[FLT-bird]

BroJoeK: PC Revisionist propaganda, which by definition is a pack of lies. Of course, any propaganda will include the occasional fact and truth, but only where those coincidentally support the overall fake narrative. So, I'm happy to acknowledge occasional facts appearing in PC Revisionist narratives, but by definition, those are not "PC Revisionist", they are simply elements of history.

FIFY

BroJoeK: Your 5.63% number comes from the 1860 census which reported 316,632 named slaveholders in the 11 Deep South and Upper South states, out of their 5,482,222 total free population. Your suggestion -- that large numbers of these slaveholders were other than adult white men -- is not supported by any data, and all logic dictates that the adult male "head of household" was listed on the census as the named slaveholder regardless of whom the family itself may have considered "owned" each slave.

Your claim that only adult head of household White men were slaveholders is what is really not supported by any data. We know of numerous examples of women being slave owners like Lee's and Grant's wives who inherited them from their families. We know of several examples of adult children being slave owners such as personal valets etc. You are simply ASSUMING that only the male head of household could possible be a slaveowner - in defiance of numerous examples - so you can maximize the number of slave owning families. You couldn't be more transparent.

BroJoeK: Further, where you could find multiple slaveholders listed on the census for one family -- if anywhere -- is among the 1% of slaveholders who owned circa 25% of all slaves, meaning statistically it's insignificant.

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

And we do have a number for the average household size in 1860 -- it was 5.5 members, meaning circa 300,000 slaveholder families represented 1,650,000 people, or 30% of all whites in Confederate states.

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

BroJoeK: Any map of the time shows where slavery was concentrated (up to 50%) and where it was weakest (less than 1%). In Southern regions where slavery was weakest, there anti-slavery Unionism was strongest.

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

BroJoeK: Here is the truth of this matter -- McPherson could easily have estimated 20% or 25% or 40% and all of those numbers are correct for some Confederate Army units from some Confederate regions, but the "overall" estimate depends 100% on how you decide to calculate it. Regardless, one thing we can be certain of -- almost 100% of Confederate army officers and political leaders were slaveholders, regardless of how many of their troops did, or did not, come from slaveholding families.

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

BroJoeK: And yet... and yet... all your endless nonsense notwithstanding, the 1860 Southern Democrat Party platform said... {wait for it...}... not one word about tariffs!!

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

BroJoeK: Tariffs were a non-issue in the 1860 campaign.

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

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

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

BroJoeK: Import Tariffs -- over 90% paid in Northern ports like New York, Boston, Philadelphia and San Francisco -- had nothing whatever, zero, zip, nada, zilch, to do with wholesale prices paid to cotton farmers in Mississippi, or anywhere else.

Where a tariff is paid is IRRELEVANT. WHO PAYS IT is what matters. Southerners, being the exporters and importers, were the ones paying - not Northern ports. As for Wholesale prices being depressed by high tariffs...OF COURSE THEY WERE. Its basic economics. If your imports are heavily tariffed, you are not going to make as much from the whole export/import venture. That's money out of your pocket. You therefore are not going to be able to pay as much for the commodity you are exporting. Also since their export sales are reduced due to the tariff, the English and French are not going to have as much money and will not be able to buy as much imports. So as the Southern exporter, not only are your profits reduced, the sales of your commodity are reduced as well.

This wasn't theoretical. Southerners already saw all of this happen in the 1820s.

BroJoeK: How can you conceivably not understand that??

How can you not?....and how can you just sit there and lie about it?

BroJoeK: And yet the value of Southern exports grew exponentially from, say, 1820 to 1860. In 1860 the American South was among the most prosperous regions on earth.

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

BroJoeK: And still, you're talking nonsense because the top items "imported" by Southerners "from the North" were: Clothing made from Southern Cotton Woolen goods made from Northern Wool. Shoes and other leather goods made from Western Leather. Imported luxury goods like silk, linen, musical instruments and furniture were only purchased by the wealthiest of slaveholders, not average Southerners. Yes, cast iron stoves, railroad iron, bar, sheet and iron nails -- all those were slightly more expensive due to tariffs on iron imports.

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

BroJoeK: But those tariffs were the same as tariffs on Southern exports of cotton, tobacco and sugar, so surely, what was good for the goose should be good for the entire flock, right?

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

BroJoeK: The 1832 Nullification Crisis was caused by the 1828 Tariff of Abominations which had been supported by many Southerners including, most famously, Democrat Pres. Andrew Jackson. The 1832 Nullification Crisis resulted in drastic tariff reductions in 1832, 1833, 1846 and 1857.

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

BroJoeK: As a result of the 1857 Tariff reductions, the US national debt doubled under Democrat Pres. Buchanan, which led to Morrill's proposal to increase tariffs back to their 1846 Walker levels.

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

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

This is a bold faced lie as I have shown many times.

BroJoeK: Sure, Southern Democrat Fire Eaters (Yancey, Wigfall, Rhett, etc.) grasping at every straw they could find to justify secession and war against the USA -- however, even they well understood that Tariffs were a non-issue among the vast majority of Southern voters, which is why they stayed focused on slavery, slavery, slavery.

More of your BS and lies.

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

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

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

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

[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

“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

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."

Gosh......looks like a live political issue to me both long before 1860 and right through 1860.

BroJoeK: Tariffs were a non-issue in the 1860 election.

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.

BroJoeK: Well, first of all, you've misquoted, the actual words are: "They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance."

I paraphrased.

BroJoeK: Those words are vague enough to mean anything, or nothing at all -- they don't mention either tariffs or duties, much less the Morrill Tariff specifically -- plus, they are flatly untrue, since in 1860 few regions on earth were more prosperous than the American South.

Another of your completely laughable lies. "Drain our substance" in those days specifically meant "suck money out of our pockets/wallets". Look at the phrase Thomas Jefferson used in his 1820 letter complaining of the same thing. Look at the numerous comments I've listed above - one by a Texas US Representative say. Its OBVIOUS what they meant here. And one doesn't need to mention the Morrill tariff specifically. 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.

BroJoeK: No, in fact, the Georgia "Reasons for Secession" commended the Walker Tariff of 1846, which are just the rates Morrill was intending to restore. "After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy."

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.

BroJoek: There's no doubt, of the seven documents which provided Reasons for Secession before Fort Sumter (SC, GA, MS, TX, AL, Rhett & Stephens), Rhett (from 1832 Nullifier South Carolina) put more words into his complaints about tariffs than any other. However, even Rhett paired his economic complaints together with slavery:

Of course he did! Violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution by the Northern states WAS actually unconstitutional. This was an ironclad legal argument Southern political leaders could use.....just the excuse they were looking for. Oh, and of course only 4 states issued declarations of causes, not 7.

BroJoeK: "It cannot be believed that our ancestors would have assented to any union whatever with the people of the North if the feelings and opinions now existing among them had existed when the Constitution was framed. There was then no tariff -- no negro fanaticism." Here Rhett is simply wrong because our Founders well intended both tariffs and "negro fanaticism", meaning abolition wherever possible.

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. The should have listened to Patrick Henry who warned this is exactly what would happen since there was no limit on the "General Welfare" in the US Constitution. As for "negro fanaticism" remember John Brown's terrorist attack and the financial backing it received in the North and the refusal to punish the supporters of terrorism directed against the Southern states. I don't think anybody envisioned that when the Constitution was being ratified.

BroJoeK: "To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and Slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things." Again, notice that even Rhett, from tariff nullifying South Carolina, pairs tariffs and slavery as equal issues. No other "Reasons for Secession" gives such prominence to complaints over tariffs.

Notice what Rhett was saying. 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. 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.

BroJoeK: And even Rhett does not mention the Morrill Tariff, for the perhaps obvious reason that as of December 14, 1860, the Morrill Tariff was dead in Congress -- Morrill was not an issue in the 1860 campaign nor at the time of South Carolina's declaration of secession.

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.

BroJoeK: Sorry, but now you are just babbling fact-free nonsense, since your "everybody knew" is nothing more than your own mythologizing fantasy.<.i>

Sorry, but now you're just lying again. 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. The whole power struggle for year after year had been about votes in the Senate. Southerners knew they couldn't hope to prevail in the House due to their smaller population. They knew that it was highly unlikely they'd be able to get Southerners sympathetic to their interests in the White House anymore for the same reason. Their only hope of stopping legislation that would really damage them - like the Morrill Tariff - was the US Senate. 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.

BroJoeK: The actual historical fact is that the Tariff of 1857 had reduced the previous 1846 Walker Tariff to levels lower than any since our first tariffs in 1790, and the predictable results were to double the national debt between 1857 and 1860.

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.

BroJoeK: That is exactly why Democrat Pres. Buchanan did not veto Morrill after Southern Democrat withdrawals from Congress finally let it pass on March 2, 1861.

Buchanan was a Pennsylvanian. Pennsylvania was staunchly in favor of high tariffs. It would benefit them greatly.

BroJoeK: All of your nonsense about a "round two" happened during the Civil War, when there were no revenues from Confederate ports and there was a war to be paid for -- not anticipated in 1860.

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! 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. Huh? Seems somebody has been making that point over and over again and somebody else has failed to grasp it.

BroJoeK: Finally, the original increase from Morrill in 1862 was to ~26% from the 1857 rate of 16% and compared to the 1846 Walker average rate of 25%. Even at the peak of the Civil War, Morrill rates did not reach those of the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations".

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.

BroJoeK: No, overall tariff rates were reduced below 30% in 1873, where they remained in the high 20%s until 1888 when tariffs fell below 25% and then to 20% in 1911. The number one reason for the high tariff rates was to generate surplus revenues used to pay down the Civil War national debt -- which over those years was reduced from 33% of GDP in 1865 to 8% of GDP in 1910.

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.

BroJoeK: That is a total myth. The truth is that Confederates simply adopted the US 1857 Tariff rates with some minor adjustments, in February 1861.

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%.

BroJoeK: Then on March 15: "The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That an ad valorem duty of fifteen per cent. shall be imposed on the following named articles imported from abroad into the Confederate States of America, in lieu of the duties now imposed by law, to wit: Coal, cheese, iron in blooms, pigs, bars, bolts and slabs, and on all iron in a less manufactured state; also on railroad rails, spikes, fishing plates, and chairs used in the construction of railroads; paper of all sorts and all manufactures of; wood, unmanufactured, of all sorts." Then on May 21, 1861 Confederates published a new schedule of tariffs which ranged from zero to over 25% and which we discussed at great length here, in 2019 Those final Confederate tariffs were supposed to take effect on August 31, 1861, but in fact were never really paid, since by then the Union blockade had all but eliminated normal tariff revenue producing imports. During the Civil War, Confederate blockade runners were not known for paying normal tariffs.

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!

BroJoeK: Sorry, but all of that is fact-free nonsense unconnected to any historical records or reality.

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.

The actual historical facts are simple -- when Southern Democrats had majorities in 1857, they reduced the 1846 Walker tariff from ~25% to 16%. However, they did not correspondingly reduce profligate Federal spending (Democrats never do) and so the US national debt doubled from 1857 to 1860.

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.

BroJoeL: This created a perceived need for higher tariffs and Morrill's proposal was to, basically, return rates to the 25% Walker 1846 levels which Southern Democrats had previously proposed and approved.

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.

BroJoeK: That's why Democrat Pres. Buchanan did not veto the new Morrill Tariff when it finally passed Congress on March 2, 1861.

Pennsylvanian Buchanan supported it because it would greatly benefit manufacturing interests in his home state.

[BroJoeK]

FKT-bird: "FIFY"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You missed my point -- it's this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the truth:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   

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

   None of these imports then shipped primarily to Southern customers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F.I.F.Y.

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

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

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

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

FKT-bird quoting:

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

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

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

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

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

FKT-bird quoting:

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

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

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

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

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

FKT-bird quoting:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is another good place to stop.

[BroJoeK]

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):

1. Woolens (for New England cloth manufacturers)
2. Brown Sugar (for Northern Big Cities)
3. Cotton (for New England cloth manufacturers)
4. Silks (for New York clothing manufacturers)
5. Iron (for Northern industrial manufacturers)
6. Coffee (everyone drank coffee)
7. Molasses (for Northern Big Cities)
8. Flax & Hemp (for ropes & canvas, i.e., on ships)
9. Tea (many also drank tea)
10. 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:

1. 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.

2. 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:

   

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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...

[BroJoeK]

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":

1. The TOA was originally supported by SC Democrat Sen. Calhoun, Tennessee Democrat Andrew Jackson and Kentucky Whig Sen. Clay.

2. The TOA was most strongly supported by Mid-Atlantic and Mid-Western manufacturing states -- from New York to Missouri.

3. 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.

4. 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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:

1. There is no serious evidence that "The South" wanted tariffs lower than the 16% average from the Tariff of 1857.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

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

2. 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]

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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:

1. 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.

2. Second, notice both lines reach a peak, nearly 60%, around the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations", then rapidly fall.

3. 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.

4. During the Civil War the total blue-line rate nearly tripled, but never reached levels of the 1828 Tariff of Abominations.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.