House drops Confederate Flag ban for veterans cemeteries

politico.com ^ | 6/23/16 | Matthew Nussbaum

[PeaRidge]

This may help understanding the extent of Lincoln's perfidy concerning both Ft. Sumter and the Pensacola harbor facilities:

In his inaugural address, Lincoln had stated that, “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government.”

The Confederate Commissioners had pressed to meet Lincoln and to arrange a peacefully negotiated settlement for the forts in the South still held by Union troops, Ft Pickens and Ft Sumter.

When consulted regarding the disposition of Ft. Sumter, all of Lincoln’s cabinet officers, except the post-master, were against any re-supply. They all knew it would inaugurate war.

Lincoln was advised to withdraw the federal troops from the two forts, which would be a concession in the interest of peace. This would allow the American people the opportunity to negotiate a settlement in the spirit of the Constitution.

Operating against the advice of his cabinet, military leaders, and the commanding officer at Ft. Sumter who stated that re-supply would bring war, Lincoln commanded that a secret fleet be organized and sent to both South Carolina and Florida.

Even before the fleet left port, the newspapers and public became aware of the pending Naval action. It was widely seen as a dangerous, provocative action that would initiate war.

Few of the records reveal the extent of Lincoln’s involvement in provocation. Documents of the day reveal his complicity.

March 28, 1861 was the day that the current Congress adjourned.

The very next day, Lincoln began to initiate plans to coerce the states of the Confederacy.

Lincoln did not fail to obtain Congressional approval because Congress was not in session, he waited until Congress adjourned and commenced to initiate a war.

March 29, 1861
To the Secretary of the Navy

I desire that an expedition, to move by sea be go ready to sail as early as the 6th of April next, the whole according to memorandum attached: and that you co-operate with the Secretary of War for that object.

Signed: Abraham Lincoln

The memorandum attached called for:

From the Navy, three ships of war, the Pocahontas, the Pawnee and the Harriet Lane; and 300 seamen, and one month's stores.

From the War Department, 200 men, ready to leave garrison; and one year's stores.

April 1, 1861 by General Scott
April 2, 1861 approved by Abraham Lincoln
To: Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown, U.S. Army

You have been designated to take command of an expedition to reinforce and hold Fort Pickens in the harbor of Pensacola. You will proceed to New York where steam transportation for four companies will be engaged; — and putting on board such supplies as you can ship without delay proceed at once to your destination. The object and destination of this expedition will be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known.

Signed: Winfield Scott
Signed approved: Abraham Lincoln

April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. H.L. Scott, Aide de Camp

This will be handed to you by Captain G.V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter.

To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about 200, to be immediately organized at fort Columbus, with competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence, with other necessaries needed for the augmented garrison at Fort Sumter.

Signed: Winfield Scott

April 1, 1861
To Captain H.A. Adams
Commanding Naval Forces off Pensacola

Herewith I send you a copy of an order received by me last night. You will see by it that I am directed to land my command at the earliest opportunity. I have therefore to request that you will place at my disposal such boats and other means as will enable me to carry into effect the enclosed order.

Signed: I. Vogdes, Capt. 1st Artly. Comdg.

Captain Adams refused to obey the order and reported to the Secretary of the Navy as follows:

It would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war; and would be resisted to the utmost.

Both sides are faithfully observing the agreement (armistice) entered into by the United States Government and Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase, which binds us not to reinforce Fort Pickens unless it shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reinforce it.

The Secretary of the Navy issued a classified response to Capt. Adams:

April 6, 1861

Your dispatch of April 1st is received. The Department regrets that you did not comply with the request of Capt. Vogdes. You will immediately on the first favorable opportunity after receipt of this order, afford every facility to Capt. Vogdes to enable him to land the troops under his command, it being the wish and intention of the Navy Department to co-operate with the War Department, in that object.

Signed: Gideon Welles, Secty. of the Navy

April 11, 1861 (USS Supply, official ship's log)

“April 11th at 9 P.M. the Brooklyn got under way and stood in toward the harbor; and during the night landed troops and marines on board, to reinforce Fort Pickens.”

April 1, 1861 To: Lt. D.D. Porter, USN

You will proceed to New York and with least possible delay assume command of any steamer available.

Proceed to Pensacola Harbor, and, at any cost or risk, prevent any expedition from the main land reaching Fort Pickens, or Santa Rosa.

You will exhibit this order to any Naval Officer at Pensacola, if you deem it necessary, after you have established yourself within the harbor.

This order, its object, and your destination will be communicated to no person whatever, until you reach the harbor of Pensacola.

Signed: Abraham Lincoln
Recommended signed: Wm. H. Seward

April 1, 1861
Telegram
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard

Fit out Powhatan to go to sea at the earliest possible moment, under sealed orders. Orders by confidential messenger go forward tomorrow.

Signed: Abraham Lincoln

April 1, 1861
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard

You will fit out the Powhatan without delay. Lieutenant Porter will relieve Captain Mercer in command of her. She is bound on secret service; and you will under no circumstances communicate to the Navy Department the fact that she is fitting out.

Signed: Abraham Lincoln

The Secretary of the Navy was unaware that President Lincoln had relieved Captain Mercer and was “borrowing” the Powhatan. It was a real secret mission.

April 1, 1861
Telegram
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard

Fit out Powhatan to go to sea at earliest possible moment.

April 5, 1861
To: Captain Mercer, Commanding Officer, USS Powhatan

The U.S. Steamers, Powhatan, Pawnee, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane, will compose a naval force under your command, to be sent to the vicinity of Charleston, S.C., for the purpose of aiding in carrying out the object of an expedition of which the war Department has charge. The expedition has been intrusted to Captain G.V. Fox.

You will leave New York with the Powhatan in time to be off Charleston bar, 10 miles distant from and due east of the light house on the morning of the 11th instant, there to await the arrival of the transports with troops and stores. The Pawnee and Pocahontas will be ordered to join you there, at the time mentioned, and also the Harriet Lane, etc.

Signed: Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy

April 6, 1861

Lt. Porter took the Powhatan and sailed.

Seward sent a telegram to Porter: “Give the Powhatan up to Captain Mercer.”

A dispatch boat caught up with Powhatan and delivered Seward's message.

Lt. Porter responded to Seward: “I received my orders from the President, and shall proceed and execute them.

Before leaving, Lt. Porter instructed the Navy Yard officials, “Detain all letters for five days.”

Storms and boiler problems delayed Powhatan, but she arrived disguised and flying English colors.

Porter filed this report:

I had disguised the ship, so that she deceived those who had known her, and was standing in (unnoticed), when the Wyandotte commenced making signals, which I did not answer, but stood on.

The steamer then put herself in my way and Captain Meigs, who was aboard, hailed me and I stopped.

In twenty minutes more I should have been inside (Pensacola harbor) or sunk.

Signed: D.D. Porter

In view of the communications documented in the Official Records, not only were US Naval and Army officers acting secretly, one Federal ship had been disguised as a foreign vessel.

APRIL 3, 1861.

Honorable WM. H. SEWARD, Secretary of State:

Dear Sir: We expect to touch at Key West, and will be able to set things in order there and give the first check to the secession movement by firmly establishing the authority of the United States in that most ungrateful island and city. Thence we propose to send dispatches under cover to you.

The officers will write to their friends, understanding that the package will not be broken until after the public has notice through the newspapers of our success or defeat.

Our object is yet unknown on board, and if I read the papers of the eve of our departure aright our secret is still a secret in New York. No communication with the shore, however, will be allowed.

Your dispatch arrived as I was on my away to the Atlantic, just before the hour at which she was to sail, and two or three hours after that appointed for the Powhatan. When the arrow has sped from the bow it may glance aside, but who shall reclaim it before its flight is finished?

A violent gale compelled us to lay head to wind for twenty-four hours. We ran one hundred miles out of our course. The Powhatan having taken this gale earlier may have got through it with less delay, so that it is not now likely that we will overtake her. She had orders to call off Key West, and by boat or signal ascertain whether we had passed. It is important that she should reach the port before us.

The dispatch and the secrecy with which this expedition has been fitted out will strike terror into the ranks of rebellion. All New York saw, all the United States knew, that the Atlantic was filling with stores and troops.

But now this nameless vessel, her name is painted out, speeds out of the track of commerce to an unknown destination. Mysterious, unseen, where will the powerful bolt fall? What thousands of men, spending the means of the Confederate States, vainly beat the air amid the swamps of the southern coast, and, filling the dank forts, curse secession and the mosquitoes!

God promised to send before his chosen people and advance-guard of hornets. Our constant allies are the more efficient mosquitoes and sand-flies. At this time the republic has need of all her sons, of all their knowledge, zeal, and courage.

Major Hunt is with us, somewhat depressed at going into the field without his horses. His battery of Napoleon guns, probably the best field guns in our service, is to follow in the Illinois; but the traitor Twiggs surrendered his horses to the rebels of Texas, and the company of well-trained artillerists finds itself, after eight years of practice in that highest and most efficient arm, the light artillery, going into active service as footmen. They, too, feel, the change deeply.

I am, most respectfully, your obedient servant,

M. C. MEIGS,

Captain of Engineers.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge quoting statistics:

"SOUTHERN ORIGIN
• Forest . . . . . . . . . . $ 6,085,931
• Breadstuffs . . . . . . . . 9,567,397
• Cotton . . . . . . . . . . 191,806,555
• Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . 19,278,621
• Hemp, &c. . . . . . . . . . . 746,370
• Manufactures . . . . . . . .10,934,795
• Total Southern Origin . . . . . $238,419,680
• Total exports . . . . . $335,782,740"

But in all that, the only indisputably Deep South exports were the $191 million in cotton.
The balance could just as easily come from Upper South, Border States and Northern Midwestern States.

The author here has simply lumped everything which did not necessarily come from the Northeast as "products of the South".
Further, this report understates total exports by the value of specie (gold & silver).
The real total was about $400 million or which roughly $200 million was product of the Deep-Cotton South.

[PeaRidge]

You said: “But in all that, the only indisputably Deep South exports were the $191 million in cotton.”

The figures are a total of shipments from each Customs house warehouse, given by region. If you wish to dispute Customs data, published by the Treasury department, then let's have your reasoning. Otherwise it is indisputable.

You left out the data from the North, which was in the post.

You purposefully misrepresented the data to show an erroneous conclusion.

You said: “The balance could just as easily come from Upper South, Border States and Northern Midwestern States.”

Which it did not.

“The author here has simply lumped everything which did not necessarily come from the Northeast as “products of the South”.

The ‘author’ is the U.S. Treasury report of 1861.

You said: “Further, this report understates total exports by the value of specie (gold & silver). The real total was about $400 million or which roughly $200 million was product of the Deep-Cotton South.”

Real total was $400 million??

Cite your source for that.

[jmacusa]

One result of the South's ‘’disastrous course of action'' was to launch a war with virtually no navy to speak of. One of the Norths first actions was to blockade Southern ports.

[BroJoeK]

Sorry, I ran out of time again yesterday...

PeaRidge: "From the Treasury records of 1861

I did check out your link here and found nothing resembling the numbers you posted, allegedly, from it.
Can you tell me which pages those numbers came from?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "But BroJoeK is going to argue that $77,363,070 is "50%" of $238,419,680.
Not only is his history skewed, so is his math."

Not in the least.
Indisputably Deep South exports were $192 million worth of cotton.
That is roughly 50% of $400 million total exports, including specie.
These exports paid for $376 million in imports on which the Federal Government collected $53 million in tariffs.

So it can well be said that cotton exports paid for half of 1860's $53 million in Federal tariff revenues.
But the remaining $46 million of alleged "Southern exports" cannot be verified as even "Southern" produced, much less products of the Deep Confederate South.

Now, just so we don't lose sight of what the point of discussion is: nobody would care in the least if "Southern exports" were 1/3 or 1/2 or 3/4 of total US exports except that it matters to how much the Union needed the South economically and so how sanguine Northerners were (or were not) about secession.

In other words, if Southern exports were relatively small percentages of total US exports, then Northerners might care less economically about secession.
But if Southern exports were, say, 75% or 87% of total US exports then, naturally, you'd expect more of a response from Northerners.

So, here's what I'm saying: only cotton could not be replaced by products of the Union.
Everything else of so-called "Products of the South" could and was produced in the North or Midwest, and so in 1861 when Confederate exports ended, Northerners simply increased production of everything except cotton -- they made economic adjustments -- and so continued to prosper.

That's why I continue to argue that Deep South exports were certainly important, but not as important as many people then and some now supposed.

DiogenesLamp: "They way I calculate it, the Southern (5 million people) portion works out to 71% of the total.
The North (22 million people) were only producing 29% of the total trade revenue."

Well, first of all, you're giving credit to 5 million Southern whites for work that was actually done by about 3 million slaves.
But we'll set that aside...

Second, your 71% is in dispute because I've seen no data demonstrating where, exactly, such products were produced.
50% for cotton is reasonable and acknowledged.

Third and most important, Northern industry produced at least 90% of manufactured products for the nation -- everything from railroad engines to telegraph wire, ships, clothing & wagons to pots & pans.
That more of these products were consumed domestically rather than exported is a function of price & demand.

Finally, we should note that Federal tariffs of the time were generally highest on imported luxury goods intended for wealthy Southern planters, lowest on bulk materials consumed by farmers & workers.
So the total number of slave holders was about 400,000 of whom no more than 100,000 could be called truly wealthy and able to afford imported luxury goods.

So the bottom line is: those 100,000 wealthiest slave-holders who controlled millions of slaves paid the vast majority of the import tariffs which funded Federal government.
It was not then a matter of "5 million Southerners" out-producing "22 million Northerners".
Rather, it was luxury imports for 100,000 wealthiest slaveholders which provided most of the Federal government's tariff revenues.

Think about that...

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket quoting: "The General Government, … to prevent the serious diminution of its revenues, will be compelled to blockade the Southern ports …
and prevent the importation of foreign goods into them, or to put another expensive guard upon the frontiers to prevent smuggling into the United States."~Philadelphia Press, March 18, 1861

My old Civil War Almanac (which you have disputed before) says nothing about a March 1861 Confederate tariff law.
This source does tell of a Confederate tariff, but notice the law passed in May 1861 taking effect in September 1861.

Another source tells us Confederates did collect tariffs from February until the Union blockade began to take effect in May, 1861.
After that, not so much.

Still another source posted on this thread from St. Louis on April 6, 1861 complains of imported goods arriving from New Orleans having paid no tariffs.

So I'm unclear on the status of Confederate tariffs, am considering investing in a newer almanac, one perhaps more accurately informed?

[DiogenesLamp]

One result of the South's ‘’disastrous course of action'' was to launch a war with virtually no navy to speak of. One of the Norths first actions was to blockade Southern ports.

And something you Union apologists never seem to ask yourselves is why blockading the ports was so essential? The vast majority of the fighting would necessarily take place on land, because a Navy cannot hold land, and holding land is what is necessary to win.

So what "military" purpose was accomplished by blockading ports?

Not much of anything.

What economic purpose was accomplished by blockading ports?

A great deal. It prevented the establishment of normal trade with Europe, and therefore prevented the much larger profits which the Europeans would have seen from trading directly with the South instead of going through the New York middlemen.

The Blockade itself was clear proof that the economics was the primary reason for the war. It didn't stop any of the land fighting, all it really accomplished was interference with Trade.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm not interested in seeing your explanations for your massaged numbers. Even at your starting point, 1/4 of the American citizens in the South were producing 50% of all revenue, while the 3/4ths of the citizens in the North were only producing 50% of the revenue.

The per Capita value from European Trade for the Southern part of the Union in 1860 (using *YOUR* numbers) was 40, while the Per Capita value from European Trade for the Northern part of the Union was 10.

Even with your numbers, the Southerners were creating 4 times the value in European trade per capita than was the North, which means they were paying effectively four times the costs of the Federal government.

In reality, due to the Northern favored tariff rules, they were paying much more, and even then, much of the money was being used to subsidize Northern ran businesses.

But even with your numbers, the Southerners were producing 4 to 1 more value per capita than the North.

The Union went to war to get back that money they lost when the South declared Independence. The numbers tell the true story of what happened.

All the rest is contrived kabuki dance on the part of Lincoln and the Northern power barons who influenced him to do what the numbers said he must do.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "IMPORTS..............Specie.........Goods...........Total.
.............. $8,551,135 ...$353,645,119 ...$362,166,254

Can somebody run the numbers and give him the percentage of specie to imports so that he can see what the actual number is???"

FRiend, you've lost sight of what this discussion is about, so I'll remind you.
The question is: what percent of Federal revenues were paid by Confederate-South exports?
You and others have claimed numbers like 75% or 87%, and I say it was closer to 50%.

Of course I'm certain you "get" that no tariffs were paid on exports, only imports paid tariffs.
So the root question is: where did the money to pay for imports come from? And the answer is: mostly from exports.
And what were those exports?
That's the point of discussion.

Now the 1860 data clearly shows $192 million in cotton exports, indisputably product of the Deep-cotton South.
But the data also shows over $200 million in other exports, including $58 million in specie.
So this $400 million in total exports is what paid for imports of $376 million.

Clearly, cotton paid for roughly half of that.
What about the other half?
Most of that was paid for by Northern exports and specie, but there is still $46 million allegedly of "Southern Origin".

About that $46 million "Southern Origin" I say the following:

1. First, I can't find those numbers in your alleged source, so have no way to verify them.

2. Second, "Southern Origin" may mean "shipped from Southern ports" but does not necessarily mean "produced in the South".

3. Third, if you review DiogenesLamp's map in (for example) post #1,295 what you'll notice is that more than 80% of Southern paid tariffs came from two ports: New Orleans and Baltimore.
   Well, both New Orleans and Baltimore had major connections to Northern products:
   • Baltimore was connected by railroads to all Northern states and via the Cumberland Gap to Ohio and the Midwest.
     
   • New Orleans was connected by Mississippi river boats and railroads to every Midwestern state.

   Therefore we can well assume that a large percentage of product shipped from New Orleans & Baltimore was of Northern origin.

4. Fourth, "Southern Origin" can include such Union states as Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky & Missouri -- home in 1860 to 3 million whites and 400,000 slaves.

Bottom line: as I've said all along, the combined value of Deep-South made products exported in 1860 was closer to 50% of US exports than to any other reported number.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "I hate to use the term lying, so I won't, but you continually make things up."

FRiend, you've posted quotes from at least half a dozen different alleged newspapers.
Of all those, I can fully verify only one-third of one quote -- from the New Orleans Daily Crescent.
Two thirds of that quote are not to be found in the paper you claim it came from.

In two other quotes I can verify the paper itself existed -- the Philadelphia Press and the Boston Evening Transcript.
However, in neither case can I confirm the quotes themselves.

Other papers, including the Chicago Daily Times and Manchester Union Democrat, I can find no record of.

So I give you full credit for one-third of one quote.
All the others are dubious at best.

PeaRidge: "Manchester Union Democrat"

Noted, but I still can find no record of a Manchester Union Democrat listed anywhere in 1861.

And even if we assume it's legit, look how the article starts:

"Some of our Republican friends affect to be very indifferent to the secession of the Southern states. 'Let them go—we can get along very well without them.' "

Notice it's Republicans who say "let them go" and here Democrats who say, "No you can't".
Also, notice there is no hint in this article about using force to keep the South submissive -- just the opposite.

How does this piece say to "keep the South"?

"Simply recognize in the neighborhood of states those principles of equity and courtesy which we would scorn to violate in our social relations at home—that is all.
Let New Hampshire treat Virginia as we should treat our neighbors.
Do we vilify them, watch for chances to annoy them, clear up to the line of the law, and sometimes beyond it, and encourage hostile raids against them?
Is that good neighborhood?
Then, let not one state practice it against another."

In short, PeaRidge & DiogenesLamp, your argument here was always a very leaky boat, but it is now completely blown to smithereens and out of the water by your own quote!

So go back to real school guys and learn some actual history.
Put away your childish pro-Confederate propaganda.
It's worthless.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Well, if the specie is $8,551,135 and the Total is $362,166,254, then specie is 2.4% of the total."

In 1860 specie imports were your figure of $8.5 million.
In 1860 specie exports were $58 million, making total exports for 1860 approx. $400 million.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "So someone wrote your post 1342 for you?"

My post #1342 is 100% factual, FRiend.

[rustbucket]

So I'm unclear on the status of Confederate tariffs, am considering investing in a newer almanac, one perhaps more accurately informed?

I have found it useful to have more than one source to check things, so it may be worth your while to get an additional source.

Your question about when the tariff became effective is a valid one. I sometimes scan through old newspapers to get a sense of what is going on. Earlier this week, I did see an article that was published around the time of that March 18, 1861 article or slightly after it, that said the proposed Confederate tariff did not pass in some March vote. I imagine the proposed tariff had raised the concerns that the March 18 article had spoken about.

I read so many papers this past week and did not keep track of which date and which paper had said the proposed tariff had not passed. I did not make a copy of it at the time. A number of Northern papers did express concern about the effect of the Confederate tariff in March as various posters have cited over the years.

I think, but am not positive, that initially the Confederacy used the old 1857 US tariff before they finally got a slightly lower tariff law either passed and became effective. I do not have a timetable of the various Confederate efforts to pass or amend what they passed regarding their tariff.

Here's an article I found this morning in the Daily Patriot and Union of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on March 27, 1861 [the paragraph breaks for readability and the bold emphasis parts are mine]:

We were told that a modification of the tariff was necessary for two reasons: First, to increase the revenue and replenish an exhausted Treasury; second, to afford adequate protection to domestic industry. These results might possibly have both been attained had the policy of the Republican party not caused the destruction of the Union.

But having broken the Union, the tariff i3 as worthless, for both purposes, as the paper upon which it is written. The schedule of the tariff adopted by the Confederate States exhibits about one-half the duties imposed by the Morrill tariff. Pig iron, for instance, which under our tariff pays a specific duty of from six to fifteen dollars per ton, is charged but five per cent, ad valorem by the Southern rates; and how are we to prevent the importation of foreign iron at the South, and its unrestricted transportation Northward, under the free intercourse prevailing between the States ? So with iron of every description, and every article of commerce imported from foreign countries. Entering Southern ports at one-half the rate they would be compelled to pay at the North, it will be impossible to prevent their spread over the country. The government would find it a huge undertaking to guard the line separating the Confederate States from the Union; and even if practicable, the cost would almost exceed the benefit.

It would be equally difficult to prevent the entry of vessels into Southern ports by a rigorous blockade; and the other remedy proposed—the abolition of these ports of entry—could not long bind foreign nations, whose immediate interests would compel them to recognize the de facto government established at the South, when they would claim and enforce free and unobstructed intercourse.

This conflict between the two tariffs must result in diminishing the revenue of our government, and in subjecting manufacturers to a flood of foreign competition, in comparison with which the old tariff, in a compact Union, was as nothing. Pennsylvania may thus comprehend the fearful retribution she has brought upon herself by neglecting the cause of the Union when assailed by its enemies, to clutch at the unreal, unsubstantial good of a protective tariff. She has purchased a worthless tariff at the expense of the Union.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "He has spent days telling all about specie.
He must have a good source of data on who owned it."

Your own Treasurer's Report of 1861 (p90) shows US gold reserves as hundreds of millions of dollars.
So there's no reason to speculate on who owned that money.

PeaRidge: "it doesn't matter...for two reasons.

1. The dollar percentage was too low to change the ratios and
2. there is no way to say there is a relationship of specie to imported goods.

Another BroCanard rabbit trail."

Hardly!
First, in 1860 exports of specie at $58 million (15% of $400 million) were second only to cotton itself as the US largest export category.
The next largest category, Northern manufactures, was less than half the amount of specie.

Second, just like any other export, specie produced credits available to balance import books.

Bottom line, PeaBrain, is that you've made arguments here which hold no water, indeed are nothing but hot air.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "That $238 million is a far greater number than $77 Million?
What about that makes no sense?
The South produced more than 3 times the North in financial trade with Europe."

The Deep-cotton South did not produce exports of $238 million, rather in 1860 it produced $192 million in cotton exports.
The balance of $46 million is unclear where that was made -- doubtless much of it came from Border South and Midwestern states whose produce shipped by rail or steamboat to New Orleans and Baltimore.

Total US exports for 1860, including specie, came to $400 million, of which the Deep South's $192 million was certainly 50%.
The other 50% may or may not have come partly from Upper & Border South states, but here's the key point about that: when Civil War came, the Union quickly replaced those supposed "products of the South" with their own exports.

In 1861, the North quickly made economic adjustments and continued to prosper without Southern exports.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The reasons why the South left are irrelevant to why there was a war."

No, it's totally relevant that Confederates first declared secession and wrote a new constitution to protect slavery and then refused to end the war they started short of Unconditional Surrender, if it meant the loss of slavery.

DiogenesLamp: "There was a war because the Union invaded them the Confederacy assaulted Fort Sumter, and that invasion attack had not a D@mn thing to do with Slavery."

There, fixed it for you. Sure, you're welcome, no problem.

DiogenesLamp: "Your side keeps dragging up slavery as a justification for the war, but you keep ignoring the fact that in order for it to be a justification for sending 35,000 men to invade, the invasion had to have something to do with slavery.
It didn't."

What you keep ignoring is: just as the US did not attack Japan or Germany before Pearl Harbor, so the Union did not attack the Confederacy before Fort Sumter, or before the Confederacy formally declared war against the United States on May 6, 1861.

Article 3, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

[BroJoeK]

Enlightened1 referring to DL's map: "Bingo!"

You know, if you wished to argue that the Confederacy started and declared war on the United States in order to grab its "fair share" of the loot shown sitting on the map at New York, I'd go along with that... somewhat.

But I wouldn't overemphasize it, to the exclusion of all other reasons, because that's not what people said at the time.
Confederate leaders like SC Governor Pickens and Jefferson Davis said they were first and foremost concerned about enforcing their sovereignty over Fort Sumter, and in showing the South's superiority by giving the Union a bloody nose there.

In his response, Lincoln said nothing about New York trade or tariffs, but rather called for 75,000 troops to reoccupy the Federal properties unlawfully seized by secessionists.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Neither did the North.
They went to war to get back that pile of money sitting on New York."

The Union never lost it's "pile of money" in New York or anywhere else.
Nor would it have gone to war over that possibility, absent a Confederate assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp on BJK: "I'm sure he can tell us how many shoe laces Lincoln had, but about the economics that drove the North to attack, he is curiously silent."

You sure spend a lot of energy fantasizing.
In fact, economics did not "drive the North to attack" any more than economics drove President Roosevelt to attack Japan & Germany.
For the US, regardless of economic factors, WWII began at Pearl Harbor, just as Civil War began at Fort Sumter.

It's that simple, and the rest of your fantasies are just stuff & nonsense.