Replies

[BroJoeK]: rustbucket: "Still forgetting about the effect of inflation and that those increased dollars of currency of markedly lower worth would buy less imports in those years than in 1860."

BroJoeK then responds: Not at all, but none of it was the apocalyptic scenario you guys wish us to believe.

You keep saying that tariff revenue went up during the war without mentioning that it went up in inflated dollars that were worth less than 1860 dollars. You did it again in the post I'm responding to. The consequence of that inflation you forgot to mention was that the North was able to import less during the war than it had in 1860. Apocalypse is in the eye of the beholder. A dock worker who lost his job because of reduced imports might think it was apocalyptic. The business owners whose businesses failed for the same reason might agree with that dock worker.

As I've pointed out, the South suffered far more inflation during the war than the North. As a whole, things were far easier for the North during the war than they were for the South, but the North did have problems like those that Appleton’s mentioned.

[BroJoeK]: "rustbucket quoting Appleton: "The Southern States have produced 400 millions per annum, which they have sold and taken in pay Northern and imported goods.
The outbreak of the secession caused that trade at once to cease. The South could no longer sell, and the North lost a customer for $400,000,000 of goods per annum."

BroJoeK then responds: By all the numbers I've seen that's a huge exaggeration.

Kettell puts the approximate amount of value of all kinds (raw materials, other produce, bills) going from the South to the North annually at ~463 million. If Kettell was correct, Appleton's (written and published in the North after the war) was conservative.

You have a valid point that all of the transport of Southern produce and cash, however much they totaled, wasn't entirely lost to the North as a result of the war because not all Southern states seceded for whatever reason (Northern force, voter preference, etc.). However much the financial loss to the North amounted to after the South seceded, it still had a big impact on various sectors of Northern economy.

Do you have problems with the economic disruptions that Appleton's says happened in the North as a result of their loss of a significant cross border exchange of goods and services?

Let’s look at cotton mills in the North, The city of Lowell, Massachusetts had many cotton mills. From Wikipedia:

"The American Civil War shut down many of the mills temporarily when they sold off their cotton stockpiles, which had become more valuable than the finished cloth after imports from the South had stopped. Many jobs were lost, but the effect was somewhat mitigated by the number of men serving in the military. Lowell had a small historical place in the war: Many wool Union uniforms were made in Lowell"

Richmond Daily Dispatch of Aug 22, 1861:

The New York World says:

The Merrimac company in Lowell will shut down their entire works in about two weeks. The News says that nearly every corporation in that city has been partially or entirely closed. How long they will remain so, is a matter of uncertainly.

The New York Herald, January 13, 1862

The Cotton Question

The great difficulty with the manufacturer remains to be told. Whatever his late gains, yet the grim fact strikes him that his stock of cotton is almost exhausted, while he knows not when the supply may be reopened. The result of this is that manufacturing operations are reduced to about one-fourth of their usual extent. How long they may be able to continue at that rate is scarcely problematical, should not our troops speedily liberate a considerable amount of cotton.

What? What? Northern troops were going to liberate cotton? Cotton, not slaves? In other words, capture Southern cotton to supply Northern mills. That’s one way of overcoming the financial loss to the North resulting from the Southern secession — invade and capture the cotton. That behavior eventually led the Confederates to burn cotton and tobacco if there was a chance the Feds might capture it. Some plantation owners did, however, sell cotton to the Union Army for Union greenbacks.

Back to the New York Herald of January 13, 1862:

The following statement, compiled chiefly from the weekly returns of the Shipping List, shows the amount of cotton taken for United States consumption during each quarter of the year, compared with the same periods of 1860: ==

-----------------------------------------------1861---------------1860
First quarter, bales----------------------265,160------------237,540
Second quarter--------------------------- 54,891------------252,946
Third quarter----------------------------- 19,100------------116,845
Fourth quarter (say)--------------------- 25,000----------- 248,030

Total--------------------------------------394,451------------855,361

The quantity here given for the fourth quarter of 1861 is only an estimate, based on the reported sales in the New York market. …

WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE OPERATIVES?

From extended inquiry we find that the contraction of manufacturing has released about seventy thousand operatives from the mills. About one-third of these are males who have mostly walked out of the factory and into the camp, and are doing good service in endeavoring to wrest cotton from the grasp of the rebels.

Sounds like Gollum in Lord of the Rings, "We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little ~~hobbitses~~ rebelses. Wicked, tricksy, false!" (/gollum voice)

But in the run-up to war, it didn't really matter how many eventually seceded, what mattered is how many the "shadow government" thought would secede. People make plans based on what they think will happen, and they generally plan for the worst.

Take it as a given that the war demands were based on worries of the maximum possible losses for the businessmen of New York.

And here you quote Wikipedia, and a specific of which I highlight:

Many jobs were lost, but the effect was somewhat mitigated by the number of men serving in the military.

A point I was eventually going to get around to mentioning is the economics of war. When you have a massive host of unemployed young men lying around, one of the things you can do with them is send them off to fight. This employs the men, and the losses of manpower result in a fixed quantity of assets going to a lesser number of people. The wealth and opportunities of the survivors increase. This financial oddity is mentioned in that classical series of essays called "Nuclear Warfare 101" where it is pointed out that the Financial condition of Londoners would be improved by dropping a Nuke on London. :)

War is funny economically. It can create boom conditions under certain circumstances, but represent a loss in the long run. Killing off your excess idle population is sometimes in the best financial interests of the power elite. I sometimes think that is what they have planned to deal with the Social security crises. I used to think they were stupid (for not recognizing the math involved) I now think they are just plain evil.

Sounds like Gollum in Lord of the Rings, "We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little hobbitses rebelses. Wicked, tricksy, false!" (/gollum voice)

Now that was pretty good. :)

rustbucket: "You keep saying that tariff revenue went up during the war without mentioning that it went up in inflated dollars that were worth less than 1860 dollars.
You did it again in the post I'm responding to.
The consequence of that inflation you forgot to mention was that the North was able to import less during the war than it had in 1860.
Apocalypse is in the eye of the beholder."

See my post #1521 above.
It and others say one purpose of the Morrill Tariff was to reduce imports, and even more the huge specie transfers needed to pay for them.
From the same NY Times source quoted in #1521:

"It is now just

a year since the first of the bills, of which we have spoken, was passed, and we wish to note its effects.
These have been as, during this crisis of our affairs, we most desired to have them, namely:

First -- A reduction in the value of articles of luxury imported.
Second -- The accumulation and retention of specie (the basis of all financial operations) in the country.
Third -- An increase in the revenue arising from the levy of duty on those articles which would always be imported, in times of peace or war; and,
Fourth -- A prospective increase in the manufacturing interests and capital of the country."

rustbucket: "You have a valid point that all of the transport of Southern produce and cash, however much they totaled, wasn't entirely lost to the North as a result of the war because not all Southern states seceded for whatever reason (Northern force, voter preference, etc.).
However much the financial loss to the North amounted to after the South seceded, it still had a big impact on various sectors of Northern economy."

Of course, as did two million Northern men serving the Union Army, no question about that.
I'm merely pointing out such changes were not as important, not as apocalyptic, as sometimes claimed.
Instead, most Northern businesses adjusted, adapted and continued to prosper.

rustbucket: "Do you have problems with the economic disruptions that Appleton's says happened in the North as a result of their loss of a significant cross border exchange of goods and services?"

No, merely pointing out they were not as important as sometimes claimed.
For example, our poster DiogenesLamp maintains such economic factors were not just apocalyptic, they drove Northeastern businessmen to demand Lincoln start a war to restore the status quo ante.
I'm saying such Marxist class warfare reasoning exaggerates the importance of economics.
It's just like saying "the US declared war on Japan in December 1941 over Marxist economic factors" while ignoring the huge effects of Pearl Harbor.
DiogenesLamp ignores Fort Sumter, choosing instead to focus on imaginary Northeastern business influences.

rustbucket: "Let’s look at cotton mills in the North, The city of Lowell, Massachusetts had many cotton mills. From Wikipedia:"

Sure, but similar could be said of other wars, wars we don't usually blame on Marxist class warfare reasoning.

rustbucket quoting New York Herald: "The result of this is that manufacturing operations are reduced to about one-fourth of their usual extent.
How long they may be able to continue at that rate is scarcely problematical, should not our troops speedily liberate a considerable amount of cotton."

You remember, don't you, the Herald was an anti-Lincoln, pro-Democrat organ?
So the Herald is here mocking Republican policies, in the same way Democrats mocked George Bush's Iraq war as "all about the oil."
Now Trump says is should have been about oil, but the fact is, for Bush, it wasn't.

Now do you "get" it?

rustbucket quoting NY Herald: "From extended inquiry we find that the contraction of manufacturing has released about seventy thousand operatives from the mills.
About one-third of these are males who have mostly walked out of the factory and into the camp, and are doing good service in endeavoring to wrest cotton from the grasp of the rebels."

Just like recent years Democrats claimed Bush sent troops to Iraq to take their oil.
Neither Bush nor Lincoln were motivated by such Marxist thinking.
But of course, Democrats are all about such thinking.

rustbucket mocking slave-holders: "Sounds like Gollum in Lord of the Rings on slavery, "We wants it, we needs it.
Must have the precious slaves.
~~They~~ Abols stole it from us.
Sneaky little ~~hobbitses rebelses~~ abolitionists.
Wicked, tricksy, false!" (/gollum voice)"

See, anybody can play silly mocking games.