After attacks, many Southerners fly different flag

The Charleston Post & Courier ^ | October 29, 2001 | ELLEN B. MEACHAM

[Non-Sequitur]

I have two final questions for you two. If the south had become independent and if they had declared a free trade zone then my questions are:

1. So what? Since PeaRidge clings to his claim that the south accounted for almost all the demand for imports to begin with then what good would a free trade zone have done her? Where would these goods be bound for if there was no demand for them in the North in 1860 to begin with? Wouldn't all the south be doing is subsidizing the lifestyle of her wealthiest individuals at the expense of her poorer ones?

2. If the south did establish a free trade zone then what would prevent the North from slapping a tariff on goods imported from the confederacy? Tariffs are designed to protect domestic industry. Why would the North be any less inclined to use them against the south as they were to use them on imports from Europe? Had the south tried to funnel goods to the North there were only a few ways to get them there. Putting customs posts across the Mississippi and along the few rail lines that ran North and south, and collecting duties would have been a piece of cake.

So what would your vaunted 'free trade zone' confederacy have done for you?

[PeaRidge]

Since it ended before the Civil War my guess would be the Federal government

It was a massive project paid for by the city of Charleston.

[PeaRidge]

As opposed as they were to most forms of taxation the confederate government would have had no choice but to turn to tariffs to fund the government whcih would have put a crimp in the free trade business.

The Confederate Constitution stipulated free trade.

[PeaRidge]

but 97% could be true

You saw the data. It is from the US Commerce Department. It is either true or not true. Which is it?

[PeaRidge]

Well, Non, let's see if you can reason your way to the answer without speculation.

1. What was the ratio of Southern population to the North?

2. Using this ratio, and the federal spending in 1860, and what would have been a Confederate budget in the same proportion.

3. Now, take the value of Southern exports, assume a one to one ratio of import value, multiply by the tariff established in 1860, and you have your answer.

[Non-Sequitur]

But again I will remind you that the confederate congress had passed legislation funding an army of 100,000 men that needed arms and equipment. The confederate congress had to build a navy. The confederate congress had to establish a central governmnent, a bureaucracy, a postal system, navigation system, state department and all the rest. It is reasonable to assume that the initial outlays would have been much higher than those for an established nation. So it is not unreasonable to assume that the budget requirements at first would have been much higher than those ten years down the road. A $60 million dollar budget wouldn't have been unreasonable, possibly higher. Where was the money going to come from?

[Non-Sequitur]

The Confederate Constitution stipulated free trade.

OK, tariffs are off the table. Where was the money coming from?

[ConservativeLibrarian]

Not only did the White people of the South lose the Civil War but they lost the war of Civil Rights! The next war they will lose will be the war of Demographics when the White Folk become a minority in the South! When that day comes I hope the African Americans who are in power have more intelligence and compassion then[sic] your heritage.

LOL. When that day comes, the American South will resemble today's South Africa. Enjoy, y'all!

[Mortimer Snavely]

Oh, give it a rest.

I'm an ardent Unionist, but you are more irritating than I can be about this, and I have irritated some folks on this forum about the South, the Civil War, ad infinitum.

For you, but for them most of all, let me say that Robert E. Lee was one of the noblest Americans ever to have lived, showing a nobility, gravity, strength of character, and countenance unmatched by few Americans since the Revolution, and certainly unmatched by any American in my lifetime.

'On the eve of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln, through Secretary Francis Blair, offered him command of the Union Army. There was little doubt as to Lee's sentiments. He was utterly opposed to secession and considered slavery evil. His views on the United States were equally clear - "no north, no south, no east, no west," he wrote, "but the broad Union in all its might and strength past and present."

Blair's offer forced Lee to choose between his strong conviction to see the country united in perpetuity and his responsibility to family, friends and his native Virginia. A heart-wrenching decision had to be made. After a long night at Arlington, searching for an answer to Blair's offer, he finally came downstairs to Mary. "Well Mary," he said calmly, "the question is settled. Here is my letter of resignation." He could not, he told her, lift his hand against his own people. He had "endeavored to do what he thought was right," and replied to Blair that "...though opposed to secession and a deprecating war, I could take no part in the invasion of the Southern States." He resigned his commission and left his much beloved Arlington to "go back in sorrow to my people and share the misery of my native state."'

Why don't you go through a personal nightmare like that, or even imagine one, before you go on about the South?

Great guns, man, you've got me whistling "The Bonnie Blue Flag." Goodness me...

[PeaRidge]

Who would pick up the tab of government in 1861?

Since the majority of tariff revenue was gone, in 1861 the Federal government began deficit spending just before the war started. This was being financed by the banks in the northeast and mid-west.

[Aurelius]

"You answered nothing."

I have already told you, I wasn't addressing your question. I was addressing your final assertion. Rightly or wrongly, the North did fear economic challenge from the South for the reasons I cited. Quit setting up straw men.

[PeaRidge]

The information you criticise was from British newspapers, The Chicago Daily Times, The Philadelphia Press, The New York Times, The New York Evening Post, The Cleveland Daily National Democrat, Mr. Lincoln himself, writers and historians. Valid information and facts come from the period.

[PeaRidge]

what good would a free trade zone have done her? Where would these goods be bound for?

More Red Herrings, Non?

The market was your own backyard. Low tariff goods would now compete with Northern manufactured goods, effectively competing with business owners who would have war instead of competition.

[PeaRidge]

If the south did establish a free trade zone then what would prevent the North from slapping a tariff on goods imported from the confederacy? Tariffs are designed to protect domestic industry. Why would the North be any less inclined to use them against the south as they were to use them on imports from Europe? Had the south tried to funnel goods to the North there were only a few ways to get them there. Putting customs posts across the Mississippi and along the few rail lines that ran North and south, and collecting duties would have been a piece of cake

Your opinion in 2001.

Fact of 1861

"All aspects of commerce will collapse, from iron and steel to woolens, clothing, and garment manufacturing; every shopkeeper will close his doors, as all kinds of goods from Britain and France will flood Northern markets. The whole country will be given up to an immense system of smuggling."

This was common talk of Spring of 1861. It shows that it was common knowledge that Northern products were artifically inflated and priced higher than imports. It shows that Southern consumers prefered European products. It shows that high tariffs were supporting the entire North. It shows that the "highly successful Northern manufacturing" network was being subsidized by the government laws, and the government being subsidized by taxes on slave labor products. Any moral superiority there?

[Aurelius]

"If the South did establish a free trade zone then what would prevent the North from slapping a tariff on goods imported from the confederacy?

Let's think about that. (Which you might have been well-advised to do before posting.)

Who would pay this tariff? Northerners not Southerners. What would be its effect? Southern goods (cotton goods in particular) would have been scarcer and more costly in the North. Southern sales lost as a result could probably be made up in Europe where the purchasing power of revenue from sales would have increased greatly due to Southerners no longer having to pay the exhorbitant tariff on goods purchased and imported from Europe. If the South sold more in Europe and and less in the North they would also buy more in Europe and less in the North. The North was far more dependent on markets in the South than the South was on markets in the North.

All in all, I don't think "slapping a tariff" on goods imported from the South would have been a very smart move for the North.

[Aurelius]

"Tariffs are designed to protect domestic industry. Why would the North be any less inclined to use them against the South as they were to use them on imports from Europe?"

Here is why. The North was trying to establish itself as an industrial power. As such it was in competition with Europe, not the South, whose economy was primarily agricultural, not industrial. Far from needing to protect itself from Southern competion, the North was dependent upon the South for agricultural goods (particularly cotton and tobacco) and as a market for its industrial products.

A tariff on Southern imports would have hurt the North more than it helped it.

[PeaRidge]

"Putting customs posts across the Mississippi and along the few rail lines that ran North and south, and collecting duties would have been a piece of cake."

Don't forget the Ohio, the Wabash, the Missouri, the Susquehanna, the Delaware, the Allegheny, the Illinois, and hundreds of other tributaries.

That about covers water, but what about 2200 miles of borders? And that only covers trade routes with the North. What about the 1000 mile border with the West? Piece of cake Non?

[Non-Sequitur]

You are not answering my questions and I'm not apparently answering yours so we'll drop it.

[Non-Sequitur]

I would advise you to think as well because you have missed the point entirely. The south in 1861 was, by choice mind you, an agricultural society. You produced raw cotton, raw tobacco, rice, naval stores and very little else. You exported your produce to Europe or sent it up north and you bought virtually all your manufactured goods from up north. Direct imports to the south were relatively small in total volume. So the North would no doubt continue to buy your cotton because, after all, it was vital to their textile industries. They would probably import it duty free, too, because they had no cotton farmers to protect. So in that life would no doubt continue as before. But when you talk of a free trade zone, importing European good duty free and sending them north then your scheme starts to make no sense. Why would the North slap a tariff on manufactured goods imported through Boston and then stand back and allow those same goods to be sent to New Orleans and floated up the Mississippi duty free? The answer is obvious. They would not. If the north had a 50% duty on imported steel then they would collect that no matter where it came in at. So your threat of a southern free trade zone is no threat at all. All you would be doing would be removing a source of revenue for funding your government and that's my question all along. Where would the south get their revenue for the government if they didn't impose tariffs?

[Non-Sequitur]

Don't forget the Ohio, the Wabash, the Missouri, the Susquehanna, the Delaware, the Allegheny, the Illinois, and hundreds of other tributaries.

Toss in the Great Lakes, too, while you are at it because one thing that they have in common with the rivers you mentioned was that they lay entirely within the United States. You propose to smuggle the good to the US through the US? Neat trick.

That about covers water, but what about 2200 miles of borders?

Sure, what are you going to do? Hide them in a semi and take them down a back road? Come on, Pea! Goods in the volume we are talking about either moved by water or rail or they didn't move at all. Paved roads didn't exist outside of cities. So that means we are back to the Mississippi and the few rail lines that connected North with South. That is the only way that 99% of the imports could have moved. Watching them would have been a piece of cake.