Replies

No, you are just nuts. A few posts ago, you admitted that the cotton planters did not pay any tax and that they didn’t even sell the cotton to the Europeans, the cotton factors did. You also agreed that the cotton factors were mostly Northern banks. It was those same banks that financed the importation of goods into the United States and thereby paid the Federal tariffs. And you agree that the vast majority of those imports were in Northern ports and were sold to Northern citizens. But somehow you insist that the South paid 72% of Federal taxes. Like I said, you are nuts. Really nuts.

You clearly don't understand how the economy worked. The South produced the cash crops that were exported. The North serviced those crops in the form of factors, insurers, bankers and shippers and ship builders. The goods were gathered on packet ships, handled through warehouses in NYC, then shipped across the Atlantic to European markets. The Southerners who produced and owned the cotton contracted with Northern shippers to do so. They had to pay insurance, the fee for use of the ships, the crews' wages, etc. If you know anything about shipping, the last thing you ever want to do is have them sail empty - that just costs money and delivers no value in return.

So the ships that had been contracted to sail to Europe were then filled with manufactured goods made in Europe after the cotton had been sold. These manufactured goods were what was then hit with the tariff. The Southern owners of those goods paid the tariff - not the port where they landed. So no, the ships arriving in NYC does not mean NYC is generating all that economic activity. Nor does it mean NYC or even the North is buying all those manufactured goods. Just like the Cotton, the goods were then trans shipped up and down the cost and via inland waterways to everywhere. The exporters WERE the importers. They paid the tariff because they were the owners of the goods.....in the exact same way that WalMart and Target pay the tariff on every shipload of Chinese goods that arrives in Long Beach, California - not the port of Long Beach.

Factors? They were just middlemen. Banks? They charged a fee for lending money for business ventures then just as they do now. They didn't pay any of the tariff on the goods. That was up to the owners of the goods to pay. That's why all those newspapers and all those observers at the time said that Southerners were paying the tariff. ITs because they were.

But what Ditto fails to grasp is that with secession, all that money running through the system would get cut off from the North. The South would eventually run their own trade without the North making any profit from it.

No taxes. No profits. No Northern shipping, banking, insurance, "factors", or anything else would be making money from the Southern trade with Europe.

This is a *HUGE* incentive for the North to want a war with the South. Ditto doesn't understand yet that the war was never about the morality of slavery. It was *ALWAYS* about the greed of the Northern powerful men for the money they made from Southern trade products.

They weren't good people fighting for the rights of black people whom they almost universally hated, They were evil, greedy, bullies who decided to kill people to protect their wealth streams.

Then they made up all that bullshit about doing it for the slaves.

They did not care about the slaves at all. Not even slightly. That was all just a lie meant to justify their war for money after the fact.

Steamboat SS Planter, built in Charleston, SC, 1860,
shown here as a packet loaded with 1,000 bales of cotton.

FLT-bird to Ditto: "You clearly don't understand how the economy worked.
The South produced the cash crops that were exported.

The North serviced those crops in the form of factors, insurers, bankers and shippers and ship builders.
The goods were gathered on packet ships, handled through warehouses in NYC, then shipped across the Atlantic to European markets.
The Southerners who produced and owned the cotton contracted with Northern shippers to do so.
They had to pay insurance, the fee for use of the ships, the crews' wages, etc.
If you know anything about shipping, the last thing you ever want to do is have them sail empty - that just costs money and delivers no value in return.
So the ships that had been contracted to sail to Europe were then filled with manufactured goods made in Europe after the cotton had been sold.
These manufactured goods were what was then hit with the tariff.
The Southern owners of those goods paid the tariff - not the port where they landed."

That's somewhat close, but still off the real mark.
So, first, let's put some numbers on the overall patterns of trade:

~4.5 million standard 500 lb. bales of cotton in total produced in 1860, a bumper crop.
Of those:
- ~80% (3.5 million bales) of all cotton produced was exported
- ~20% (1 million bales) of all cotton produced was used in US textile mills.
1860 New Orleans, Freight On Board export sale prices:
3.1 million of those bales shipped from Gulf Coast ports, primarily New Orleans (2.1 million bales).
- ~75% (2,325,000 bales) of these exported directly to European & other foreign customers.
- ~25% (775,000 bales) shipped via coastal packets to Northeastern cities, including New York, accounting for 40% of New York's raw cotton receipts.
1.4 million bales shipped from Southeastern ports -- VA to FL.
Of those:
- 600,000 bales shipped directly from Southeastern ports to export customers.
- 800,000 bales were collected by intercoastal packet ships for delivery to Northern US mills, including New York.
Some raw cotton delivered to New York was shipped to upstate textile mills, the remainder (~525,000 bales) shipped to export customers overseas.
These NY cotton export shipments represented 30% of all NY non-specie exports and 15% of all US cotton exports.

Bottom line: about 85% of all US exported cotton shipped directly to customers in Europe or New England without physically passing through New York.

How much did cotton growers earn per standard 500 lb. bale?
It varied, depending on circumstances, but here is the overall picture:

Cotton Clipper from New Orleans to Liverpool, England:

**Average Price of a Standard 500‑lb Cotton Bale as it Moved from Plantation to Mill, ca. 1860**
Stage	Description	Approximate Value (USD, 1860)
Planter (avg. net)	Net receipt at plantation, typically paid by "factors"	$50–51
Factor commission	Brokerage, handling, and financing (if used)	$1–2.50
Inland freight	Transport from plantation to New Orleans	$4–6
FOB New Orleans	Export value at port of shipment	$55–58
Ocean freight & insurance	Transatlantic shipment to Liverpool	$7–10
Liverpool importer sale	Sale price in Liverpool cotton market	$63–67
Manchester spinning mill	Delivered cost to English textile mill	$65–70

The above averages hide a great disparity in the earnings power of plantation elites verses middle & lower sized farms.
Based on their size, location & wealth, plantation elites produced more cotton and earned more per bale:

**Distribution of Planter Outcomes in the Cotton Economy, ca. 1860**
Planter Group	Net Earned at Sale (per 500‑lb bale)	Point of Sale
Elite (20%), river‑adjacent, self‑financing, >25 slaves	$52–53	FOB New Orleans
Middle (50%), factor‑using, average transportation costs, 5-24 slaves	$48–50	Sold to factor at farmer’s gate
Bottom (30%), small farms using merchant credit, distant from river or rail transportation, <5 slaves	$43–46	Cotton delivered to local merchants & creditors

Overall, where did the cotton money go?
Here is a breakdown of cotton growers' earnings in 1860:

**Cotton Income Flows by Planter Class, ca. 1860**
Group	Slaves Held	Share of Planters	Estimated Number of Farms	Share of Cotton Output	Net $ per Bale (FOB New Orleans)	Total Cotton Income
Elite	≥ 25 enslaved	~20%	~60,000	80%	$52.50	$189 million
Middle	5–24 enslaved	~50%	~150,000	15%	$49.00	$33 million
Bottom	< 5 enslaved	~30%	~90,000	5%	$44.00	$10 million
Total	—	100%	~300,000	100%	—	$232 million

In short: ~20% of cotton growers produced 80% of all cotton while earning over $3,000 per plantation, on average.
The other 80% of growers did not do so well.

But what about imports, didn't Southern planters have to pay tariffs on the goods they imported to, for example, New York?

No, not ever, because:

90%+ of all cotton was sold at the planter's gate, and/or Freight On Board in New Orleans (or other port).
At most only 10% was shipped on consignment for sale by the planter in European ports like Liverpool, LeHavre or Amsterdam.
This means that 90%+ of cotton arriving in Europe was not owned by Southern planters, but rather by American factors, cotton merchants, British & American merchant banks, brokers (financial & commodity), shipping & marine agents, import brokers, etc.
Some then decided which European products to buy for the return shipment to New York.
When imported goods arrived in New York the tariff was NOT paid by anyone.
Instead, imported goods went into bonded warehouses where they sat -- sometimes for months or years -- until sold.
Then and only then did the buyers pay Federal tariffs -- never the sellers, much less Southern cotton planters.

That's why the whole narrative about how "the South" somehow "paid for" Federal tariff revenues is just nonsense.
From beginning to end, exports of cotton and everything else the US produced circa 1860, was a national effort with national players, not just a regional effort with exclusively regional actors.