Brojoe comment: “Your suggestion that fear of Charleston replacing Northern cities like New York, Philadelphia, Boston or Baltimore as the “primary port” for European trade is beyond far-fetched.
Had it, in fact, been the number one concern, we would see that expressed far more frequently in, not just anti-Republican newspapers like the New York Herald, but also in pro-Republican papers, and yet we don't.”
You may not have, but it was there:
Northern businessmen feared the Southern Ports and the Mississippi
Northern financial interests and their legislators feared losing the commercial advantages they held to Southern states along the Mississippi.
In 1786, John Jay of New York had caused uproar in Congress among the Southern delegates with his attempt to give up rights to the Mississippi River to Spain in exchange for commercial advantages in Spanish ports for the Northern trading ports. Their great fear at the time was that their commerce would shift to the South. They exerted influence then to defeat Southern ports and trade on the Mississippi, and they continued for decades.
Many weeks before Lincoln’s inauguration, the New York Times had been running editorials of how the commerce of the North would be lost to New Orleans and to the rest of the South because of the low Southern tariff. Some Northerners admitted that their reasons for calling for war were not the result of differences in principles of constitutional law, but because their profits would be lost if the South was successful in becoming independent.
In his inauguration speech, Lincoln had said:
“The power confided in me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion – no using of force against, or among the people anywhere.... You can have no conflict, without being yourselves the aggressors.”
This was Lincoln's ultimatum to the South: pay tribute to the North or failure to do so will be interpreted as a declaration of war, by the South, against the North.
3/30/1861 New York Times editorial:
“The predicament in which both the government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over…If the manufacturer at Manchester (England) can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at a less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage….
“If the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel.
“ The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons, to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior?
“They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers.
“ Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty free. The process is perfectly simple. The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North…. We now see clearly whither we are tending, and the policy we must adopt.
“With us, it is no longer an abstract question - one of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated power of the State or Federal Government, but of material existence ... We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched.”
In an earlier editorial, the New York Times complained about loss of revenue because the tariffs were no longer being collected in the Southern states. The article bemoaned the fact that new loans for the government were needed, but could not be guaranteed because the seceded states could not be forced to collect the “National” tariff.
There were a few early on who saw the possibility of a tariff war and its significance. In January of 1861 in a speech to New York merchants, Henry Raymond, who founded the New York Times, had said:
“there is no class of men in this country who have so large a stake in sustaining the government, whose prosperity depends so completely upon its being upheld…who have so much to lose…as the merchants of this city.”
That being said in January, by late March, the general merchants grasped the significance of Raymond’s remarks and were prepared to support strong action against the South and its tariff. Over one hundred leading commercial importers in New York, as well as a similar group in Boston, informed the US collectors of customs they would not pay duties on imported goods unless those same duties were also collected at Southern ports.
This threat was likely the proximate cause of the beginning of the war. It forced Lincoln and his administration to abandon the initial inclination to turn over Ft. Sumter to the Confederates.
That being said in January, by late March, the general merchants grasped the significance of Raymond’s remarks and were prepared to support strong action against the South and its tariff. Over one hundred leading commercial importers in New York, as well as a similar group in Boston, informed the US collectors of customs they would not pay duties on imported goods unless those same duties were also collected at Southern ports.This threat was likely the proximate cause of the beginning of the war. It forced Lincoln and his administration to abandon the initial inclination to turn over Ft. Sumter to the Confederates.
Money. The North fought the war against the South to protect their money. Indeed, I perceive that the Globalist Elite of New York (they grew beyond merely trade with Europe) are this very day, the threat we are currently seeing against us.
Still do they put their pocket books ahead of the interests of the majority in the country. New York, the "EMPIRE STATE" (That's a clue, folks) runs the media today, and thereby steers public opinion to support ideas and policies which they see as beneficial to them, but not necessarily so much in the interests of "Flyover Country."
The monster of Crony Capitalism opened it's eye in 1861, and has had us under it's baleful influence ever since.
It is the same today as it was then. The power flows from the Washington D.C./ New York oligarchy.
PeaRidge:
"Some Northerners admitted that their reasons for calling for war were not the result of differences in principles of constitutional law, but because their profits would be lost if the South was successful in becoming independent." But you've quoted none of them here, meaning your formulation of their concerns is more likely fantasy than fact.
PeaRidge: "This was Lincoln's ultimatum to the South: pay tribute to the North or failure to do so will be interpreted as a declaration of war, by the South, against the North."
Yes, that is certainly what pro-Confederate newspapers howled at the time, but in fact, Lincoln said nothing of the sort.
Indeed, pro-Confederates of the time called Lincoln's Inaugural itself a Declaration of War.
But in reality, Lincoln's words meant just what he said:
"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war.
The government will not assail you.
You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors."
That Confederates chose to take umbrage and see threats where only peace was offered, simply tells us they were eager for war, itching for the chance to prove their own manliness and courage, hoping to repeat the great Revolution lead by Washington against the Brits.
But not a single Confederate leader could hold a candle to George Washington, or the other Founders.
And so those fools rushed into war where wiser men would have looked for other routes.
PeaRidge quoting: "3/30/1861 New York Times editorial: "The predicament in which both the government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws..."
Surprisingly, the NY Times in 1861 was a generally conservative, Republican supporting paper.
But read carefully, and you'll note that, while expressing its economic concerns, the Times does not call for war as a means to redress them.
Neither would Lincoln, or his cabinet, be looking for a military solution, whatever the economic problems might be, until or unless the Confederacy launched war against the United States.
Which they soon did.
PeaRidge: "In an earlier editorial, the New York Times complained about loss of revenue because the tariffs were no longer being collected in the Southern states...
...Over one hundred leading commercial importers in New York, as well as a similar group in Boston, informed the US collectors of customs they would not pay duties on imported goods unless those same duties were also collected at Southern ports.
This threat was likely the proximate cause of the beginning of the war.
It forced Lincoln and his administration to abandon the initial inclination to turn over Ft. Sumter to the Confederates."
Sorry, but first of all, there's no evidence that Lincoln himself was ever prepared to abandon Fort Sumter without getting something valuable in return, such as his offer of "a fort for a state" meaning Virginia.
Whatever Seward may have told Justice Campbell, who relayed it to Davis' commissioners, Lincoln never said he was going to abandon Sumter "for free".
And when Lincoln's offer to Virginia's secession convention was rejected, Lincoln simply returned to the original plan of former President Buchanan -- send ships with supplies and reinforcements, if they were required.
All the rest is just pro-Confederate fantasies invented out of whole cloth to justify starting a war they couldn't win.