon line.

BroJoeK: All of that is pure nonsense because: It conflates "Southern Exports" with Federal import tariffs. In reality, "Southern products" were bought and sold several times on their way to European customers, as were European and other products on their way to American customers. So the idea, that somehow Southerners "paid for" Federal tariff revenues, is ridiculous nonsense. The truth is most Southerners (or any other producer) were paid for their products when they sold at local markets, or to men called "Factors". In fact, nearly all import tariffs were paid by end users of those products, including Northern manufacturers in wool, cotton, silk and iron, plus big city consumers of coffee, tea and wine.

All of what Adams said is completely true and your claims that somehow the price paid by wholesalers to producers is not affected by the prices European customers could afford to pay is simply laughable. Where did the wholesalers get their money with which they paid the producers of the exports? Oh...that would be those very same European customers. Equally laughable is your claim that somehow end consumers paid the tariffs on imports rather than the owners of the goods. You are not only grossly ignorant about how tariffs work but you are stubbornly ignorant. Its OK, I'll just keep rubbing your nose in the reality until you get it.

Remember when President Trump put a tariff on Chinese goods? Did you see a line item on your receipt that said "Tariff" when you bought those goods? No? Why not? You are the end user. So why didn't you pay the tariff? You should have according to your "logic".

BroJoeK: However, seemingly, Rhett's, Hammond's and others' claims were and remain, highly effective Democrat propaganda.

Nope! They were 100% True. They said it. Numerous politicians on both sides said it. Newspapers in both the North and the South said it. Even foreign newspapers and commentators said it. Economists and tax experts who have looked at the period said it. But you still cling to the laughable little fantasy that you can just deny deny deny and somehow people will believe you over everyone and everything else.

BroJoeK: In 1860 about 95% of all "Southern products" -- meaning exports from Confederate states -- consisted of just one item: King Cotton.

Wrong. It was high, but it was never 95%. It was more like 83%

BroJoeK: Cotton alone represented roughly 50% of US exports with every other "Southern product" combined adding another 5%.

See above. Your percentages are incorrect.

BroJoeK: Northern, Eastern and Western products, including Union slave-states, also including gold and silver, made up the remaining 45%.

See above. This is false. The only significant export the North produced was Midwestern grain. The Northeast produced practically nothing by way of exports and never really had produced much by way of exports.

BroJoeK: There are no facts to support claims that disproportionate Federal spending went "to the North", unless you define "the North" as everywhere north of South Carolina.

This is 100% pure unadulterated BS.

BroJoeK: In reality, such data as we have says about 60% of Federal spending on forts, lighthouses and other infrastructure went to states south of the Mason-Dixon line.

This is a laughable little fantasy on your part completely unsupported by any credible source.

ALL TAXES ARE PAID BY THE EVENTUAL CONSUMERS

*ALL* OF THEM

They are wrapped into the price.

DiogenesLamp: "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."

marktwain: "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."

Right -- gold and silver ("specie") were financial equivalents of other geological products like oil, copper or iron.
Specie were "Western Products" though most buying and selling happened in New York City, without the physical gold ever changing its location.
In 1860, net US specie exports were $58 million.

According to this source, 1860 exports (including specie) totaled $400 million.
Of that:

$191 million was raw cotton = 48%
$ 11 million was manufactured cotton products, manufactured in New England, though included as "Southern Products" = 3%.
$ 19 million was tobacco produced mainly in the Union states of Kentucky, Missouri and Indiana, though included as "Southern Products" = 5%
$ 4 million was turpentine related products, produced mainly in North Carolina = 1%
$ 3 million was rice produced mainly in South Carolina = <1%.
$ 1 million was every other alleged "Southern Product", including hemp and clover seed.
$229 million total of "Southern Products" exported in 1860 = 57% of US exports
minus $11 million of mfg'd cotton (Northern Products)
minus 12 million of tobacco produced in Union states
=$206 million = roughly 52% of all US exports in 1860 were "Southern Products".

So, right off the bat, "Southern Products", meaning exports from Confederate states, amounted to 52% of total US exports, not the ridiculous numbers Southern Democrat propagandists (then and now) threw around.

Finally, even suggestions that "Southern Exports" somehow "paid for" 52% Federal import tariffs are pure nonsense, since over 90% of tariffs were paid at non-Southern ports and then shipped to non-Southern customers such as manufacturers of woolen, cotton, silk and food products.

Bottom line is that the 11 Southern states of the Confederacy totaled to roughly 20% of the US free population, and 20% is probably a fair estimate of their total economic contribution to the US GDP in 1860, including Federal tariff revenues.

Everything else is just Southern Democrat political propaganda weaponized against Doughfaced Northerners in 1860 and against unsuspecting Free Republic posters today.

ALL TAXES ARE PAID BY THE EVENTUAL CONSUMERS *ALL* OF THEM They are wrapped into the price.

All the costs the owner of the goods CAN pass on are paid by the eventual consumers INDIRECTLY, yes. Tariffs however are not paid by consumers DIRECTLY. What happens in a competitive market is:

1. the importer's profit margins get squeezed

2. the importer is undercut by domestic producers and loses market share as a result and

3. domestic producers take the opportunity to raise their prices as much as they can while still undercutting the imports on price.

Contrary to the laughable Northern propaganda posted here, "The Confederate States accounted for 70% of total US exports by dollar value. Cotton was the primary export, accounting for 75% of Southern trade in 1860." Stanley Lebergott Why the South Lost:Commercial Purpose in the Confederacy pp. 59–60

by 1860 the Southern states were paying in excess of 80 percent of all tariffs” The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War; by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, 2002, ISBN 0-7615-3641-8, page 135-126:

The following are what lawyers call "Statements Against Interest"...ie frank admissions by Northern newspapers at the time admitting that the Southern states are providing the overwhelming share of all exports/imports.

"The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more than all other trade. It is very clear the South gains by this process and we lose. No, we must not let the South go." The Manchester, New Hampshire Union Democrat Feb 19 1861

December 1860, before any secession, the Chicago Daily Times foretold the disaster that Southern free ports would bring to Northern commerce: "In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwide trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." Chicago Daily Times Dec 1860

"It is not a war for Negro Liberty, but for national despotism. It is a tariff war, an aristocratic war, a pro-slavery war." Abolitionist George Basset May 1861 American Missionary Association

Even after the fact, Northerners were saying the same things:

"This question of tariffs and taxation, and not the negro question, keeps our country divided....the men of New York were called upon to keep out the Southern members because if they were admitted they would uphold [ie hold up or obstruct] our commercial greatness." Governor of New York Horatio Seymour on not readmitting Southern representatives to Congress 1866

Foreign sources noticed the same thing:

" If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union. So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils … the quarrel between North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel." – Charles Dickens, as editor of All the Year Round, a British periodical in 1862

But hey, who ya gonna believe - Observers on all sides at the time as well as economists and tax experts who have studied the period....or a PC Revisionist with his little fantasies about how taxes and the economy really work?

The following are what lawyers call "Statements Against Interest"...ie frank admissions by Northern newspapers at the time admitting that the Southern states are providing the overwhelming share of all exports/imports.

By no means. "The Chicago Times" was a Democrat pro-slavery paper. Their predictions were based on their Southern sympathies and free trade beliefs and did not come to pass.

George Bassett was a "Jeffersonian radical" or militant anti-statist, opposed to government in general (beyond a very minimal state perhaps). He wasn't an economist. He was venting his wrath against government.

The point of the "We must not let the South go" editorial in the Union Democrat was that concessions would bring the slave states back into the union, not that the union should fight to keep the Southern states in the union. They believed that the wealth of their city and the country rested on cotton and textiles, so their stand wasn't "contrary to interest." As it turns out all their predictions were wrong.

Our city owes its origin and growth to the Southern trade—to the Union. We cannot afford to "let the South go," if she may be retained by any fair compromise, as we believe she may be. If the time shall come when the people realize the fact that the Union is permanently dissolved, real estate will depreciate one half in a single year.—Our population will decrease with the decline of business, and matters will go on in geometrical progression from bad to worse—until all of us will be swamped in utter ruin. Let men consider—apply the laws of business, and see if they can reach any different conclusion.

No—we must not "let the South go." It is easy and honorable to keep her. Simply recognize in the neighborhood of states those principles of equity and courtesy which we would scorn to violate in our social relations at home—that is all. Let New Hampshire treat Virginia as we should treat our neighbors. Do we vilify them, watch for chances to annoy them, clear up to the line of the law, and sometimes beyond it, and encourage hostile raids against them? Is that good neighborhood? Then, let not one state practice it against another.

Business, real estate and population didn't fall as a result of secession.

X: By no means. "The Chicago Times" was a Democrat pro-slavery paper. Their predictions were based on their Southern sympathies and free trade beliefs and did not come to pass.

Were other Northern Newspapers which were pro Republican influenced by their sympathies to say very similar things about how it would spell economic ruin for the North if the Southern States became independent? I've posted several of them.

X: George Bassett was a "Jeffersonian radical" or militant anti-statist, opposed to government in general (beyond a very minimal state perhaps). He wasn't an economist. He was venting his wrath against government.

I never said George Bassett was an economist. I said he was an abolitionist.

X: The point of the "We must not let the South go" editorial in the Union Democrat was that concessions would bring the slave states back into the union, not that the union should fight to keep the Southern states in the union. They believed that the wealth of their city and the country rested on cotton and textiles, so their stand wasn't "contrary to interest." As it turns out all their predictions were wrong.

The "we must not let the South go" editorial makes it plain what the economic cost to the Northern States would be if the Southern states left. It plainly states that the Southern states would win economically and the Northern States would lose. *If* one is pushing the "all about slavery" argument then it is indeed a statement against interest. Here is a northern newspaper making the economic argument quite clearly.

X: "Our city owes its origin and growth to the Southern trade—to the Union. We cannot afford to "let the South go," if she may be retained by any fair compromise, as we believe she may be. If the time shall come when the people realize the fact that the Union is permanently dissolved, real estate will depreciate one half in a single year.—Our population will decrease with the decline of business, and matters will go on in geometrical progression from bad to worse—until all of us will be swamped in utter ruin. Let men consider—apply the laws of business, and see if they can reach any different conclusion.

"No—we must not "let the South go." It is easy and honorable to keep her. Simply recognize in the neighborhood of states those principles of equity and courtesy which we would scorn to violate in our social relations at home—that is all. Let New Hampshire treat Virginia as we should treat our neighbors. Do we vilify them, watch for chances to annoy them, clear up to the line of the law, and sometimes beyond it, and encourage hostile raids against them? Is that good neighborhood? Then, let not one state practice it against another.

Business, real estate and population didn't fall as a result of secession.

Two things: 1) they weren't cut off from the Southern states for very long and 2) they make the case as well as anyone that this was not "all about slavery". At the heart of Secession and the war lay the economic concerns of each region.

As the English pointed out: "For the contest on the part of the North is now undisguisedly for empire. The question of slavery is thrown to the winds. There is hardly any concession in its favor that the South could ask which the North would refuse provided only that the seceding states re-enter the Union.....Away with the pretence on the North to dignify its cause with the name of freedom to the slave!" London Quarterly Review 1862

they make the case as well as anyone that this was not "all about slavery".

First of all, to say that there weren't other concerns involved is to set up a straw man, but yes, it was mostly about slavery. Secondly, the Manchester Union Democrat doesn't say that secession was about tariffs and not about slavery. They aren't saying that the North is taking advantage of the South. Check out the link. Their argument is just that Manchester is dependent upon cotton and the North ought to conciliate the South and prevent a complete break.

I missed the Horatio Seymour quote. That is also not an "admission contrary to interest." Seymour, the "White Man's Candidate" for president in 1868, was trying to rebuild the Democratic Party. He didn't want Black enfranchisment. He wanted and needed those Southern Democrats in Congress to rebuild his party and take it to power. He was acting in accord with his party and his own interests and ambitions, not admitting anything that would hurt them. The tariff wasn't going to come down in 1866 because of the necessity of paying off the war debt. Seymour really should have known that, but instead he was playing politics.

x: First of all, to say that there weren't other concerns involved is to set up a straw man, but yes, it was mostly about slavery. Secondly, the Manchester Union Democrat doesn't say that secession was about tariffs and not about slavery. They aren't saying that the North is taking advantage of the South. Check out the link. Their argument is just that Manchester is dependent upon cotton and the North ought to conciliate the South and prevent a complete break.

You're at least willing to concede there were other significant issues involved. The usual PC Revisionists on here can't even bear to admit that. As to your claim that it was "mostly" about slavery, everything in the article belies that. Their entire concern was about economics and they couldn't have cared less about slavery - urging conciliation on that issue. That by the way, was the position of the Lincoln administration. Thus the Corwin Amendment. No the Manchester paper did not admit the Northern states were exploiting the Southern states (though they were). But they did admit that what really mattered to the Northern states was the money - not slavery. The fact that the original 7 seceding states turned down conciliation over slavery in order to pursue economic independence shows that the economics and not slavery were what was most important to them. The Upper South of course seceded over the constitutional issue of using force against another state for seceding - again, not over slavery.

x: I missed the Horatio Seymour quote. That is also not an "admission contrary to interest." Seymour, the "White Man's Candidate" for president in 1868, was trying to rebuild the Democratic Party. He didn't want Black enfranchisment. He wanted and needed those Southern Democrats in Congress to rebuild his party and take it to power. He was acting in accord with his party and his own interests and ambitions, not admitting anything that would hurt them. The tariff wasn't going to come down in 1866 because of the necessity of paying off the war debt. Seymour really should have known that, but instead he was playing politics.

You make the same mistake as BroJoeK in assuming Northern Democrats were somehow not Northerners....or did not represent Northern interests. They of course, did. Here Seymour is admitting once again, that THE key issue is Tariffs, not slavery or even the broader "negro question". Tariffs more than anything else divide North and South. The....let's face it....White men who lead both regions can sit down and bargain when it comes to Blacks. When it comes to the money however, they're prepared to fight.

But they did admit that what really mattered to the Northern states was the money - not slavery.

That's a Democrat paper in a manufacturing town. It's what mattered to them. What mattered to the Northern states in general was the union and the nation. But the Union Democrat isn't saying anything about what mattered to the South. They didn't say that tariffs or Northern profits were what motivated to the rebel states.

You make the same mistake as BroJoeK in assuming Northern Democrats were somehow not Northerners....or did not represent Northern interests.

Some actually didn't. Many Northern Democrats were closer to Southerners than to Northern Republicans when it came to slavery. Northern Democrats did not favor high tariffs, and they had their own donors who didn't want high tariffs either. NYC importers didn't want high tariffs.

White men who lead both regions can sit down and bargain when it comes to Blacks.

Seriously? Do you know anything about history? The victors weren't going to "bargain" with the losers about the fate of the freed slaves. Winners and losers had been killing each other only a year before, and the winners weren't in the mood to bargain. The losers had made clear that they didn't want to concede anything to the freedmen, not even real freedom. You demonstrate once again that you don't know what you're talking about and aren't worth arguing with.

x: That's a Democrat paper in a manufacturing town. It's what mattered to them. What mattered to the Northern states in general was the union and the nation. But the Union Democrat isn't saying anything about what mattered to the South. They didn't say that tariffs or Northern profits were what motivated to the rebel states.

You persist in acting as though Northern Democrat papers would not have equally had Northern interests in mind as Northern Republican papers. The paper is not saying what matters to the South, that is correct. But they're making clear what matters to the North - which is money.

Lincoln echoed that thought as well.

So if one side doesn't really care about slavery and is perfectly willing to make whatever compromise over slavery, how can the other side be seceding over and later fighting over slavery? It wasn't threatened anyway.

x: Some actually didn't. Many Northern Democrats were closer to Southerners than to Northern Republicans when it came to slavery. Northern Democrats did not favor high tariffs, and they had their own donors who didn't want high tariffs either. NYC importers didn't want high tariffs.

Its crazy to think they would have been elected in the North if they did not represent Northern interests. They may have been closer to Southerners than to Republicans when it came to slavery but obviously the Republicans weren't very far off either since they did draft, introduce and in Lincoln's case endorse the Corwin Amendment. They too were quite prepared to offer up express protections of slavery. They too were only really interested in the money. You say they - ie Northern Democrats - did not want high tariffs. Buchanan was a Northern Democrat and he was only too happy to sign the Morrill Tariff. So clearly some Northern Democrats very much did want the Tariff.

x: Seriously? Do you know anything about history? The victors weren't going to "bargain" with the losers about the fate of the freed slaves. Winners and losers had been killing each other only a year before, and the winners weren't in the mood to bargain. The losers had made clear that they didn't want to concede anything to the freedmen, not even real freedom. You demonstrate once again that you don't know what you're talking about and aren't worth arguing with.

They were prepared to provide express protections of slavery effectively forever in the US Constitution beforehand. After the war, they were prepared to make a deal to hand control over the Southern states back to White Southerners knowing it would mean the end of any push for civil rights for Blacks in order to get a Republican president. Clearly it is you who doesn't know anything about history. I accept your surrender in this discussion.

You don’t take time into account. What people are willing to support or concede varies with circumstances. Buchanan’s low 1857 tariff had caused fiscal problems, so it was accepted that the tariff would have to rise. Southerners did not noticeably object to that until after Lincoln’s coming victory sparked secessionist sentiments.

Lincoln and Congress were willing to offer concessions on slavery in 1861 to stop and reverse the secessionist wave. It didn’t work. They weren’t going to offer those same concessions later, or any concessions on slavery after 1863. In 1866, after four years of bloody civil war, Republican attitudes toward the freedmen were evolving, but they were in no mood to make the concessions on Black rights that white Southerners wanted.

In 1876, Republicans withdrew federal troops from the South to resolve a disputed election in their favor. By that point, they were disillusioned with the experiment of Reconstruction. By that point, too, the Democrats were stronger than they had been. Democrats already controlled the House. The Senate was split and on its way to Democrat control. Reconstruction wouldn’t have lasted in any case. Black voting rights weren’t automatically or immediately voided by the withdrawal of troops, and segregation wasn’t yet fully imposed, though. That was to come in the future, so the arrangement of 1876 wasn’t as much of a betrayal as it’s been made out to be.

Timing also mattered for Southerners as well. At various times, many Southerners in Congress supported navigation acts, fishing bounties, and higher tariffs. Sometimes it was part of a compromise, but some times they really thought such policies were necessary or would help build up the country. Among the Founding Fathers, there was a feeling that slavery was on its way out. There were even efforts to abolish slavery in Virginia as late as 1831. That wasn’t the case in 1860, and it certainly wasn’t the case in the Deep South. Compromises that might have reconciled North and South earlier weren’t going to bring the seceded states back in 1861.

Needless to say, race relations have also varied over the years, and weren’t the same in 19th century America as they are now. Slavery and racial questions were impossible to avoid in the Southern states in 1860, however easy it is for revisionists to ignore those questions now.

x: You don’t take time into account. What people are willing to support or concede varies with circumstances. Buchanan’s low 1857 tariff had caused fiscal problems, so it was accepted that the tariff would have to rise. Southerners did not noticeably object to that until after Lincoln’s coming victory sparked secessionist sentiments.

The 1857 tariff did not cause fiscal problems. The government's profligate spending which was overwhelmingly pork for Northern special interests caused the fiscal problem. It was not "accepted" that the tariff "would have to" rise. Northern special interests had lobbied and campaigned to get those tariffs to rise and everyone could see that they were going to get their way. The Southern states no longer had enough representation in the Senate to stop it.

x: Lincoln and Congress were willing to offer concessions on slavery in 1861 to stop and reverse the secessionist wave. It didn’t work. They weren’t going to offer those same concessions later, or any concessions on slavery after 1863. In 1866, after four years of bloody civil war, Republican attitudes toward the freedmen were evolving, but they were in no mood to make the concessions on Black rights that white Southerners wanted.

They certainly weren't going to allow slavery to be reimposed but they were perfectly willing to hand political power back to White Southerners - who were in the majority in the Southern states after all - which they knew would mean the imposition of "Black Codes" similar to what were already on the books in Northern states.

x: In 1876, Republicans withdrew federal troops from the South to resolve a disputed election in their favor. By that point, they were disillusioned with the experiment of Reconstruction. By that point, too, the Democrats were stronger than they had been. Democrats already controlled the House. The Senate was split and on its way to Democrat control. Reconstruction wouldn’t have lasted in any case.

By 1876 the Southern states had already been thoroughly plundered by the Republican party flunkies and army officers put in charge when the Southern states were Occupied and Southern voters were overwhelmingly disenfranchised. They knew this could not last because every year a new crop of White Southerners reached the age of adulthood and could start voting - and they sure as hell weren't going to vote Republican. It was only a matter of time before enough of them had reached adulthood to outvote Blacks and Scalawags.

x: Black voting rights weren’t automatically or immediately voided by the withdrawal of troops, and segregation wasn’t yet fully imposed, though. That was to come in the future, so the arrangement of 1876 wasn’t as much of a betrayal as it’s been made out to be.

Jim Crow laws based on the laws most Midwestern states had long had and still had at the time were imposed pretty quickly. The Republicans knew they couldn't maintain control over the Southern states forever and before too long there would be enough eligible White voters to boot them and their flunkies/cronies/puppets out of office. So they went ahead and made a deal to get a Republican president installed in exchange for ending the Occupation a few years before demographics would have done it for them.

x: Timing also mattered for Southerners as well. At various times, many Southerners in Congress supported navigation acts, fishing bounties, and higher tariffs. Sometimes it was part of a compromise, but some times they really thought such policies were necessary or would help build up the country.

Indeed in the early years of the Republic when the Southern states were way richer than the Northern states, Southern political leaders did agree to things like the navigation acts, higher tariffs, subsidies for mining and manufacturing, subsidies for the fishing fleet, etc all of which benefitted the Northern states directly because they though the country would need these things to defend itself in the future against major European powers who might interfere. There reached a point in the 1820s with the Tariff of Abominations however when they had had enough of this. By then those "infant industries" should have been well on their feet and no longer requiring subsidies and the Northern states had closed the wealth gap considerably with the Southern states AND the high tariffs had proven to be highly damaging to the Southern states. But the Northern clamor for government subsidies did not abate.

How many times have we seen that story? Once people get used to the sweet sweet nectar of other people's money from the government teet, they don't want to give it up.

x: Among the Founding Fathers, there was a feeling that slavery was on its way out. There were even efforts to abolish slavery in Virginia as late as 1831. That wasn’t the case in 1860, and it certainly wasn’t the case in the Deep South.

A lot of this had to do with the nasty, judgmental, accusatory, moralistic tone of - who else - New Englanders, those descendants of humorless, joyless, self righteous Puritans. Their "perversity of character" as Jefferson called it, washed the ground right out from under Southern abolitionists' feet. To be an Abolitionist in the South after that point became like being a Quisling in the face of the constant attacks from New Englanders. This, and New Englander's incredible greed made the solution that worked in most Western countries - Compensated Emancipation impossible in the US.

x: Compromises that might have reconciled North and South earlier weren’t going to bring the seceded states back in 1861.

By then Northerners, knowing they were in the majority, knew they had the votes to push through the sky high tariffs they had long sought. Southerners knew it too. The fig leaf of express protections of slavery in the US Constitution which would be irrevocable without the consent of the states that still allowed slavery were not going to draw the Southern states back in. They knew they would be far better off and would retain vastly more of the money their exports generated if they were independent.

x: Needless to say, race relations have also varied over the years, and weren’t the same in 19th century America as they are now. Slavery and racial questions were impossible to avoid in the Southern states in 1860, however easy it is for revisionists to ignore those questions now.

Despite the bitter arguments over slavery, that was the issue Northern and Southern leaders could compromise over. Compensated Emancipation to solve the problem could not get done but the North was perfectly content for the Southern states to retain their slaves. They just wanted the money their exports generated and they wanted them to serve as a captive market for Northern manufactured goods. The Southern states wanted no part of that. They wanted out just like their fathers and grandfathers wanted out of the British Empire - for the same reasons.