Evidently it is you with the counting difficulty. In addition to New York, the federal government built or improved upon pre-civil war forts all along the coast including in the following states on the northern side of the civil war:
New Castle, DE
Fort Delaware, DE
Fort Carroll, MD
Fort Mifflin, PA
Frankford Arsenal, PA
Fort Elizabethtown, NJ
Fort Hancock, NJ
Burlington Cantonment, NJ
...and that's just starting in MD and working up the coast. There were dozens more north and west of there, plus about a dozen forts surrounding Washington DC.
Yes, but the North never was so afraid that they felt compelled to such millions of dollars out of the Feds for out of date brick forts.
Evidently they did as there are similar forts all the way up the coast. Check Baltimore Harbor or Delaware Bay (entrance to Philadelphia) if you doubt me. Each city had just as many if not more forts than Charleston. Included were outlying defenses and even artificial islands in the middle of the entrance just like Fort Sumter and constructed at the exact same time. The fact is you simply do not know your history or your geography.
Wasn't one of them that could stand up to artillery fire by 1860.
Probably not, yet fortified gun positions remained in widespread use by the federal government in both the north and south through at least the turn of the century. Concrete barriers and retractable long range guns extended their use well into the 20th century. If you doubt me, visit Fort Washington on the Potomac just south of DC. It's a war of 1812 fort that was still in use by the 1890's when they installed several concrete batteries and long range retractable guns.
Waste of money, unless, of course, you were really just making a living off federal largesse controlled by a southern dominated Senate.
As I have previously demonstrated to you, the south did NOT dominate the senate in 1860 or for quite some time before then. The north had a solid majority there just like they had in the house.
THe North had seven cash crops that out produced cotton.
Evidently they did not. In 1860 cotton alone made up 65% of the entire country's exports. In that same year tobacco made up another 8-9%. Those seven northern crops provided a COMBINED total of less than 20%.
It's in the Globe
Then you should be able to source it with ease. Simply saying "it's in the globe" no more suffices as a response to a request for specific citation than "it's in the encyclopedia" or the old favorite from Wlatdom "it's on google."
You're just afraid to look it up.
Not at all. In fact, I've probably read more debates out of the congressional globe from the immediate pre-war years than anyone else on this forum and even most civil war historians. They have figured prominently into two of my thesis papers and several dozen articles I have written. I've even transcribed (and provided to the public) some speeches and debates from them that have not appeared in print for over 140 years. I've also researched the economic statistics of the United States in that period and commented on them accordingly. The fact is they simply do not support what you claim in any way, shape, or form.
Too dangerous? For Federal troops?
No. For individual gold miners. It was also highly impractical. Tell me. Why do you think they established a mint in San Francisco in 1852? It wasn't a very big city at the time, and as far as the day was concerned California was the closest one could get to the middle of nowhere in any state. But one key thing happened there a few years earlier. It was called a gold rush, and that gold needed to be minted. It was impractical and dangerous for civilians to carry large quantities of unminted gold over land or sea, so they built a mint there. Well guess what. The EXACT SAME THING had happened two decades earlier in North Carolina - site of the nation's first gold rush. As a response the federal government constructed two tiny mints that only processed gold in GA and NC. They were both in small buildings that were dwarfed by the large mints at Philadelphia and New Orleans. To suggest as you do that they were southern pork barrels or to compare their output - strictly gold coins - to the main minting outputs at the two larger operations is simply absurd.
the last 100 years of southern dominated Federalista programs have made it.
So Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a southern Federalista?
The Post office did a fine job
No they didn't. The pre-war post office and especially the pre-1846 post office was a financial disaster. 1846 was the year that they were hit with several private competitors who severely undercut their rates. It forced them to shape up their finances briefly as congress reinstated them as a monopoly.
The odd thing about your claim is that the only branch of the Confederate government that never showed a loss was the Post Office.
Just shows what a little business sense and the great John Reagan can do for you.
Now you're over the top for sure, and in complete denial of all census materials collected and artificially bloated by the south itself.
And let me guess. It was all a giant southern conspiracy to distort the census bureau's findings, right? Hell, I bet the freemasons and the Rothschilds were even involved!
They only exported cotton because it was the only crop that an inept labor system and could produce at a profit in that day and age.
You are practicing labor reductionism. Cotton was produced because the southern climate was especially suited for it and it was in high demand around the world at the time.
More goods were exported by the North
No they weren't. As of 1860 the north as a whole produced less than one quarter of the entire nation's exports. Said differently, the south's exports were three times the size of the north's exports.
Exporting is generally considered to be an achievement, but that notion comes from exporting finished goods, not raw materials.
Evidently your trade ignorance is as great as your historical ignorance. It is stupid for a country to attempt to export only finished goods, especially when it is comparatively advantaged in the production of a raw material.
Exporting raw materials instead of finished product is to give away the vast majority of wealth in the resource
No it isn't. If a country ends up spending more to make X dollars on a finished product when it can have the same on a raw material for significantly less it is simply stupid for them to shift their production to the finished product. Produce where you are comparatively advantaged and you will draw the greatest wealth. Produce where you are severely disadvantaged and you won't be able to compete with those who are advantaged in that same area.
An interest vested to the tune of many millions over generations into the south to keep the idea of a free nation on the North american continent alive.
What a load of nonsense. North America could have easily continued on with two free governments of consent instead of one. But instead one of them decided to coerce obedience from the either by point of the sword, thus denying a free government of consent from both regions. Due directly to their actions the concept of government by consent died on the North American continent in 1865.
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.