Poll: Nearly 4 In 10 Trump SC Supporters Wish South Won Civil War

The Hill ^ | 16 February 2016 | Harper Neidig

[zeestephen]

Sorry - I’m getting you confused with Diogenes Lamp, who claims that the War was all about money and the greed of Northeastern businessmen.

Your post #108 seemed to support that position.

My position was that the South could have lawfully and exclusively traded with the shippers and merchants of Northern Europe any time they wanted before Secession.

They did not because, financially and logistically, it made more sense to trade with New York instead.

[PeaRidge]

If l am correct, Diogenes Lamp has recently developed a clear understanding of the events that led to the conflict.

My post 108 does support your comment about the greed of Northern businessmen. When separation occurred Southern goods were going to be shipped directly to Europe on their ships. Northern shippers, bankers, insurers, and exporters were about to lose the majority of their income.

Goods returning were headed for Southern ports where the import taxes were half that in the north.

With over 80% of the US Treasury being funded by tariff revenue, the government was broke, and in need of loans and changes in the way it obtained revenue.

Yes, northern businessman were concerned. They were howling about their future, pushing for their own secession in NY, and sending some Governors to push Lincoln into war.

Some confuse greed with survival. It was the survival of
Lincoln's political party that motivated him to use the military instead of emancipating the Southern states.

[PeaRidge]

I failed to add that direct trade with Europe became profitable in 1861 due to secession’s revocation of the Warehousing and Navigation laws, as well as the completion of the harbor dredging project in Charleston that permitted deep draft transoceanic cargo ships to steam directly to the South.

[DiogenesLamp]

My position was that the South could have lawfully and exclusively traded with the shippers and merchants of Northern Europe any time they wanted before Secession.

They did not because, financially and logistically, it made more sense to trade with New York instead.

This is true, but overlooks the fact that this is only true so long as the tariffs were the same for both the North and the South. (Around 45%, I think.)

New England was closer, it had great port facilities, it had great warehousing capability, it could move traffic into the Interior of the nation through the great lakes, and it had major financial capabilities.

Hands down, New York and New England were easier and far better ports for Europe to trade with, all else being equal.

But these advantages disappear completely when another port is capable of handling your trade with a 13% tariff, while New York is still imposing a 45% tariff.

It quickly becomes economically advantageous to ship to that other port.

This is why that Blockade was so essential. ( I never understood that Blockade until this financial stuff came out.) Should Europe ever become accustomed to trade with the South at a 13% tariff, it would reroute most European trade to the South, and cause Europe to throw it's weight behind Southern Independence.

[DiogenesLamp]

My position was that the South could have lawfully and exclusively traded with the shippers and merchants of Northern Europe any time they wanted before Secession.

Lincoln's political philosophy, which he acquired from his Mentor Henry Clay, was "Mercantilism." (Which has nowadays has evolved into "crony capitalism") Lincoln's strongest supporters were among this group who would be most hurt by an Independent South.

[DiogenesLamp]

I failed to add that direct trade with Europe became profitable in 1861 due to secession's revocation of the Warehousing and Navigation laws, as well as the completion of the harbor dredging project in Charleston that permitted deep draft transoceanic cargo ships to steam directly to the South.

Nobody on the Union side wants to understand this. They want to believe what they were taught; That they were the good guys, and the people on the other side were the bad guys.

That is their starting premise and their world view.

[DiogenesLamp]

The difference between constitutions was with PAR35 and myself. The debate between DiogenesLamp and I is more for comic relief.

We are not having a debate. A Debate implies that there is some weighing of arguments taking place. You do not weigh information that conflicts with your world view. You reject it out of hand.

That, and I don't think you have the intellectual heft to actually understand the arguments which have been presented to you.

[DiogenesLamp]

I am not familiar with USA commercial laws in 1860-61.

Let me tell you about one particularly significant one.

It was illegal for foreign ships to transfer cargo between American ports. If a foreign ship landed in New York, it could not land at any other American port and unload cargo.

This had the effect of making New York the main port at which Foreign trade would land.

American Flagged ships were required by law to ship between American ports, and this entire packet shipping Industry was ran out of New York and New England.

Cargo destined for Southern ports would be unloaded from Foreign ships, kept in Warehouses for a bit, then loaded back on to American ships in order to be sent South.

Everybody doing this "handling" was getting an extra cut beyond the initial import tariff for these goods.

This law was a big moneymaker for New England shipping.

When the Southern states went independent, it totally wrecked this gravy train.

[DiogenesLamp]

Was there any statutory reason why South Carolina goods and financing had to pass through Northern ports before the War?

Yes. There was a law requiring American flagged ships to carry cargo between American ports. A Foreign ship could not off load cargo at one port, and then move to a different port (such as Charleston) and offload more cargo.

The law made it economically pointless for them to stop at more than one port. New York was the closest destination for European shipping, and a packet shipping industry (ran from New England) was in place to carry foreign goods to other ports.

It made economic sense (because of that law) to only stop in New York.

[DiogenesLamp]

Before Secession, there was no legal reason why a foreign ship could not sail into Charleston Harbor and deposit its cargo into a bonded warehouse in Charleston.

Well yeah their was. It was 800 miles further South and did not have as good of port facilities as did New York.

Why would you add a couple of weeks to your trip just to land at lesser port facilities and a smaller potential market?

Sure they could do it, but why would anyone want to? The tariff's were the same. The market served was smaller (at the time) and so it just didn't make good economic sense or good labor sense to do so.

[zeestephen]

Re: “It was illegal for foreign ships to transfer cargo between American ports.”

That was actually the answer I was looking for when I started my thread with PeaRidge.

Unfortunately, I did not make that clear.

I believe some form of that law is still in effect today, but I don't know that for certain.

My original thesis in all this - directed at both of you - was that a Peaceful Secession would have basically preserved the status quo for New York businessmen involved in international trade, and it would have basically preserved the Tariff income for the US Federal government.

The Morrill Tariff would have been repealed once New York's tax revenue collapsed - but it was not, because the North needed money to wage War against the South.

No rational Northern businessman - excepting perhaps war profiteers - could have believed that a Civil War, or a “Belligerent” Secession, would somehow improve or maintain their business.

In other words, a “War about money” makes no sense to me.

Rational Northern businessmen would have understood that no political solution was possible for the slave issue, and they would have supported a peaceful division of North and South.

[DiogenesLamp]

My original thesis in all this - directed at both of you - was that a Peaceful Secession would have basically preserved the status quo for New York businessmen involved in international trade, and it would have basically preserved the Tariff income for the US Federal government.

I do not believe this is true at all. It is estimated that Southern Agriculture products constituted the bulk of all outgoing trade with Europe, comprising between 50% and 80% depending on who you ask. Even some of the staunch Unionists in these threads have admitted that Southern Agricultural products made up 50% of the Total of US Exports. Others claim the figure was actually 75-80% of the outgoing trade.

That incoming Trade through New York was to exchange for that outgoing Trade from Southern ports. This is why it was so often stated that the bulk of Federal tariff's were ultimately paid by Southern States when they redeemed their European earned money from imported European trade goods.

If this is correct, an Independent South without North Eastern middle men would short circuit the trade that would ordinarily have gone through New York.

Here is an example of just what volume of trade that was.

Imagine half or more of the trade represented by that money pile being moved 800 miles to the South. What effect do you suppose that would have had on New York business?

[DiogenesLamp]

Rational Northern businessmen would have understood that no political solution was possible for the slave issue, and they would have supported a peaceful division of North and South.

They did. Until their finances took a horrible turn for the worse. Pea Ridge posted a article/letter regarding New York businessmen imploring Lincoln do something about it.

[PeaRidge]

Rational Northern businessmen the Zee man speculates about??

3/18/1861

It took only a week for Northern newspapers to understand the meaning of the low Confederate Tariff announced the week earlier in Montgomery.

The Boston Transcript wrote,
“It does not require extraordinary sagacity to perceive that trade is perhaps the controlling motive operating to prevent the return of the seceding States to the Union.

“Alleged grievances in regard to slavery were originally the causes for the separation of the cotton States; but it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centers of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports.

“The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston, and Savannah are possessed with the idea that New York, Boston, and Philadelphia may be shorn, in the future, of their mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging upon free trade.

“If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon imports, no doubt the business of the chief Northern cities will be seriously injured thereby.”

[PeaRidge]

Zee says: “My original thesis in all this - directed at both of you - was that a Peaceful Secession would have basically preserved the status quo for New York businessmen involved in international trade, and it would have basically preserved the Tariff income for the US Federal government”.

So why would an intelligent man like Lincoln send troops to Charleston and Pensacola with orders to resupply and reinforce the positions there?

[DiogenesLamp]

That is a good quote, but you had another one about Businessmen urging Lincoln to do something about how the South was killing them economically.

[PeaRidge]

This should have been the headline about the “last” rational politician in Washington.

Washington March 3, 1861- Tomorrow President James Buchanan
leaves office having served eight years as the fifteenth Chief Executive of the
United States. Although the secession came during his administration,
despite the withdrawl of seven southern states, the remaining 18 are intact.

He leaves the United States Constitution residing undisturbed in the capital
in Washington. The House of Representatives and Senate will reconvene as
scheduled in five months. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney will preside over the
next term of the Supreme Court.

The Secretary of War, Joseph Holt reports no military activity in any areas adjacent to the mason Dixon line. Army Commander General Winfield Scott reports that the military is billeted as normal.

New York and Boston shipping houses are noting declines in imports landing
at their wharfs, but report that dry goods, machinery, passenger and mail
service with southern ports continues as usual.

With one exception, all federal facilities have been peacefully evacuated with
federal employees, their health intact, returning north by rail or ship.

Confederate government representatives are meeting in Washington with
officials to arrange for payment for these facilities and other debts resulting
from their withdrawal from the Union.

Last November, President Buchanan and Attorney General Black announced that it was not within the authority of the government to institute military force to address secession. He is to be congratulated for his respect for the constitution and the peaceful lives of citizens everywhere.

Secession has removed slavery as an issue for either the courts or the territories,
and no longer preoccupies the interests of the legislature or press.

The following quote is from Mr. Buchanan's most recent address to Congress and demonstrates his respect for the country's future:

Self-preservation is the first law of nature, and has been
implanted in the heart of man by his Creator for the wisest purpose;
and no political union, however fraught with blessings and benefits
in all other respects, can long continue if the necessary consequence
be to render the homes and the firesides of nearly half the parties to
it habitually and hopelessly insecure.”

His commitment is manifest in the armistice arranged for Charleston and Pensacola.

It is now the responsibility of the next executive to maintain this peace.