Posted on 01/31/2002 4:17:10 AM PST by shuckmaster
You got me there, Walt. Sorry, that was sloppy history on my part.
Lincoln was not blockading Ft. Sumter before the skirmish, but he was setting up floating custom houses to collect taxes and tariffs from ships using the Charleston port. Lincoln's primary concern was collecting tax revenue. He saw the Confederacy drawing away to establish free trade with England and the rest of Europe, and it horrified him. "What then will become of my tariff?" were his words.
A free trade zone between the Confederate States and Europe would have been a disaster to the Union's tax revenue, since the South was paying nearly 90% of all tariff money received by the federal government.
It was a great game for the North. The slave trade would go through New York and Rhode Island; the slaves would be sold South to harvest the cash crops; the South would sell the cotton and tobacco to Europe in exchange for industrial goods they did not produce; the North would collect large tariffs on these exchanges. A wonderful racket. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 helped sustain it: the federal government decreed that all Northern states must return all runaway slaves to their "proper owners". I always thought some of the Northern states should have seceded in protest of this violation of their own states' rights.
Interesting quote from Robert Penn Warren -- I'll have to read that. As I recall, he was a prominent writer from the Southern Agrarian movement, right?
Thank you, unfortunately many would disagree with you - thinking that we must bury the past forever. The section of the Constitution to which you refer would only apply to states still in the Union - the south formed her confederacy after legally seceding from the federal union. The was nothing in it that said she couldn't, no federal laws against it, the rights were granted in Amendments 9 & 10, and expressly reserved by New York, Rhode Island and Virginia in the ratifications, and accepted by every single member of the union.
That's a good question. The reason that the proclamation only freed Southern slaves was because that was all the President believed he had the Constitutional authority to do. He used his war powers to free slaves in the South, contending that they were being used in the war against the USA. It probably did make military sense. If an Army would steal the enemy's horses, why not free their slaves?
Sorry, in 1858-59 more tariff revenue was generated by Boston ($5,133,414.55) than by the 10 largest southern ports combined ($2,874,167.11). And New York generated almost 7 times as much revenue as Boston ($35,155,452.75). All figures from "Lifeline of the Confederacy" by Stephen R. Wise.
Lincoln was not blockading Ft. Sumter before the skirmish, but he was setting up floating custom houses to collect taxes and tariffs from ships using the Charleston port.
Fort Sumter was a military fort, nothing more and nothing less. The Customs House in Charleston is, if memory serves, on East Bay Street. Perhaps you can see the wisdom behind putting a customs house miles away from the wharves where the tariffs would be collected but it makes no sense to me. Can you explain the logic to me?
The slave trade would go through New York and Rhode Island; the slaves would be sold South to harvest the cash crops; the South would sell the cotton and tobacco to Europe in exchange for industrial goods they did not produce; the North would collect large tariffs on these exchanges.
Interesting premise, except for one thing. Slave imports, legal slave imports, ended in 1808 through federal legislation as the Constitution provided. Slavery was illegal in New York by 1827. So how could this be fueling the tariff engine you describe in 1860?
I always thought some of the Northern states should have seceded in protest of this violation of their own states' rights.
Interesting, except that, of course, arbitrary secession is not an action guranteed by the Constitution and is illegal. But if it was a 'states rights' issue, it is interesting to note how the south was against states rights in this instance but claim to be all for it in others.
You got me there, Walt. Sorry, that was sloppy history on my part.
Not the only instance, apparently.
for dixie,sw
"Sorry, in 1858-59 more tariff revenue was generated by Boston ($5,133,414.55) than by the 10 largest southern ports combined ($2,874,167.11). And New York generated almost 7 times as much revenue as Boston ($35,155,452.75)."
The threat to the Union's tax revenue of a free-trade zone between the Confederacy and Europe was not limited to the loss of Southern tariff money, whatever proportion it may have been of total tariff revenue. All of the latter was threatened. European shippers would have significantly shifted the destinations of their exports from Northern to Southern ports. Numerous Northern editorial writers wrote of this threat in an effort to scare up popular support for war from a largely indifferent general population in the North. The port of New Orleans was considered a particular threat because from there the Mississippi would give traders of imported European goods access to an enormous number of potential buyers. Small wonder that the capture of New Orleans was a first priority.
When you get old ... the mind is the second thing to go.
Thanks for the info.
Sorry, in 1858-59 more tariff revenue was generated by Boston ($5,133,414.55) than by the 10 largest southern ports combined ($2,874,167.11). And New York generated almost 7 times as much revenue as Boston ($35,155,452.75). All figures from "Lifeline of the Confederacy" by Stephen R. Wise.
Charles Adams of "When in the Course of Human Events" cites tariff revenues from the 1830's and 1840's of $90 million from the South, $17.5 million from the North, for a total of $107.5 million. As confirmation of this, he points out that these amounts are proportional to the exports of both sides -- $214 million from the South, $47 million from the North.
Fort Sumter was a military fort, nothing more and nothing less. The Customs House in Charleston is, if memory serves, on East Bay Street. Perhaps you can see the wisdom behind putting a customs house miles away from the wharves where the tariffs would be collected but it makes no sense to me. Can you explain the logic to me?
Read my words: I said "floating" customs houses. You make my point: there is no wisdom in having a customs house miles away from the wharves. That's why Lincoln gave the authority to set up ships to collect tariffs out on the water.
>> The slave trade would go through New York and Rhode Island; the slaves would be sold South ....
Interesting premise, except for one thing. Slave imports, legal slave imports, ended in 1808 through federal legislation as the Constitution provided. Slavery was illegal in New York by 1827. So how could this be fueling the tariff engine you describe in 1860?
There was plenty of clandestine slave trading going on. By far most slaves went to Brazil, but a few were sold to the South. Slave trading was a hanging offense, but that sentence was only carried out one time, in 1862, when the Yankee slave trader Nathanial Gordon was hanged after being captured with a boatload of slaves going to the West Indies.
Nevertheless, the North still profited handsomely from slave labor, even without official engagement in the slave trade. That's because they collected tariffs on goods produced with slave labor. Whether you import 'em or just breed 'em, they're still slaves.
>> I always thought some of the Northern states should have seceded in protest of this violation of their own states' rights.
Interesting, except that, of course, arbitrary secession is not an action guranteed by the Constitution and is illegal.
First, the Constitution did not explicitly forbid secession, and therefore by Amendments 9 and 10 this right was retained by the States and the people. The Constitution, at least as originally framed, does not give us rights, it only denies the government certain rights.
Second, it was Abraham Lincoln himself who most eloquently affirmed the right of secession in his July 4, 1848 letter to the New York Tribune:
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world . . . Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit. "
Gosh, old Honest Abe is so eloquent it almost brings tears to my eyes.
Third, the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence affirms the natural right of secession. Do you think King George thought the American colonists had a "right" to secede from Britain? No. But what some politician thinks has no bearing on natural rights.
But if it was a 'states rights' issue, it is interesting to note how the south was against states rights in this instance but claim to be all for it in others.
Absolutely. Very well said. You won't find me defending either Northern or Southern hypocrisy. And there is plenty of it all around.
Hell, it was Massachusetts that threatened to secede four times, first on the adjustment of state debts, second on the Louisiana Purchase by Jefferson (clearly unconstitutional), third during the War of 1812; and fourth on the annexation of Texas. One resolution actually passed the state house. Those wascally webels!
Not the only instance, apparently.
That's the beauty of the net -- you get to forge your ideas under the scrutiny of thousands of other people.
For my answer I refer you back to last fall's thread where you and I already went through this at length. I have no intention of going through it again.
Nothing at all. But of course shipments from the North to Mexico would have been similarly interrupted, and you are invited to imagine how long it would have been until other western territories would have chosen to throw their lot in as states of the Confederacy, rather than seek union with the USA.
Similarly, shipments from Central America would have had to travel by sea rather than by the IRCA railroads that later came into being as a result of Yankee development, and the banannas and other exports would have likely found waiting markets in the southland rather than in longer voyages to the north in those pre-mechanical refrigeration days. The exchange of southern-produced light industrial goods in exchange would have further developed such trade and stimulated southern industrial capacity, and it's interesting to speculate as to whether the Panama Canal would ever have come into existance at all.
I believe it was Winston Churchill's article on a fictional Confederate victory in the War of Northern Dominance that World War I might thereby have also been averted. Happy thought, and too bad that that didn't work out that way.
-archy-/-
Interesting premise, except for one thing. Slave imports, legal slave imports, ended in 1808 through federal legislation as the Constitution provided. Slavery was illegal in New York by 1827. So how could this be fueling the tariff engine you describe in 1860?
There was plenty of clandestine slave trading going on. By far most slaves went to Brazil, but a few were sold to the South. Slave trading was a hanging offense, but that sentence was only carried out one time, in 1862, when the Yankee slave trader Nathanial Gordon was hanged after being captured with a boatload of slaves going to the West Indies.
Nevertheless, the North still profited handsomely from slave labor, even without official engagement in the slave trade. That's because they collected tariffs on goods produced with slave labor. Whether you import 'em or just breed 'em, they're still slaves.
Note that the slaves delivered to Memphis slavetrader Nathan Bedford Forrest in Memphis came downriver on the Mississippi, from Cairo, in Illinois. He was presumable brokering the sale of slaves from Northern areas in which their ownership had been proscribed or was unpopular, and relocating them to new homes in the southland.
Whatever the case, those who he took into his own household apparantly held him in personal high esteem, and some 30 of them served with him through the war; with only one deserting to the other side when the opportunity to do so presented itself. Their courage under fire, military skill and horsemanship and individual ability impressed Forrest greatly, and he described them as *his equals.*
-archy-/-
Oh, Lord, I was afraid that someone was going to dredge up Adams and his POS novel. Well, the book I quote the figures from references the "Statement Showing the Amount of Revenue Collected Annually From Each Collection District for the Period June 1858-June 1859", Exec Doc. No. 33, 26th Congress, 1st Session, 1860 as it's source. Adams references nothing except his own opinion. I know. I read the book.
That's why Lincoln gave the authority to set up ships to collect tariffs out on the water.
How was that to be done? Send out boats and board every ship coming along? When and how did Lincoln issue these instructions? It still makes no sense.
There was plenty of clandestine slave trading going on.
Going on through Boston and New York? Don't you think someone would have noticed that? If you are smuggling slaves into the states then why smuggle them into a northern port - where slavery was illegal - only to have to ship them down south where the demand was? Does that honestly make any sense to you?
First, the Constitution did not explicitly forbid secession...
According to the Supreme Court this right does not and never has existed. Texas v. White, 1869.
Gosh, old Honest Abe is so eloquent it almost brings tears to my eyes.
"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forebearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession." -- R.E. Lee January 23, 1861.
The Robert E. Lee sure had a way with words, didn't he?
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.