Lee, Virginia, and the Union

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org ^ | March 27, 2019 | Fred H. Cox

[NKP_Vet]

The Hall of Fame recently dedicated at New York Uni­versity was conceived from the Ruhmes Halle in Bavaria. This structure on University Heights, on the Harlem river, in the borough of the Bronx, New York City, has, or is in­tended to have, a panel of bronze with other mementos for each of one hundred and fifty native-born Americans who have been deceased at least ten years, and who are of great character and fame in authorship, education, science, art, soldiery, statesmanship, philanthropy, or in any worthy un­dertaking. Fifty names were to have been chosen at once; but, on account of a slight change of plans, only twenty-nine have been chosen, and twenty-one more will be in 1902. The remaining one hundred names are to be chosen during the century, five at the end of each five years. The present judges of names to be honored are one hundred representa­tive American scholars in different callings. They are most­ly Northern men, although at least one judge represents each State.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not even in the same ballpark.

You are right. Abraham Lincoln greatly exceeded in viciousness, nastiness, bloodshed, and brutality, anything which King George III ever sought to do to the Colonies.

He was a worse tyrant than King George.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The official records have even worse numbers for you."

Your own numbers show cotton was 47% of the total in 1859.
Nobody has ever disputed that.
Everything else claimed as "Southern Products" kept right on exporting after the Confederacy eliminated them from Union totals.

The fact is the loss of cotton in 1861 was important to the Union -- reduced total exports 35% -- but no other "Southern product" was anywhere close, individually or combined.

[DiogenesLamp]

After Fort Sumter they pointed at the action there as sufficient "injury or oppression" to justify their secession.

Incorrect. Their injury was the Federal Government's attempt to raise an army to subjugate their sister states against their will. Virginia recognized that this was an abuse of power, and they wanted to defend those who were about to be abused by that power.

As Anti-federalist #29 predicted:

A standing army in the hands of a government placed so independent of the people, may be made a fatal instrument to overturn the public liberties; it may be employed to enforce the collection of the most oppressive taxes; and to carry into execution the most arbitrary measures. An ambitious man who may have the army at his devotion, may step up into the throne, and seize upon absolute power.

...

The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.

[DiogenesLamp]

Everything else claimed as "Southern Products" kept right on exporting after the Confederacy eliminated them from Union totals.

Other states took up the production of goods that were at that time interdicted from the South. This is still artificial tampering with market forces. If the South could export during this time, those other states would not have been able to compete in the market. They only did so as a consequence of the blockade.

The South produced 72% of the export value in 1860. The North had four to five times their population, but the South produced nearly 3/4ths of all export value, and as a consequence, the South ultimately paid for 3/4ths of all the taxes to run Washington DC, while the 20+ million Northerners did not pay their own fair share of the tax burden.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Still trying to dodge the fact that Southern exports produced the money. How it got in Northern hands is irrelevant. The bulk of it came from the Southern states.

You are apparently under some delusion that the United States was unable to generate wealth to pay for imports other than via exports. The fact is that, out of a GNP of $4.4 billion in 1860, cotton exports, by your own numbers, represented less than 7% of the US economy.

Again, I ask you where you got the Chinese currency to purchase the electronic device you're looking at right now as you read this.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are apparently under some delusion that the United States was unable to generate wealth to pay for imports other than via exports.

Sure. The Europeans would take specie, but nations are loath to part with Gold and constantly buying stuff with specie could not be sustained.

How much Gold did New York produce?

The fact is that, out of a GNP of $4.4 billion in 1860, cotton exports, by your own numbers, represented less than 7% of the US economy.

How much did that 200 million represent to the New York and Washington DC economy?

Also, the creation of supply chains for European goods to flood American Midwestern markets was also a serious loss of revenue if you owned the factories in the North east that were producing the goods for which the protectionism was created. The money threat was multifaceted. It wasn't just the loss of that 200 million per year in European trade. It was many other losses as well.

[rockrr]

Now you’re talking about jeffy davis, not Abe or George.

[BroJoeK]

quoting BJK: "And cotton exports drastically fell in 1861, but nothing else did."

DiogenesLamp: "And gee, I wonder what happened in 1861?
Oh, that's right, a f***ing blockade of all Southern ports!
I can't imagine why putting warships outside of every port city to threaten shipping would have an effect on exports. It's really just a mystery, isn't it?"

Now you've totally missed the, ahem, "salient point".
In 1861 Confederates could have exported all the cotton they wanted -- the Union blockade was not effective then.
But Union cotton exports would still be near zero since they were now Confederate exports -- "get" that?
Union cotton exports had nothing to do with whether Confederates exported or not, because cotton was strictly a Confederate product.
That made Union cotton exports near zero, regardless of Confederate actions.

But cotton was the only Confederate export "worth speaking of" (said the Savannah Republican newspaper).
No other "Southern Product" came anywhere close in value and none fell significantly in 1861 Union exports.
This tells us those were simply not Confederate products, so continued to export despite the blockade of Confederate ports.

DiogenesLamp: "I've always been amazed that you can say with a straight face that the numbers for 1861 and subsequent years represents normal trade.
No, it's what happens when you *FORCE* all trade into Northern ports when they would have preferred to go to Southern ports."

Complete nonsense.
The 1861 numbers tell us what happens when Confederate exports are deleted from US totals.
Cotton export was reduced drastically.
But no other alleged "Southern Product" was -- tobacco dipped slightly, other items rose slightly.
The net-net effect was 35% reduction in total Union exports.
That's all, just 35%, not the 75% or 85% that you people keep telling us was value of "Southern exports".

And by 1864 Union tariff revenues had doubled from 1860, all without any Confederate exports.

DiogenesLamp: "Also massive inflation of the currency occurred because of all the borrowing and spending, so the numbers get hinkey right away in 1861."

It certainly wasn't more than a few percent (2% to 4% depending on your method) in 1861.
By 1864 is was significant -- about 75% in the consumer price index over 1860.
But wages were still low in 1864, meaning you could still hire people -- they caught up to prices in the later 1860s.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "It is clearly a fact that the legislature of Virginia did not approve the creation of the state of "West" Virginia from their territory.
Pretending that a hastily created "Virginia" legislature approved it makes as much sense as someone pretending to sign a document with someone else's signature.
It's a fraud."

Naw, no "fraud", because in 1863 the Virginia legislature was recognized by Congress and sent Senators to Washington, DC.
It was the only VA legilsature recognized, there was no other that wanted or sought recognition -- absolutely not the Confederate legislature.

Article 4, section 4 guarantees a republican state government and Article 1 section 4 grants Congress authority to control its own membership.
In 1863 Congress satisfied both requirements by recognizing a Unionist legislature in Virginia.

After the war Virginia's legislature revoked its approval of West Virginia and appealed to the US Supreme Court which sided with West Virginia.
The issue has not been raised since so it is, in fact, settled law.

All of which DiogenesLamp well knows, but pretends otherwise.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "You act like the force of law is a mere suggestion.
It isn't a question of doing your "best", it's a question of either complying with the law, or not complying with the law.
They chose not to comply with the law, and then they put on a bunch of theater to make it appear as if they had done so."

And still more nonsense.
The law regarding Virginia vs. West Virginia was ruled on by the US Supreme Court in 1871.
Nobody has challenged it since.
So it's settled, regardless of what DiogenesLamp says about it.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp quoting: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes..."

But first, "should not" cannot mean "should".
More important, that clause is not definitive of anything.
The Declaration's definitive clauses begin with when and include necessary conditions:

1. When in the course of human events it becomes necessary."
   No "should" or at pleasure about it, but when and necessary.

2. ...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends..."
   No "should" or at pleasure about it, but when and destructive.

3. "...when a long train of abuses & usurpations..."
   No "should" or at pleasure about it, but when... abuses and usurpations.

4. "...such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government"
   No "should" or at pleasure about it, but pure necessity.

5. "We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."
   No "should" or at pleasure about it, but pure necessity.

So DiogenesLamp has found "should" in two places where it is not definitive of Declaration reasons, and ignored five places where "when" and/or "necessary" are definitive.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Which was the equivalent of a man putting on a dress and calling himself a "woman."
It was a "transgender" legislature, not a real one.
The real legislature of Virginia existed long before the US Constitution was ever written, and no honest person can claim they didn't know which body represented the real legislature of Virginia.
It was the one in Richmond."

But in 1863 there was no legislature in Richmond -- none, zero, nada legislature.
The old one had ceased to exist in 1861, by its own volition and claims, it was gone, period.

So however illegitimate you might think the new legislature, it was still 1,000% more legitimate than the Confederate legislature in Richmond.
That's a fact, your opinions notwithstanding.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "You are right. He was a worse tyrant than King George."

And still more nonsense from DiogenesLamp.
In fact, by all measures relative to population and national wealth, the Revolutionary War was more brutal & costly than the Civil War, including:

1. The Civil War lasted just four years, the Revolutionary War six, with then a long tail of issues not finally resolved until the Treaty of Ghent in 1814!

2. American Patriots dead alone in the Revolutionary War equaled the total US Civil War (proportionately), with British & US Loyalists dead doubling that.

3. The Revolutionary War drove US national debt to twice the level of the Civil War, relative to peacetime Federal revenues -- 15 years vs. 7 years.
   Today's national debt is about 5 years of Federal revenues.

4. Civilian deaths in both wars are unknown, but Loyalists in Patriot regions and Unionists in Confederate regions, as well as Patriots in Loyalist regions and Confederates in Union regions -- all suffered and some died.

5. All told, if we consider the international allies of Britain and the United States, the Revolutionary War was larger in territory covered, numbers of military involved, total casualties and cost, relative to the times.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Incorrect.
Their injury was the Federal Government's attempt to raise an army to subjugate their sister states against their will.
Virginia recognized that this was an abuse of power, and they wanted to defend those who were about to be abused by that power."

True enough, though Virginians had told Lincoln before Fort Sumter that any shots fired, no matter who fired, would be cause enough for secession.
They didn't need Lincoln's call-up of militia as their excuse.

But my point is, which you steadfastly ignore, Virginians at least had an excuse consistent with their 1788 ratification statement.
No state before Fort Sumter had even that thin excuse.
All were secessions at pleasure.

DiogenesLamp: "As Anti-federalist #29 predicted: "

Right, Anti-Federalists, who then became Jeffersonian anti-Administration Democrats, Nullifiers and secessionists.

Democrats like DiogenesLamp: consistently opposing the US Constitution for the past 231 years!

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Other states took up the production of goods that were at that time interdicted from the South.
This is still artificial tampering with market forces.
If the South could export during this time, those other states would not have been able to compete in the market."

Pure speculation on your part.
The more obvious explanation is that much of what was claimed as "Southern products" were, in fact, produced in Union states.
Only cotton (plus a little rice) was indisputably Confederate states' production.

Only cotton suffered a dramatic 83% reduction in US exports in 1861.
This means, all claims that somehow Deep South Fire Eaters "owned" those other exports are pure nonsense.
Those were simply American exports from which all Americans enjoyed the benefits.

DiogenesLamp: "The South produced 72% of the export value in 1860.
The North had four to five times their population, but the South produced nearly 3/4ths of all export value,"

In 1860 the Deep South exported roughly $200 million in cotton, about 50% (not72%) of total US exports, including specie.
The South also "imported" ~$200 million in manufactured products from the North.
That's how Northerners could afford to pay for foreign imports & Federal tariffs.
So nobody was getting a free ride, everybody did their fair share of the work (well... except slaves did much more than their "fair share").

DiogenesLamp: "...and as a consequence, the South ultimately paid for 3/4ths of all the taxes to run Washington DC, while the 20+ million Northerners did not pay their own fair share of the tax burden."

Noooooo, for every dollar of Deep South cotton exports (~$200 million in 1860), the rest of the Union exported another dollar plus a dollar's worth of "exports" to the South.
So, far from getting a "free ride", the Union outside cotton states carried double their "fair share" of exports.

That's the truth of it.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The Europeans would take specie, but nations are loath to part with Gold and constantly buying stuff with specie could not be sustained.
How much Gold did New York produce?"

Throughout the 1850s specie was our number two export, second only to cotton.
For the word "specie" read California gold and Nevada silver, both then in great abundance.
New York & other places produced supplies & financing which made the 1849 California gold rush possible and made many Californians wealthy.

[rockrr]

In 1861 Confederates could have exported all the cotton they wanted -- the Union blockade was not effective then.

They could have, but they chose to burn it instead in a temper tantrum show of force.

[DiogenesLamp]

Jeffy Davis didn’t send warships to attack other people in their own land.

[DiogenesLamp]

Skip.

[DiogenesLamp]

Skip.