Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ravinson
I think this 80% number stinks to high heaven. Are we being told that 80% of imported goods coming into the United States went to the South? that 80% of manufactured goods went to the South? That 80% of imported manufactured goods were ultimately purchased in the South? That one of these was true in dollar values? What? Someone posted tariff revenue numbers a month or so ago that showed an overwhelmingly greater dollar amount of tariff revenue in northern ports than southern. Please excuse me if I don't trust Dr. DiLorenzo to get it just quite right. I'd like to see a source that includes some actual data and definition of terms. Can anyone help?
16 posted on 05/10/2002 2:54:35 PM PDT by davidjquackenbush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: davidjquackenbush
Someone posted tariff revenue numbers a month or so ago that showed an overwhelmingly greater dollar amount of tariff revenue in northern ports than southern. Please excuse me if I don't trust Dr. DiLorenzo to get it just quite right. I'd like to see a source that includes some actual data and definition of terms. Can anyone help?

It's difficult to track down any data on what the Southern states were paying in tariffs circa 1860 because it was a nonissue at that time. The South Carolina declaration of secession makes no mention whatsoever of tariffs and is all about slavery and the Republican Party being a threat to it. The Georgia declaration of secession refers to tariffs as an issue in the past and makes it clear that the Republican threat to slavery -- which they valued at $3 billion -- was driving their decision.

The Mississippians made the centrality of slavery crystal clear at the very top of their declaration: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world..." There is not one word about tariffs or any other issue.

The Texas declaration also makes it clear that slavery is the overriding issue. It even includes a religious justification for slavery. They do throw in a vague reference to "unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance", but they devote more ink to complaints about the federal government failing "to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border."

These were the only four Confederate states that detailed their grievances in declarations. These were the main players in the creation of the Confederacy. Clearly they were not seceding to avoid tariffs. They were seceding to preserve slavery. Any other issues were way way way back in the deep background, almost totally out of sight to anyone but Confederate glorifiers like DiLorenzo who are determined to capitalize on the redneck market for "we'll always hate Lincoln even if we have to make up reasons to do so" books.

27 posted on 05/11/2002 12:15:34 AM PDT by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson