FLT-bird quoting:
"...Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North.
The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils … the quarrel between North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.” – Charles Dickens, as editor of All the Year Round, a British periodical in 1862"
Dickens hated slavery, but hated Northerners more because he thought them only interested in cheating him out of money.
So it was a very small leap to universalize his own experiences onto the Union as a whole.
But I think it's fair to say that in his travels in America before 1867, Dickens never met a Republican.
His critique here, similar to our own Lost Causers, is of the Democrats who cheated him.
Regarding Dickens last 1867 trip to the US:
"During his travels, he saw a change in the people and the circumstances of America.
His final appearance was at a banquet the American Press held in his honour at Delmonico's on 18 April [1868], when he promised never to denounce America again. "
It appears obvious to me that in 1867 Dickens finally met some Republicans.
FLT-bird quoting: "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....
Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, ‘to fire the Southern Heart’ and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....
Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation." -- North American Review (Boston October 1862)
Sure, Boston Democrats can be expected to see everything through their own economic prisms, and ignore the importance of slavery to Southerners.
But one man's "pretext" is another's "sincere reason" and visa versa.
The fact is, as this editorial reports, that the majority of average Southerners were unmoved by issues like tariffs, or "Northeastern power brokers" or "Money flows from Europe", but were vitally concerned about any attacks on slavery.
FLT-bird quoting: "The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism.” -- Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election"
This is a similar theme that Fire Eater Robert Rhett expressed in his December 1860 "Address to the Slaveholding States":
"The one great evil from which all other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States.
The Government of the United States is no longer the government of a confederate republic, but of a consolidated democracy."
But remember, this was after
60 years of nearly continuous
Democrat rule in Washington, DC, during which years Southerners were more than happy with conditions
they controlled.
So what both Rhett and the Charleston Mercury are telling us is that, like all
Democrats, they cannot stand to be governed by the same rules they applied while in power.
FLT-bird quoting: "They [the South] know that it is their import [sic] trade that draws from the people’s pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....
These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union.” The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
That was a lie in 1861 and is still a lie today.
In fact, virtually everything Southerners "imported" they imported from the North.
That's where Northerners got the money to purchase foreign imports, tariffs on which supplied Federal revenues.
And what exactly were those foreign imports producing Federal revenues?
The top items were woolens, brown sugar, cotton, silks, iron & coffee.
About 85% of these imports went to Northern ports, especially New York, about 15% to Southern ports.
That's the truth of this matter, regardless of Fire Eater propaganda.
FLT-bird: "I can go on and on posting similar quotes.
By the way...this is exactly the kind of quotes, facts, sources, etc you claim I have not posted."
No problem, your quotes make your points.
They can also make my points.
FLT-bird: "...did somebody else pay those tariffs.
Gosh...who do you think that might have been?
Hint: Where the ship unloads its cargo is irrelevant."
Tariffs were paid at the point of ships unloading and warehousing.
But our Lost Causer claims that they were really "paid for" by "Southern exports" are totally bogus.
At most, cotton would "pay for" half of imports.
But in reality, virtually all cotton export earnings went to pay for imports from the North and very little left over for foreign imports.
So, that map is a valid representation of Federal tariff revenue sources.
![]()
Dickens hated slavery, but hated Northerners more because he thought them only interested in cheating him out of money.
So it was a very small leap to universalize his own experiences onto the Union as a whole.*****
Ah so anybody who says something you don’t like is not credible because.....errr......reasons.
But I think it’s fair to say that in his travels in America before 1867, Dickens never met a Republican. His critique here, similar to our own Lost Causers, is of the Democrats who cheated him.****
He traveled all over the country. I’m sure he met plenty of Republicans.
Regarding Dickens last 1867 trip to the US:
“During his travels, he saw a change in the people and the circumstances of America.
His final appearance was at a banquet the American Press held in his honour at Delmonico’s on 18 April [1868], when he promised never to denounce America again. “
It appears obvious to me that in 1867 Dickens finally met some Republicans.****
LOL! It appears obvious to me that the Federals had won the war and held all the power and the money at that point, and Dickens did not want to alienate a significant source of his income.
Sure, Boston Democrats can be expected to see everything through their own economic prisms, and ignore the importance of slavery to Southerners. But one man’s “pretext” is another’s “sincere reason” and visa versa.****
They were not alone in seeing it this way. Several Northern sources also said the same thing.
The fact is, as this editorial reports, that the majority of average Southerners were unmoved by issues like tariffs, or “Northeastern power brokers” or “Money flows from Europe”, but were vitally concerned about any attacks on slavery.****
It says in essence that Calhoun couldn’t move the needle by only making an economic argument (though note that the economics were a major issue even in 1850) but instead needed to fire people up over the slavery issue.
By the way, the slavery issue also meant things like the Northern states violating the constitution quite openly. It meant financiers in the North providing money for domestic terrorists sent into the South to try to start a bloodbath (see Harper’s Ferry) AND the Northern states then not making any real attempt to punish the financiers of terrorism so long as it was directed against Southerners - be they slave owners or not.
This is a similar theme that Fire Eater Robert Rhett expressed in his December 1860 “Address to the Slaveholding States”:
“The one great evil from which all other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States.
The Government of the United States is no longer the government of a confederate republic, but of a consolidated democracy.”
But remember, this was after 60 years of nearly continuous Democrat rule in Washington, DC, during which years Southerners were more than happy with conditions they controlled.****
Stop right there! No, Southerners were NOT “more than happy with conditions” and they did not “control” the federal government no matter how many times you try to claim they did. That makes zero sense. The Southern states were in the minority. The federal government enacted several policies they hated. That would hardly have happened had they been in control.
That was a lie in 1861 and is still a lie today.*
Nope! It was just as true then as it is today. It also shows the importance of the economic argument here - something you and the other PC Revisionists are trying to gloss over.
In fact, virtually everything Southerners “imported” they imported from the North.***
False. They imported manufactured goods from Britain and France on a large scale. That was precisely what Northern business interests were trying to crush with the high tariffs.
That’s where Northerners got the money to purchase foreign imports, tariffs on which supplied Federal revenues.****
The North’s main sources of revenue were manufactured goods which they sold in competition with foreign suppliers as well as the shipping industry over which they held a virtual monopoly thanks to the navigation laws, as well servicing Southern exports (insurance, banking, merchants, shipbuilding, etc). Oh and let’s not forget the thriving illicit slave trading they were engaged in.
The North had made a LOT of money from slave trading and servicing goods produced in significant part, by slave labor.
And what exactly were those foreign imports producing Federal revenues? The top items were woolens, brown sugar, cotton, silks, iron & coffee.****
Textiles, agricultural equipment and various household goods were the major imports. Yes, include Coffee too.
About 85% of these imports went to Northern ports, especially New York, about 15% to Southern ports.
That’s the truth of this matter, regardless of Fire Eater propaganda.*****
Right, and as I’ve explained to you multiple times already, the port, the city, the state does not pay the tariff. The owner of the goods does. That owner either directly or indirectly was overwhelmingly the Southern exporter.
Tariffs were paid at the point of ships unloading and warehousing. But our Lost Causer claims that they were really “paid for” by “Southern exports” are totally bogus.
At most, cotton would “pay for” half of imports.****
Again, WHERE they were paid is irrelevant. WHO paid is what is relevant. It was the Southern exporters either directly or indirectly who owned those manufactured goods and who paid the tariff. That’s something you PC Revisionists cannot face up to. James McPherson made a complete fool of himself trying to argue this. All he showed was that like most Leftists, he doesn’t have a clue about economics.
But in reality, virtually all cotton export earnings went to pay for imports from the North and very little left over for foreign imports.*****
False. It was precisely because Northern manufacturers were finding it so difficult to compete with foreign goods that they screamed for protective tariffs.
So, that map is a valid representation of Federal tariff revenue sources.*****
Not even close.