That you are unable to hold your own against me in substantive argument is no reason to call for a mouth washing.
He's talking about the southern treasury, you boob.
Yeah, in the paragraph BEFORE that. He switches over to the NORTH's situation in the paragraph I quoted. He says "when YOU have lost YOUR market," not "we" but "you" in reference to the North. Did you simply not read it, or are you ignoring it because it says something you do not want to hear?
The southern war chest, the southern almight dollar, the southern tariff. Not the Northern one.
Why would a southerner refer to his own as "you," "you," "you," "your," "your," "your," and "you" in succession after just referring to himself as "I" and to the south as "we"? The answer is he wouldn't. He was talking about the North and directing his comments at the North:
"You suppose that numbers constitute the strength of government in this day. I tell you that it is not blood; it is the military chest; it is the almighty dollar. When you have lost your market; when your operatives are turned out; when your capitalists are broken, will you go to direct taxation?"
Sorry Non-Seq, but as usual you are just plain wrong.
Nowhere in that speech does he talk about a Northern tariff driving the south away.
Yes he does. Look at that passage you just incorrectly claimed was directed at the South even though he repeatedly referred to the person he was directing the comments at as "you" rather than "we," which he used elsewhere referring to the South.
"Five million bales of cotton, each bale worth fifty dollars at least - fifty-four dollars was the average price of cotton last year - give us an export of $250,000,000 per annum, counting not rice, or tobacco, or any other article of produce. Two hundred and fifty million exports will bring into our own borders - not through Boston and New York and Philadelphia, but through our own ports - $250,000,000 of imports; and forty per cent upon that puts into our treasury$100,000,000. Twenty per cent gives us $50,000,000. What tariff we shall adopt, as a war tariff, I expect to discuss in a few months, and in another Chamber."
Whose border is he referring to? Whose ports? Certainly not the United States. He is obviously referring to an independent south. The south's cotton. The south's ports. When he says "What tariff we shall adopt, as a war tariff..." he is referring to the south, not the North. Otherwise why would he expect to discuss it in another chamber in a few months time?
Having established the shining future for the south, Wigfall goes on to predict the grim future for the North. The south is the strong one because it isn't numbers that matters, it's money. The almighty dollar that the south has in abundance because of her cotton. The North will be nothing because of the loss of the cotton producing states. The North will be forced do direct taxation, bankrupting her capitalists while the South sits on her 40% tariff and watches the money roll in. That's what he is saying. Nowhere does Wigfall give any reason for the southern acts of rebellion to come. His speech is an in-your-face diatribe against the North, not a list of reasons why the south will rebel. Those reasons came a month later in the Declarations of the Causes of Secession and the speeches of the southern secession commissioners. And all those say that it was defense of slavery that was by far the single most important reason for the southern rebellion.