Posted on 09/06/2003 9:14:08 AM PDT by quidnunc
Abraham Lincoln is thought of by many as not only the greatest American statesman but as a great conservative. He was neither. Understanding this is a necessary condition for any genuinely American conservatism. When Lincoln took office, the American polity was regarded as a compact between sovereign states which had created a central government as their agent, hedging it in by a doctrine of enumerated powers. Since the compact between the states was voluntary, secession was considered an option by public leaders in every section of the Union during the antebellum period. Given this tradition — deeply rooted in the Declaration of Independence — a great statesman in 1860 would have negotiated a settlement with the disaffected states, even if it meant the withdrawal of some from the Union. But Lincoln refused even to accept Confederate commissioners, much less negotiate with them. Most of the Union could have been kept together. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas voted to remain in the Union even after the Confederacy was formed; they reversed themselves only when Lincoln decided on a war of coercion. A great statesman does not seduce his people into a needless war; he keeps them out of it.
When the Soviet Union dissolved by peaceful secession, it was only 70 years old — the same age as the United States when it dissolved in 1860. Did Gorbachev fail as a statesman because he negotiated a peaceful dissolution of the U.S.S.R.? Likewise, if all states west of the Mississippi were to secede tomorrow, would we praise, as a great statesman, a president who refused to negotiate and launched total war against the civilian population merely to preserve the Union? The number of Southerners who died as a result of Lincoln’s invasion was greater than the total of all Americans killed by Hitler and Tojo. By the end of the war, nearly one half of the white male population of military age was either dead or mutilated. No country in World War II suffered casualties of that magnitude.
Not only would Lincoln not receive Confederate commissioners, he refused, for three crucial months, to call Congress. Alone, he illegally raised money, illegally raised troops, and started the war. To crush Northern opposition, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of the war and rounded up some 20,000 political prisoners. (Mussolini arrested some 12,000 but convicted only 1,624.) When the chief justice of the Supreme Court declared the suspension blatantly unconstitutional and ordered the prisoners released, Lincoln ordered his arrest. This American Caesar shut down over 300 newspapers, arrested editors, and smashed presses. He broke up state legislatures; arrested Democratic candidates who urged an armistice; and used the military to elect Republicans (including himself, in 1864, by a margin of around 38,000 popular votes). He illegally created a “state” in West Virginia and imported a large army of foreign mercenaries. B.H. Liddell Hart traces the origin of modern total war to Lincoln’s decision to direct war against the civilian population. Sherman acknowledged that, by the rules of war taught at West Point, he was guilty of war crimes punishable by death. But who was to enforce those rules?
These actions are justified by nationalist historians as the energetic and extraordinary efforts of a great helmsman rising to the painful duty of preserving an indivisible Union. But Lincoln had inherited no such Union from the Framers. Rather, like Bismarck, he created one with a policy of blood and iron. What we call the “Civil War” was in fact America’s French Revolution, and Lincoln was the first Jacobin president. He claimed legitimacy for his actions with a “conservative” rhetoric, rooted in an historically false theory of the Constitution which held that the states had never been sovereign. The Union created the states, he said, not the states the Union. In time, this corrupt and corrupting doctrine would suck nearly every reserved power of the states into the central government. Lincoln seared into the American mind an ideological style of politics which, through a sort of alchemy, transmuted a federative “union” of states into a French revolutionary “nation” launched on an unending global mission of achieving equality. Lincoln’s corrupt constitutionalism and his ideological style of politics have, over time, led to the hollowing out of traditional American society and the obscene concentration of power in the central government that the Constitution was explicitly designed to prevent.
A genuinely American conservatism, then, must adopt the project of preserving and restoring the decentralized federative polity of the Framers rooted in state and local sovereignty. The central government has no constitutional authority to do most of what it does today. The first question posed by an authentic American conservative politics is not whether a policy is good or bad, but what agency (the states or the central government — if either) has the authority to enact it. This is the principle of subsidiarity: that as much as possible should be done by the smallest political unit.
The Democratic and Republican parties are Lincolnian parties. Neither honestly questions the limits of federal authority to do this or that. In 1861, the central government broke free from what Jefferson called “the chains of the Constitution,” and we have, consequently, inherited a fractured historical memory. There are now two Americanisms: pre-Lincolnian and post-Lincolnian. The latter is Jacobinism by other means. Only the former can lay claim to being the primordial American conservatism.
David W. Livingston is a professor of philosophy at Emory University and the author of Philosophical Melancholy and Delirium (University of Chicago Press).
Sounds like the Northern whites of today, eh Walt?
[Held_to_Ransom 668] In one debate, a representative from Detroit put in a motion for 10 cents to build a fort in Detroit so that he could get on the floor to discuss the general matter. When asked what Detroit would do without a fort to protect themselves from an invading British army, he pointed out they would simply do what they did the last time and beat the British in the field again.
[GOPcap 671] That's an unsourced anecdote, not a conclusive statement of fact about where the forts were built. Detroit was and is an inland city, making it a peculiar place to build a coastal defense.
General Hull, the American invader, crossed into Canada. He soon retreated and then surrendered, August 16, 1812.
For Detroit to defeat the British again infers they did it a first time. In the war of 1812, General Hull surrendered Fort Detroit without a shot. To what Detroit victory over the British is reference being made?
WAR OF 1812
Soon after the outbreak of the war, the British forces on St. Joseph’s Island moved toward the American held Mackinac Island and the next morning were in position on the hill above the fort with cannons and muskets aimed down into it. The American commander, Lieutenant Porter Hanks, immediately surrendered. Lieutenant Hanks wasn’t even warned by his own government that they declared war.
Americans began to worry about the exposed fort of Detroit. The U.S. quickly dispatched Brigadier General William Hull with reinforcements to the fort. In July, General Hull decided to cross the Detroit River into Upper Canada. His militia was poorly equipped, so when Hull learned of an approaching force made up of British troops, Canadian militia, and native Americans, he quickly retreated back to Detroit. General Isaac Brock led the British units. Brock took his army on the offensive and followed Hull back to Detroit. Brock’s intentions were to secure the western frontier for the British. In the battle of Detroit he was able to take control over Detroit without firing a single shot. Now the entire northern and western frontiers were controlled by the British.
In October, the Americans made second attempt to invade Canada, this time on the Niagra frontier at the eastern end of Upper Canada. They sent a force across the Niagra river and stormed the heights above the city of Queenston. This was known as the battle of Queenston Heights. The British sent in more troops to counterattack. The Americans were supposed to receive support from a New York militia officer named Stephen Van Rensselaer, but Rensselaer refused to cross into Canada assist them. The British again defeated the Americans, but they faced a great loss, General Isaac Brock, who was considered a huge asset to the British. At the end of year one , there were no Americans on British soil, but there were British on American soil.
A new American army led by William Henry Harrison made their way up from Kentucky to try and retake Detroit for the U.S. . One wing was so badly beat up by a force of British, Canadians, and Indians at Frenchtown that further attempts to invade Detroit were abandoned.
==========
Capitulation Of Fort Detroit And Dependencies
Camp at Detroit, 16 August 1812
Capitulation for the surrender of Fort Detroit, entered into between Major-General Brock, commanding His Britannic Majesty's forces, on the one part, and Brigadier General Hull commanding the North Western army of the United States, on the other part.
1st. Fort Detroit as well as with all the troops, regulars and militia, will be immediately surrendered to the British forces under the command of Major-General Brock, and will be considered prisoners of war, with the exception of such of the militia of the Michigan territory, who have not joined the army.
2d. All public stores, arms, and all public documents, including every thing else of a public nature, will be immediately given up.
3d. Private persons, and property of every description will be respected.
4th. His Excellency, Brigadier-General Hull, having expressed a desire that a detachment from the State of Ohio, on its way to join his army as well as one sent from Fort Detroit, under the command of Colonel M'Arthur, should be included in the above capitulation, it is accordingly agreed to. It is, however, to be understood, that such part of the Ohio Militia as have not joined the army, will be permitted to return to their homes, on condition that they will not serve during the war; their arms will be delivered up if belonging to the public.
5th. The Garrison will march out at the hour of 12 o'clock this day, and the British forces will take immediate possession of the Fort.
An article supplemental to the Articles of Capitulation
It is agreed that the Officers and soldiers of the Ohio Militia and Volunteers shall be permitted to proceed to their respective homes, on this condition, that they are not to serve during the present war, unless they are exchanged.
An article in addition to the supplemental article of the capitulation
It is further agreed that the officers and soldiers of the Michigan Militia and Volunteers, under the command of Major Wetherell, shall be placed on the same principles as the Ohio militia and volunteers are placed on the same principles as the Ohio militia and volunteers are placed by the supplemental article of the 16th instant.
E.A. Cruikshank, ed. Documents Relating to the Invasion of Canada and the Surrender of Detroit, 1812. (Ottawa: 1912), pp. 146-147.
============
Proclamation Following The Surrender Of Fort Detroit
General Brock
16 August 1812
Whereas the Territory of Michigan was this day by Capitulation ceded to the Arms of His Britannic Majesty without any other condition than the protection of private property; And wishing to give an early proof of the moderation and justice of the Government, I do hereby announce to all the Inhabitants of the said Territory, that the Laws heretofore in existence shall continue in force until His Majesty's pleasure be known, or so long as the peace and safety of the said Territory will admit thereof. And I do hereby also declare and make known to the said Inhabitants, that they shall be protected in the full exercise and enjoyment of their Religion, Of which all persons both Civil and Military will take notice, and govern themselves accordingly.
All persons having in their possession, or having any knowledge of any Public Property, shall forthwith deliver in the same or give notice thereof to the Officer Commanding, or Lieutenant Colonel Nichol, who are hereby duly Authorized to receive and give proper Receipts for the same.
Officers of Militia will be held responsible that all Arms in possession of Militia Men, be immediately delivered up, and all Individuals whatever, who have in their possession, Arms of any kind, will deliver them up without delay.
E.A. Cruikshank, ed. Documents Relating to the Invasion of Canada and the Surrender of Detroit, 1812. (Ottawa: 1912), pp. 155-156.
==========
The Surrender of Detroit
General Hull
Fort George, 26 August 1812
Inclosed are the articles of capitulation, by which the Fort of Detroit has been surrendered to Major-General Brock, commanding his Britannic Majesty's forces in Upper Canada, and by which the troops have become prisoners of war. My situation at present forbids me from detailing the particular causes which have led to this unfortunate event. I will, however, generally observe, that after the surrender of Michilimackinac, almost every tribe and nation of Indians, excepting a part of the Miamis and Delawares, north from beyond Lake Superior, west from beyond the Mississippi, south from the Ohio and Wabash, and east from every port of Upper Canada, and from all the intermediate country, joined in open hostility under the British standard, against the army I commanded, contrary to the most solemn assurances of a large portion of them to remain neutral; even the Ottawa Chiefs from Arbecrotch, who formed the delegation to Washington the last summer, in whose friendship I know you had great confidence, are among the hostile tribes, and several of them distinguished leaders. Among the vast numer of chiefs who led the hostile bands, Tecumseh, Marpot, Logan, Walk-in-the-water, Split-Log, &c. are considered the principals. This numerous assemblage of savages, under the entire influence and direction of the British commander, enabled him totally to obstruct the only communication which I had with my country.
* * *
E.A. Cruikshank, ed. Documents Relating to the Invasion of Canada and the Surrender of Detroit, 1812. (Ottawa: 1912), pp. 184-190.
==========
16 August 1812
American Surrender of Detroit
In one of the worst moments of the war for the United States, Brigadier General William Hull surrendered the fort at Detroit without firing a shot. He had recently failed in his foray into Canada and found himself surrounded by British regulars and militia under Major General Isaac Brock and Indians under Tecumseh. The British would retain control of the fort for thirteen months, abandoning it after their defeat in the Battle of Lake Erie in September 1813.
==========
Battle of Lake Erie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Battle of Lake Erie was fought on September 10, 1813, during the War of 1812.
The British had been blockading the port of Erie, Pennsylvania during the summer of 1813, but on August 1 they unexpectedly withdrew. The American ships in the harbour were finally able to leave, and throughout August Captain Oliver Perry prepared for the inevitable battle while keeping a close eye on the British ships at Detroit.
On September 10, British Commodore Robert Heriot Barclay, in his flagship the HMS Detroit, met Perry near Put-in-Bay, Ohio. Barclay's six ships outweighed and outgunned Perry's nine, including Perry's flagship the USS Lawrence; the Lawrence faced an unfavourable wind and was destroyed in the course of the battle. However, Perry was able to transfer command to the USS Niagara, a ship equal in size and strength to the Lawrence, but which had not yet been engaged in the battle. As the HMS Detroit had suffered some damage, the Niagara was able to capture it, along with the other five British ships.
Each side suffered about 100 casualties. After the battle, Perry sent his famous message to General William Henry Harrison, "We have met the enemy and they are ours." Due to the outcome of the battle, Britain retreated from Detroit and lost control of Lake Erie for the remainder of the war.
==========
Lincoln the pimp was providing permits for other money-grubbing pimps to trade Yankee meat for Confederate cotton. Passes such as the following for a relative:
LINKLincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 7.
Endorsement Concerning William F. Shriver [1]
May 15. 1864
Indorsed
The writer of this is personally unknown to me, though married to a young relative of mine. I shall be obliged if he be allowed what he requests so far as the rules and exigencies of the public service will permit.
A. LINCOLN
The Confederate army was desperate for food. Using passes issued by Lincoln the pimp, money-grubbing pimps were provisioning the Confederate army. General Grant made explicitly clear what he thought about the United States Government provisioning the enemy army.
LINKO.R. Series I, vol 46, Part 2, Page 445
CITY POINT, VA., February 7, 1865-10 a.m.
Honorable E. M. STANTON,
Secretary of War:
A. M. Laws is here with a steamer partially loaded with sugar and coffee, and a permit from the Treasury Department to go through into Virginia and North Carolina, and to bring out 10,000 bales of cotton. I have positively refused to adopt this mode of feeding the Southern army unless it is the direct order of the President. It is a humiliating fact that speculators have represented the location of cotton at different points in the South, and obtained permits to bring it out, covering more than the entire amount of the staple in all the cotton-growing States. I take this to be so from statements contained in a letter recently received from General Canby. It is for our interest now to stop all supplies going into the South between Charleston and the James River. Cotton only comes out on private accounts, except in payment for absolute necessities for the support of the war.
U. S. GRANT,
Lieutenant-General.
And as I say, there is no credible proof that they actually did meet.
And so far as I know, none of the neo-reb crazies on the newsgroup, which they have in plenty, showed that President Lincoln and Butler met either.
I can't believe you people are following me around. Whatshisname recently posted something I put on the WWII newsgroup @ 3 years ago.
Walt
To prove that representative government could work, of course.
Walt
...which they did not do. Instead, one section of the country denied the right of self government to the other by way of force thereby destroying its existence in both.
A note from Lincoln's secretary stating something to the effect of "meet with Abe at this time tommorrow" combined with its recipient's report that he "met with Abe" at that designated time is proof enough for any sane person. There exists no indication whatsoever that the meeting was cancelled - only that it went ahead as scheduled.
They were hanged for involvement in a conspiracy to overthrow Texas. Some were even reported to have bragged of their plot's continuation in other hands as they were being readied for execution.
There is no parallel to this on the Union side.
Yes there is, and in fact it was far worse. Yankee Gen. Robert Milroy's murder lists from Tennessee dispatched troops to track down civilians in their homes and execute them without trial. Some of those lists contained in excess of 50 names a piece. They also ordered the civilians to be executed in bizarre, excessively cruel, highly unusual, and indisputably unlawful manners.
One of the orders had them hang civilians from a door frame with a slip knot to ensure a slow and painful death. The soldiers even tugged at the legs of their victims during the process to make it more painful. Some of the execution victims had their bodies publicly displayed and guarded by yankee troops in the style of medieval Europe. One unit stood guard over a pile of rotting corpses in a pond for a week, forcing local civilians to endure the site and smell while refusing to even let them bury the dead. Another of Milroy's death lists orders his troops to turn over some victims to a local unionist civilian and permit him to execute them in the manner of his choosing - it was Milroy's "thank you" gift to the guy for helping the yankee cause. Perhaps the most bizarre is an order from Milroy for the execution of an elderly woman for the "crime" of encouraging her son to enlist into a confederate guerrilla division. Milroy ordered that she be shot "by accident" when the soldiers arrived at her house so as to make it look like they didn't intend to execute her.
One must remember that Lincoln was a consumate fence sitter, and was notorious for telling different things to different people at different times. While on the surface damning in some respects, there were always more matters being on the table, and there is most likely no way that we will find out what all was going on here.
Several other issues were continual matters of concern attended to at all times. One was the return of wonunded and disabled prisoners of war. Another was the return of Americans of African heritage when they had been captured by the south. On all of these matters Lincoln had to cut deals with the devil one way or the other, and no matter what he did he couldn't please everyone.
Grant had sound reason for advocating the starving of the south, as it increased the rate of desertion in Lee's army which by this time was becoming epidemic. On the other hand, Lincoln was looking to the end of the war and didn't want more blood on his hands than necessary. Another serious point to consider was that any cotton taken from the south could by used by the government to finance the war, and that funding was required to finish the war. Certianly the north could have finished the war without southern cotton, but it sure was nice to trade the relatively cheaper goods for cotton which at that point was quite valuable. There is no question but that Lincoln had very strong sympathies for southerners in general, in part because most of his relatives were southerners. One common complaint about the White House in the war years was that it was constantly occupied by Confederates, all of whom were Lincoln's relatives. Lincoln's attitude though had extensive common support. It was difficult to hold too much hostility to those who fought simply because they were told to, and because they were too uneducated to know any better. Such was the typical southern soldier.
I was quoting you from this month making reference to myself and other posters on Free Republic. In your discourse, you "forgot" about the Hay memorandum. I suppose you could tell Mike Stone the date he asked about as well: April 11, 1865. I'm sure you would not want to appear deceptive or intellectually dishonest.
More from the ACW moderated forum:
[WalterM140 8/11/03]
Hi, Ya'll,
Did Lincoln ever make any public statements that refuted or backed away from colonization of blacks?
Was supporting voting rights for black soldiers a back door way of refuting colonization? Or apples and oranges? Or something else?
Comments?
Walt
[ Ed R 8/14/03] An interesting point. I just finished "American Scoundrel" by Thomas Keneally and he writes about Lincoln sending Dan Sickles to, IIRC, Panama to negotiate several dealings. One of which was the possible establishment of a colony for freed slaves. In fact, Lincoln was assassinated while Sickles was on this trip.
[Cash 8/14/03] Keneally claims it was Colombia: "The President needed an emissary to go on government business to Panama and Colombia. Greater Colombia, or New Grenada, as the Federation of Colombia, Costa Rica, and Panama styled itself, formed one loose federal state ruled from the highland capital of Bogotá, Colombia. He was to leave by January with the purpose of persuading the Panamanian authorities to allow Union troops to cross the Isthmus of Panama, something they had recently prohibited. He was then to travel to Bogotá and raise, with the federal authorities there, the possibility of Colombia's offering a home to freed black slaves who were now pooling in Washington and in Northern cities." [Thomas Keneally, _American Scoundrel: The Life of the Notorious Civil War General Dan Sickles,_ p. 310]
[REL quoting] "No further effort at colonization was made by the Presdient, and by an act approved July 2, 1864, Congress repealed its appropriations for that object"(Abraham Lincoln A History, Vol. VI, by Nicholay and Hay, p. 367).
[REL 8/16/03] President Andrew Johnson threatened a groups of minority soldiers by saying that if they did not do right God might bring about colonization.
[REL 8/21/03] Johnson is quoted by W.E.B. Dubois as threathening a group of minorities soldiers with the possibility of colonization (by the hand of God) if the minorities soldiers did not behave.
[Mike Stone quoting 9/5/03 WalterM140] I can't find any contemporary evidence that Lincoln and Butler even met on the day in question.
[9/7/03 Mike Stone] Do we have a specific _day_ for the conversation? Even if we do, of course, that is the sort of detail that can easily be misremembered
Somehow by your classic cracker jack Democratic Party economic theory, dollars generated by exports are more valuable that dollars generated by internal work and production. Now, assuming that old Dixiecrat saw is true, you simply must explain how one dollar gained from the sale of cotton could buy more than one dollar gained elsewhere. I can't wait for this brilliance.
GNP consists of a nations entire productivity, not just the foreign currency it picks up by parting with it's agricultural products. The essential terminal problem for the south was that it's economy was fatally unbalanced. It could only produce agricultural products, and of those mainly only cotton. While this was first step, it could never manufacture anything out of it, and the real wealth in that day and age came from the manufactures made from the raw resource. Pick virtually anything made anywhere, and the cost of the raw material is almost always less than the labor and costs associated with manufacturing and distribution. Very often, it's but a mere fraction of the total value. The south defaulted on all of this enhanced value, and so remained a one ride pony with no prospects of a better future.
The US of that era was largely self-sufficient. Exports, while nice, represented only a minor piece of the larger GNP and wealth. By the time you average that total GNP over the popoulations involved in producing it, the South becomes a real loser, being substantially under national averages and norm in all aspects except for those statistics relating only to the top 2% of suthern society. When your classic Democratic historical views cites the Morrill Tariff as reducing imports, besides ignoring the monstrous costs of the war, it also ignores the fact that in the 1860's US industrialism first truly started to boom. This meant that overall, more quality products were available in the US from US manufactures, and therefore the percentage fall in tariff revenue you cite had two major causes, neither of which were the classic and irrational Democratic terror of protective tariffs.
Now, take your lame Democratic Party history of the US and put in in the trash where it belongs, along with the rag of treason and it's shameful mythology.
That is not necessarily the case in every export situation, though it is almost always the case in a comparatively advantaged free trade situation. If the domestic good costs $2 and the foreign substitute (i.e. an import, for which an export is effectively traded) costs $1, it is preferable to purchase the foreign substitute and with it gain an increase in the consumer surplus by way of that lower price. Thus a net gain will indeed occur from the trade economy over what would be the case if only the domestic economy existed. As for towing old Democrat lines, the only person doing that around here is you. Your attempts to excuse away the blatantly protectionist Morrill Act and your apallingly ignorant renditions of trade economics read like something straight out of an AFL-CIO talking points book with a DNC seal of approval affixed to its cover.
Now, assuming that old Dixiecrat saw is true, you simply must explain how one dollar gained from the sale of cotton could buy more than one dollar gained elsewhere.
Easy. Assuming free trade conditions exist, cotton will function as the export in the trade equation (for trade to happen something must go out and something else must come in. That means we take in imports and give out either our own exported goods or credit for later purchase of our goods). Since there are many products that can be produced more efficiently and at lower prices abroad than domestically, it stands to reason that some other countries will have an advantage in producing those products, be it comparative or absolute. Their prices will often be lower than the domestic producers of the same good. Since free trade exists, consumers may reap the benefits of the imported good and its lower price. They gain in their consumer surplus from that good's purchase over what would be the case if they had only domestics to choose from. Now, since cotton is the US's comparatively advantaged good it is an ideal means of trading for those cheaper priced imports. Therefore it becomes the country's main export. Granted, one could theoretically pass a law or something mandating that only the domestically produced more expensive items be used in trade, but that would be stupid since nobody else in the world would want those goods due to their higher prices. Therefore if we shifted our production to an inefficiently produced domestic good and attempted to offer only it on the world market trade would shrink to a trickle and the country would lose out on the benefits that cheaper priced imports give us. Without those cheaper imports we lose the gain in consumer surplus that they facilitated. And that is why having cotton as an advantaged export increased the nation's wealth more than simply producing inefficient and more expensive domestics (i.e. the second rate and overpriced crap that yankees made at that time).
GNP consists of a nations entire productivity, not just the foreign currency it picks up by parting with it's agricultural products.
It is not just foreign currency that we are concerned with. It is also foreign imports that are exchanged for exports.
The essential terminal problem for the south was that it's economy was fatally unbalanced.
Not really. Most sane economists will agree that specialization, particularly in the area of trade, is a good thing and increases the overall efficiency of the economy. That the south did not have manufactured good X, an arbitrarily deemed "good" thing that you have decided for whatever reason that all economies must have no matter how inefficient they are at producing it, does not mean it could not (a) obtain manufactured good X or (b) compare economically with countries that did produce manufactured good X.
It could only produce agricultural products, and of those mainly only cotton.
Agriculture was where the south had its comparitive advantage in the world. It would be stupid for a country with a comparative advantage in agriculture to expend its resources in some other area where it had no advantage - such as diamond mining - as that would lead to both economic inefficiency and a complete waste of the country's existing resources in pursuit of a non-existing one.
While this was first step, it could never manufacture anything out of it, and the real wealth in that day and age came from the manufactures made from the raw resource.
Evidently this was not the case for the north, which could not compete with Europe in most manufactured goods and thus demanded protection from their lower prices. After all, the United States in 1860 wasn't exactly known for shipping its high quality manufactured goods all over the world. It was known for doing that with cotton though - so much that the single crop of cotton made up two thirds of its total exports.
Pick virtually anything made anywhere, and the cost of the raw material is almost always less than the labor and costs associated with manufacturing and distribution.
Ever heard of value added stages of production? There typically is money of some form at every stage but not everybody is suited to do every one of those stages and in fact it is normally more efficient that they not do that. Some countries and regions, for example, are better endowed with labor than others. Some are better endowed with manufacturing ability than others. And some are better endowed with good crop land than others (unless, of course, you have figured out a way to grow a strong cotton crop in Minnesota). If you happen to be the country that is endowed with agricultural land but not a large labor population or not a strong manufacturing ability it would be STUPID to try and produce in either of those areas because doing so would inevitably require withdrawing some of your resources away from the thing that you are good at - agriculture. Thus the silly attempt at economic autarky will almost assuredly lead to a net loss for that given economy.
The south defaulted on all of this enhanced value
Not really. They simply realized - and quite correctly - that they were better at growing the stuff than processing it into manufactured goods. Europe by contrast couldn't even dream of growing the stuff but they could manufacture it with great efficiency. Thus trade between the two was well suited to both.
The US of that era was largely self-sufficient.
Not really. Their economy, like any modern economy, was intrinsically tied to international commerce. So strong was this the case that 1857's events surrounding the Crimean War - an incident in which America had virtually no direct involvement - were able to spark European financial recessions which in turn spread to America as the Panic of 1857. The so-called "self-sufficient" policy of economic autarky is a load of garbage straight from the AFL-CIO playbook.
Exports, while nice, represented only a minor piece of the larger GNP and wealth.
Before we proceed down this path may I ask where you get your GNP figures from? This is necessary to ascertain their historical validity, especially since economists generally recognize the widespread unreliability of major national economic figures prior to about 1870 and the partial unreliability of them prior to about 1900. Also may I ask why you make vague claims about the south's alleged position in these statistics, themselves universally considered to have a high unreliability, yet never bother to produce any hard data or figures? My strong speculation is that you lack the necessary data to substantiate your claims about the GNP just as you lacked the necessary data to substantiate your previous string of falsehoods about the Morrill tariff act.
When your classic Democratic historical views cites the Morrill Tariff as reducing imports, besides ignoring the monstrous costs of the war,
Imports into the north's largest port, NYC, halved practically overnight when the Morrill Act was adopted in March 1861. That is an indisputable historical fact taken straight out of the NYC customs house reports. The first shot of the war was not until a month later in April and war spending did not start in full until Congress reconvened in July. By then trade had already dwindled to a trickle. All that in other words the war's costs had little to do with what happened and the Morrill act had everything to do with it.
it also ignores the fact that in the 1860's US industrialism first truly started to boom. This meant that overall, more quality products were available in the US from US manufactures
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. If you don't understand it look it up.
and therefore the percentage fall in tariff revenue you cite had two major causes
No therefore at all. Your first "cause" contradicts the one factor that cannot be altered in any historical debate - the timeline itself. Your second "cause" is nothing but a wholly unsubstantiated and accordingly discardable claim that also happens to contradict the conventional wisdom of the manufacturers you claim were benefitting (if they had truly come of age in 1860 and suddenly became able to compete with Europe, why were all the northern manufacturers clamoring around for a protectionist tariff?).
Now, take your lame Democratic Party history
It is once again odd that you would attempt to characterize my statements as "Democratic Party history" considering that (a) my statements adamantly adhere to a free trade position, which is a conservative republican belief rather than a democrat one, and (b) your statements read like an excuse sheet for protectionism put out by the AFL-CIO, an organization that firmly aligns itself with the liberal democrat party of today. In light of these two occurrences I may safely and factually conclude that not only do your characterizations lack accuracy. They also indicate that you are projecting your own position's shortcomings onto the position of another.
I look in on this forum now and then to see if anything has changed, and one thing that seems to be eternally unchangable is you. You are forever posting the same nonsense.
As he has admitted, he voted for Clinton/Gore every time. Is there any way that anyone could take him seriously about him speaking of others about deception? Following GOP's posts for quite awhile now, I actually feel sorry for the suckers that summon up the dishonestly to side with him.
Walt, could you tell us the state of your mind when you support present day lies by your Democratic party, voted for Clinton/Gore, but get all worked up over the slavery issue of over 140 years ago? I look forward to your dishonest reply.
Just to cover the anticipated dishonestly of a liberal, "him" is Walt.
imports into the north's largest port, NYC, halved practically overnight when the Morrill Act was adopted in March 1861
Explain how the expenditure by the govenment of millions on the war, and the raising of millions more by voluntary donation, had absolutely no impact on the volume of imports into the US.
Till you learn to cope with this, you are just reciting rote learning without adequate thought my little boy. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.