Replies

x: "Even George Washington wanted that canal to the interior built."

Neither canal was supported by Federal government, even though President Adams recommended it.
Jefferson thought the Constitution needed to be amended first, but he did approve Federal support for the National Road, today's US 40.

So there's no doubt in my mind that our Founders wanted national infrastructure projects, though some Founders were a bit, ah, queasy about how, exactly, they should be paid for.

x: "Measures that were generally accepted in the early days as strengthening the national economy came to be seen as assaults on the cotton states' cash cow."

It seems that all of our posters here take for granted & legitimate Fire Eater complaints about "Federal disbursements" going disproportionately to the North:

"The north has adopted a system of revenue and disbursements, in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the north"

That expression is exceptionally succinct, which makes it suspect, but others said much the same, so the sentiment was likely genuine.

However, the facts I've seen say something entirely different.
This link summarizes Federal spending from 1790 to 1860 and near as I can tell, spending was pretty well distributed, when it did not actually favor the South.

Of course, if you are Calhoun from South Carolina, "the North" might start at your state's northern border, in which case Calhoun is entirely correct.
If by "the South" he means cotton states and by "the North" he means all others, then he would have somewhat of a point.
Cotton states produced about 50% of US exports, but certainly did not received 50% of Federal spending.

Years ago, I took time to spreadsheet & tally these numbers and overall "the South", meaning slave-states got 52% of Federal spending on fortifications, internal improvements, lighthouses, hospitalization & pensions.
They were a little over on fortifications, a little under in internal improvements, especially during from 1838 to 1850, which could account for Calhoun's complaints.

Bottom line: Fire Eaters' complaints about "the North" getting most Federal disbursements is only factual if by "the North" you mean all non-cotton states.

Well... actually two Virginia canals, both supported by George Washington. The better known is the C & O -- Chesapeake & Ohio -- up the Potomac to Clarke's Ferry, was intended to extend all the way to Pittsburg and the Ohio River. The second, preferred by Washington, was the James & Kanawha Canal which would run entirely through Virginia to the Ohio River. Neither canal was supported by Federal government, even though President Adams recommended it. Jefferson thought the Constitution needed to be amended first, but he did approve Federal support for the National Road, today's US 40. So there's no doubt in my mind that our Founders wanted national infrastructure projects, though some Founders were a bit, ah, queasy about how, exactly, they should be paid for.

Some infrastructure projects they thought warranted yes although I would point out that Jefferson said not restricting the federal government's ability to borrow money was the single biggest flaw in the constitution. Most infrastructure projects were done in the North be it roads or canals or railroads or waterworks or the dredging of harbors. The argument - with some truth - at first was that the South had more navigable rivers and that therefore more infrastructure was needed in the North. Just like with the infant industries argument though what at first was modest and made some sense over time became seen by Northerners as an entitlement....and one that would be expanded ever more (sound familiar)?x: "Measures that were generally accepted in the early days as strengthening the national economy came to be seen as assaults on the cotton states' cash cow."

EXACTLY! Notice how similar that is to modern times...what starts out as reasonable and a special favor or temporary measure becomes permanent, the recipients come to see it as their entitlement and they clamor for ever more.It seems that all of our posters here take for granted & legitimate Fire Eater complaints about "Federal disbursements" going disproportionately to the North: That expression is exceptionally succinct, which makes it suspect, but others said much the same, so the sentiment was likely genuine. However, the facts I've seen say something entirely different. This link summarizes Federal spending from 1790 to 1860 and near as I can tell, spending was pretty well distributed, when it did not actually favor the South. Of course, if you are Calhoun from South Carolina, "the North" might start at your state's northern border, in which case Calhoun is entirely correct. If by "the South" he means cotton states and by "the North" he means all others, then he would have somewhat of a point.

That is entire inaccurate Here's Sherman admitting the North relied on money from tariffs Southerners were paying in a letter to his brother US Senator John Sherman: [the North relied on money from tariffs] “so even if the Southern states be allowed to depart in peace, the first question will be revenue. Now if the South have free trade, how can you collect revenues in eastern cities? Freight from New Orleans, to St. Louis, Chicago, Louisville, Cincinnati and even Pittsburgh, would be about the same as by rail from New York and imported at New Orleans having no duties to pay, would undersell the East if they had to pay duties. Therefore if the South make good their confederation and their plan, The Northern Confederacy must do likewise or blockade. Then comes the question of foreign nations. So look on it in any view, I see no result but war and consequent change in the form of government. William Tecumseh Sherman in a letter to his brother Senator John Sherman 1861. South Carolina Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett had estimated that of the $927,000,000 collected in duties between 1791 and 1845, the South had paid $711,200,000, and the North $216,000,000. South Carolina Senator James Hammond had declared that the South paid about $50,000,000 and the North perhaps $20,000,000 of the $70,000,000 raised annually by duties. In expenditure of the national revenues, Hammond thought the North got about $50,000,000 a year, and the South only $20,000,000. When in the Course of Human Events, Charles Adams As Adams notes, the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. "The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole...we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually." - Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860 "What were the causes of the Southern independence movement in 1860? . . . Northern commercial and manufacturing interests had forced through Congress taxes that oppressed Southern planters and made Northern manufacturers rich . . . the South paid about three-quarters of all federal taxes, most of which were spent in the North." - Charles Adams, "For Good and Evil. The impact of taxes on the course of civilization," 1993, Madison Books, Lanham, USA, pp. 325-327 From 1789 to 1845, the North received five times the amount of money that was spent on southern projects. More than twice as many lighthouses were built in the North as in the South, and northern states received twice the southern appropriations for coastal defense. In the North, enforcement of the Morrill Tariff contributed to support for the Union cause among industrialists and merchant interests. Speaking of this class, the abolitionist Orestes Brownson derisively remarked that "the Morrill Tariff moved them more than the fall of Sumter." Cotton states produced about 50% of US exports, but certainly did not received 50% of Federal spending. Years ago, I took time to spreadsheet & tally these numbers and overall "the South", meaning slave-states got 52% of Federal spending on fortifications, internal improvements, lighthouses, hospitalization & pensions. They were a little over on fortifications, a little under in internal improvements, especially during from 1838 to 1850, which could account for Calhoun's complaints. Bottom line: Fire Eaters' complaints about "the North" getting most Federal disbursements is only factual if by "the North" you mean all non-cotton states.

False. See above

Bottom line: Fire Eaters' complaints about "the North" getting most Federal disbursements is only factual if by "the North" you mean all non-cotton states.

True. Before the Civil War, there were federal right of way land grants to railroads in the South as well as in the North, though on nothing like the scale that would come after the war. What gets left out of discussions is the political horse-trading. If you were a Senator from Mississippi, like Jefferson Davis, you supported Stephen Douglas's plan for land grants to the Illinois Central because it would run through your state and provide an alternative transportation route to the river and to the seas.

And you might also go along with Douglas's transcontinental railroad deal tied to the Kansas-Nebraska Act because offered a possibility of opening Kansas up to slavery. If you were Davis you wouldn't care that the railroad's headquarters were in Chicago, anymore than our friends here cared that the shipping companies they favored were headquartered in London. If you or your state got something out of a public works project you would support it - at least until you didn't, claiming the Yankees were robbing you.

It's interesting how these questions still aren't dead. There are conflicts now about what happens to federal right of way grants to railroads if the railroad goes out of business and/or service ends completely. Also, does a railroad right of way grant apply to pipelines and cables, or do the rights have to be renegotiated with the government? John McCain and Mike Lee wanted to repeal at least part of the Jones Act, the successor to the Navigation Act of 1817, which banned ships under foreign flags from US Coastal shipping.