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?
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.
Not a problem; it is especially refreshing after bashing through the crap that appears on these confederate apolgist threads.
Walt