Posted on 06/29/2017 8:17:07 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Have you read rockrr's comments?
You didn't start in with the "financial interests" but with an attack on Lincoln for wanting a war. And you don't look at either the mercenary or the war-mongering aspects of the secessionist movement. How about focusing on those for a while?
The "financial interests" and "wanting a war" are completely intertwined. Lincoln absolutely needed that war. To not have a war meant that the bulk of European trade would eventually skip New York and establish a beach head in the south. It meant that cheaper European goods would directly compete with Northern manufactured goods, but without the benefit of a protectionist trade policy.
Without a war, the economics of the North were in serious trouble, not to mention the possibility of states in the Midwest eventually being brought into the economic orbit of the Confederacy instead of continuing on with the established trade through New York and Chicago.
This would eventually result in their being brought into the political orbit as well, and states which in our timeline became part of the Union would have ended up being part of the confederacy; A defacto loss of territory and ability for the Union to expand Westward.
Also you haven't really addressed the "financial interests" involved in California secession. No, it's a cheap shot at Lincoln and then, eventually, on to the regurgitated stuff about the tariff.
You guys keep bringing up the Tariff. I keep pointing out the loss of European trade to New York which would have occurred had there been no war. I keep pointing out the economic competition that would have occurred had there been no war. I point out that the focus of trade on this continent would have shifted from New York down to Southern ports such as Charleston and New Orleans.
The people who had the most to lose from not having a war were the economic interests of the North East.
Well they are certainly Democrats now, but back in 1860, they were pretty much Republicans. New York Democrats of that time period were against having a war with the South.
...said the broken record.
What an "intelligent and important comment."
Thank you for informing me of this. My knowledge of California regarding the Civil War is very sparse. This at least gives me some idea of what was going on there at that time.
As opposed to the mindless lunatic drivel you spew!
What an "intelligent and important comment."
As always, you miss the key point: those wealthy Northeastern Democrat merchants were political bed-fellows to wealthy Southern Democrat slavers and together they ruled in Washington from 1800 to 1861.
Then what happened?
Southern Democrats declared secession and Northern Democrats (especially New Yorkers) wanted to join them, wished them Godspeed.
As Democrats Northerners supported their Southern Democrat brethren, until, until... until... what?
Come on DiogenesLamp! You know the answer to this.
Northern Democrats supported their Southern Democrat brethren until Confederates began renouncing their debts, suspending their payments, stiffing their creditors.
And they did this even before starting war at Fort Sumter, so by the time of Fort Sumter even the most South-loving Democrats recognized the time had come to partner-up with Republicans.
But soon after 1865, Northern & Southern Democrats again wedded-up politically, thus ending Reconstruction in 1876 and electing their first post-war Democrat president (Cleveland) in 1884.
So, it was only during the Civil War that Wealthy Northeastern Democrats abandoned their previous allies and joined with Republicans to defeat them.
And today, those Northeasterners are still Democrats and still allied with Southern Democrats, who are now the descendants of the formers slaves Democrats oppressed.
And of course you know all that, but it just doesn't suit your anti-Republican narrative to confess that the worst of the loathsome Republicans were actually, well... they were Democrats, and still are!
Okay, so you get the concept. Now we just need to work on your understanding of who was going to lose economically with Southern Independence, and who was going to win economically with Southern Independence.
As I keep saying, follow the money.
Come on DiogenesLamp! You know the answer to this. Northern Democrats supported their Southern Democrat brethren until Confederates began renouncing their debts, suspending their payments, stiffing their creditors.
If you've mentioned this before, I must have missed it. What debts were being renounced? Which creditors got stiffed and for what?
And of course you know all that, but it just doesn't suit your anti-Republican narrative to confess that the worst of the loathsome Republicans were actually, well... they were Democrats, and still are!
I am not anti-Republican, I am anti North Eastern Liberal elite who want to shove their latest version of morality down our throats. It just so happens that in 1860, these people were Republicans.
Case in point: nobody mentioned the tariff on this thread until you did. Four times. Then you backtrack and say it's not about the tariff for you. But for you, it's certainly not about California secession, the original subject of the thread.
I keep pointing out the economic competition that would have occurred had there been no war. I point out that the focus of trade on this continent would have shifted from New York down to Southern ports such as Charleston and New Orleans.
That's nonsense. No war, no immediate change in trade patterns. Therefore, no economic need for war. Eventually, there might be more significant changes in trade patterns, but New Yorkers were savvy enough and competent enough not to be destroyed by changing economic trends.
You seem to think trade is a zero-sum game, the equivalent of war. Southern independence means the rise of New Orleans and the ruin of New York. But that wouldn't necessarily have been the case. That's just you, and you're projecting your own aggressive tendencies on the rest of the world.
As a native California I can safely that this state is Mexicans first, Californians last. The people running this state need to be frog walked to the Mexican border and exiled.
This isn't the only thread in which the Civil War gets discussed. My comment referred to the larger context of all these discussions, not this specific thread. The "tariff" issue did exist, but it wasn't the primary issue involved.
The primary issue was the ability of Southerners to bring the Import/Export trade back to their own home ports without money being siphoned off by Washington D.C. and New York.
But for you, it's certainly not about California secession, the original subject of the thread.
The concept of secession applies to all states. My purpose here is to assert this right for all states, even California.
That's nonsense. No war, no immediate change in trade patterns.
It is not nonsense. 3/4ths of all export trade value was those products sent out from Southern ports. Their profits invariably came back through New York in the form of European products imported in exchange for US exports.
New York skimmed of 40% of the total, and the Federal government got their taxes, which were as high as 50% depending upon the exact nature of the imported good.
Get rid of the laws of Washington, and you effectively double the money the South would collect for their exports. You would also have gotten rid of the prohibition on foreign ships carrying American goods from port to port, and that would have greatly profited the Foreign shipping companies that would have engaged in that Trade.
Without the artificial conditions imposed on trade by Federal laws, the normal trade routes would have been between the Southern states and Europe, with the North only contributing about 25% of all export value.
Northern trade with Europe would have dropped 3/4ths or more.
Eventually, there might be more significant changes in trade patterns, but New Yorkers were savvy enough and competent enough not to be destroyed by changing economic trends.
The Europeans wanted cotton and tobacco more than they wanted Timber and Fish. The South had it, the North didn't, and I don't know what they could have done to change this economic dynamic short of blockading the South, which is what they did in fact do.
Southern independence means the rise of New Orleans and the ruin of New York. But that wouldn't necessarily have been the case.
I am perfectly willing to listen for your explanation as to how this would not have happened. Certainly the Newspaper editors of the time in Massachusetts and New York thought that it would.
"Skimming"? Your beloved slaveowning cotton planters bought goods and services from Northern manufacturers, merchants, and financial institutions.
Would you have preferred that the Northerners simply give them everything for free and let them keep 100% of their cotton profits (which were surely "skimmed" off someone else's efforts to begin with, n'est-ce pas?)
The average rate of tariffs between 1846 and 1861 was about 20%. Some goods were taxed at 30%, but higher rates than that were reserved for liquor, foodstuffs, tobacco and luxury cabinet woods. And some goods weren't taxed at all.
Without the artificial conditions imposed on trade by Federal laws, the normal trade routes would have been between the Southern states and Europe, with the North only contributing about 25% of all export value.
No, because the population of the North was greater, so imports were greater. The transportation network was also better in the more densely populated North, so goods could reach more people more efficiently.
There was a great call for ships in the South during cotton harvest time. Most of the rest of the year, ships going to and from the South would have been empty. It made sense to include shipping from Southern ports in with the much larger trade going from New York to Britain and Europe.
The Europeans wanted cotton and tobacco more than they wanted Timber and Fish.
Free trade Britain needed food. America could -- and later did -- supply it. Not to mention the trade in industrial and consumer goods between the North and Europe.
The 18.5 million free people in the free states could produce and consume more than the 5.5 million free people in the Confederacy. Heck, throw in the 2.5 million free people in the Border States and the slave states were still at a disadvantage.
But, gosh. We have been going over and over again with your stupid theory. Isn't it time you moved on? Or is this really all you have in life?
At far greater cost than they could have bought superior grade products from European manufactures in the absence of the protectionist taxes which the FedGov required be paid.
Shipping, Banking and Insurance would have also been cheaper had New York not created a virtual monopoly on all these services due to favorable conditions and most especially due to federal law making it difficult to compete with them.
And stop saying I "love" slave owners. I don't cast aspersions on your character, so I would ask that you don't do it to me either.
The average rate of tariffs between 1846 and 1861 was about 20%. Some goods were taxed at 30%, but higher rates than that were reserved for liquor, foodstuffs, tobacco and luxury cabinet woods. And some goods weren't taxed at all.
Yes, taxes varied depending on the import, but whatever the taxes, a disproportionate amount of them fell on the Southerners who were the eventual consumers of these imports. The Four million citizens in the South were paying 75% of all the taxes to fund the Government, while the 20 some odd million in the North were only paying 25% of them.
No, because the population of the North was greater, so imports were greater.
The ability to purchase imports does not correlate with population. It correlates with an ability to pay for those imports, which the South could do, but the North could not without getting the money for them from the South.
The North used their protectionist laws to hike profits on Domestic goods and services which they sold to the South, and thereby acquired the currency to pay for the European imports which they consumed.
It still works out to the South subsidizing the North economically.
The transportation network was also better in the more densely populated North, so goods could reach more people more efficiently.
Yes, but not to the extent that it was worth 40% of the total earnings on Southern exports. The South could have dealt with the inefficiencies at much lower costs to themselves if they engaged in direct trade with Europe.
There was a great call for ships in the South during cotton harvest time. Most of the rest of the year, ships going to and from the South would have been empty. It made sense to include shipping from Southern ports in with the much larger trade going from New York to Britain and Europe.
That and the fact that New York businessman had more or less taken over the entire shipping trade of Southern products because they knew where they could make substantial profits. I could give you a source on this, but I don't feel like looking it up right now.
The 18.5 million free people in the free states could produce and consume more than the 5.5 million free people in the Confederacy.
They couldn't produce the Cotton, Tobacco, and food products which the South could produce, and which the Europeans wanted. The North could produce leather goods, Timber, and Fish which the Europeans would buy, but the Europeans had little use for Northern manufactured Machinery, Textiles, and so forth. All in all, the Northern contribution of those 18 million people made up about 25% of the total export value of the United States. 3/4ths of the export value was produced by the Southern agriculture products.
My point here is that the 5.5 million in the South were earning* Most of the European money, and the 18 million in the North were not.
*Really, it was the slaves who were earning the money, but it was the "citizens" in the South who had the legal right to it.
I’ve never understood this argument that the South produced all the value in the American economy. Yet, at the same time, most Southerners were just poor farmers who didn’t own slaves and didn’t care about slaves.
The argument seems to be that the 1 percent of the Confederacy would have consumed more than the entire North. How many European goods could the big planters have actually bought?
Nobody said that. The South produced 75% of all export value. Meaning the South produced 75% of all the goods exchanged for European money coming into the Country.
What makes this important (among other things) is that the Federal government was entirely funded by this incoming European money produced by Southern exports. In other words, the South was paying for 3/4ths of the cost of running the US Federal government.
At this time, Northern population was 20 million. Southern population was 5 million. The 5 million were creating 75% of the money to pay for the Federal Government. The 20 Million in the North were only creating 25% of the money to fund the Federal government.
I know. It's a nutty theory, but apparently it's the only one DL has got, so he's very attached to it.
You're right that the much larger free population of the North imported more foreign goods than the smaller population of the South, and you're right that there was only so much that the small population of rich plantation owners could import.
But I guess the idea is that Northerners couldn't have imported anything if Southern slave owners didn't bring in scads of foreign money from exported cotton. What that ignores is that markets are self-regulating mechanisms. It's not the case that if the cotton channel is blocked there's no other way of acquiring foreign currency or foreign goods. The market and the cost of goods, supply and demand adjust to changes elsewhere in the system.
US imports declined in 1861 because of the war, but largely recovered by the war's end. After the war imports wouldn't be as large relative to GDP as they had been before, but the government didn't go bankrupt because of it. That's because the country and its economy was never as wholly dependent on cotton as the secessionists believed. There were other ways of paying for foreign goods, and domestic production was no slouch either.
The other thing that he ignores is trade between the North and the South. The South bought things from the North and used the funds they got for the cotton to pay for it. The pounds and francs and marks planters got for their cotton probably never made it down to Alabama or Mississippi. What could you do with foreign money down there. Rather, they probably remained in banks in the cities where they could be used for other purposes.
But Diogenes believes that somehow Southern planters had some moral right to all the money cotton brought in -- even after they'd spent the money to buy other things. It's the ultimate case of having your cake and eating it too. It's not hard to understand why a wealthy slaveowner might think that way. Why anybody in the 21st century peddles that theory is harder to figure out.
This would eventually result in their being brought into the political orbit as well, and states which in our timeline became part of the Union would have ended up being part of the confederacy; A defacto loss of territory and ability for the Union to expand Westward.
Why bother with this nuttiness? Cotton wasn't going to remain king forever. New areas were coming into production: Egypt, India, Mexico, Brazil, China, Central Asia, Africa. Eventually, Southerners would have to make a choice between freeing the slaves to please their European customers and continuing to hold millions of people in slavery to keep their costs down. And if they freed the slaves what would they do with the newly freed people? Really, a mess was building in the South and it's hard to see why the Middle West would want to join up with that.
People underestimate the ties between the Northern states. They did that in the 1860s, in the 1890s, and they do it today. The country might have broken up further in the 1860s and it still might break up, but Ohio wasn't going to join South Carolina then any more than Idaho would stay in one country with Mississippi. They're just too different.
You think that rich and powerful people are oppressing you and they need to be overthrown and that those who overthrow them will become in turn rich and powerful and universally loved. Well, just overthrowing somebody else doesn't make people rich. That takes work and effort and know-how and persistence.
And if you do succeed in replacing the others and becoming rich yourself, why wouldn't people like you hate the people you've become just as much as they hated the people you replaced? In other words, you dream of overthrowing New York and making New Orleans or Charleston the new New York and you actually think they won't be resented as much as you resent New York. Quite a dream that.
Really, it's all there -- economic determinism, resentment, exploitation, class struggle, revolution, utopia. Why do you get so bent out of shape when people point out how much of a Marxist you are, Diogenes?
The truth hurts...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.