Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of that is pure nonsense because:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have to stop here for now...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BroJoeK: All of that is pure nonsense because:

No its not. Its all 100% true.

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

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

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

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

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

More of your BS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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