The American Civil War Compared To Modern Politics

[Arawn1030]

I was thinking about this earlier, the Union had a different way of looking at everything. They by modern standards were the politically correct social justice warriors, and the Confederates were the alternative right. War was in itself inevitable between the North and South on these differences alone. The Union wanted an overreaching authoritarian federal government, and the Confederacy wanted States Rights, individual private property rights and a limited government as was supposed to be afforded in the US constitution. Any opinion on that?

[thomas aagaard]

Lost cause myths.

The biggest federal overreaching during the 19th century, after the buying of Louisiana, was the fugitive slave laws.

They directly violated the States right to decide on slavery them self. And made it possible for federal officers to forcefully enlist citizens top help hunt runaway slaves against their will.
they also made sure that any black "accursed" of being a runaway was guilty.. until proven innocent. And he could not bear witness himself. And the "judge" was paid more if he was returned to his owner than if he was freed...


The south had no issue with a strong federal government... as long as they could use it to protect slavery and they controlled it... like they did up true the 1850ties and before.

Their reason for leaving the union was clearly given and is all about protecting the institution of slavery.
This is the one right they keep repeating again, and again and again.

You can read them here: suggest you try count the number of times "slave" is used...
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html?/

Lincoln was elected on an anti slavery platform. (and back then the party platforms mattered) and the south knew this and knew that if he banned slavery from the territories, something he could get done, then it would likely put slavery on the road to extinction.


They lost a legal presidential election and as bad losers decided they didn't want to accept it.

At least the voters bothered voting.. the turnout was 81% in 1860...

[Arawn1030]

Lost cause myths.

The biggest federal overreaching during the 19th century, after the buying of Louisiana, was the fugitive slave laws.

They directly violated the States right to decide on slavery them self. And made it possible for federal officers to forcefully enlist citizens top help hunt runaway slaves against their will.
they also made sure that any black "accursed" of being a runaway was guilty.. until proven innocent. And he could not bear witness himself. And the "judge" was paid more if he was returned to his owner than if he was freed...


The south had no issue with a strong federal government... as long as they could use it to protect slavery and they controlled it... like they did up true the 1850ties and before.

Their reason for leaving the union was clearly given and is all about protecting the institution of slavery.
This is the one right they keep repeating again, and again and again.

You can read them here: suggest you try count the number of times "slave" is used...
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html?/

Lincoln was elected on an anti slavery platform. (and back then the party platforms mattered) and the south knew this and knew that if he banned slavery from the territories, something he could get done, then it would likely put slavery on the road to extinction.


They lost a legal presidential election and as bad losers decided they didn't want to accept it.

At least the voters bothered voting.. the turnout was 81% in 1860...

Allow me to address these points individually. So, before the South succeed it had very little power over it's own affairs. Most affairs were controlled by the Federal Government rather then individual states or a Confederation of States.

I'm not arguing the importance of slavery to the Southern States, but I must bring up that site only has 5 states out of the 11 Confederate States. Some states as shown left for slavery, most left for state rights and Southern independence as they realized the North did not have the South's best interests.

Lincoln was just the straw that broke the camels back the South had been planning succession for years.

[yoyo8346]

most left for state rights and Southern independence as they realized the North did not have the South's best interests.

Can you name those interests?

[Arawn1030]

Can you name those interests?

Gladly.

On Dec. 25, 1860, South Carolina declared unfair taxes to be a cause of secession: "The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths (75%) of them are expended at the North (to subsidize Wall Street industries that elected Lincoln).

I would encourage reading this: http://www.emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

Some states left for slavery, yes. Most left for taxes as the South was being crippled by Northern taxes.

[FrancisM]

The Union did not want an 'overreaching authoritarian federal government'. To say that the states had 'very little power over its own affairs' is ludicrious. Of course they said taxes was the reason, they tried to frame it as a conflict similair to the US Revolution. It doesn't mean that it actually was.

Also, your map is wrong. Kentucky never secceeded and West-Virginia obviously didn't want to leave the Union. Same goes for the much-forgotten state of Delaware.

[Arawn1030]

The Union did not want an 'overreaching authoritarian federal government'. To say that the states had 'very little power over its own affairs' is ludicrious. Of course they said taxes was the reason, they tried to frame it as a conflict similair to the US Revolution. It doesn't mean that it actually was.

Also, your map is wrong. Kentucky never secceeded and West-Virginia obviously didn't want to leave the Union. Same goes for the much-forgotten state of Delaware.

Can you provide evidence otherwise? I said it was slavery and taxes. I'm not discounting the issue of slavery within the CSA. But do you really think even though only a small percentage of Southerns owned slaves that over a million Southerns would fight? Of course not, it was a mix of slavery, taxes, states rights and the cultural identity of the Southern people.

I know it's wrong. It's the hole of Dixie, not just the states that seceded.

[thomas aagaard]

Gladly.

On Dec. 25, 1860, South Carolina declared unfair taxes to be a cause of secession: "The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths (75%) of them are expended at the North (to subsidize Wall Street industries that elected Lincoln).

I would encourage reading this: http://www.emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

Some states left for slavery, yes. Most left for taxes as the South was being crippled by Northern taxes.


Please start out by proving that the federal government spend 75% of its budget on building railroads and canals... you can't because that is simply not correct.

The total expenditure in 1859 was: 69 million.
war department - 22,5m = 32%
Navy department - 14,5m = 18%
Interest on public debt - 2,6m = 3,8%
Indians - 3,6m *= 5%
Veterans pensions - 1,2m
Postal - 4,8m = 26%
Civil and misc - 12,9m = 19%
source - Historical Statistics of the United States 1789-1945, page 300
https://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/HistoricalStatisticsoftheUnitedStates1789-1945.pdf

Yes the maintenance of some canals and harbors was done by the government, but anyone can se that the 75% statement is just not correct.


Also - Linking to a random website about modern politics and that don't actually give sources for its statements is very very untrustworthy.
It is a Modern political website (republican) using a lost cause myth to promote a modern political goal.

It do get some things right but only present the fact that support their political views.
And it deliberately deserving you about cause and effect.




First of all, what tax are we talking about? income tax? corporate tax?

No we are talking about tariffs. That is something that the merchants pay when they bring imported goods into the country.
This gave the federal government something like 90% of their income.

So who do it help?
Since it is on imported goods it make anything produced in Europe more expensive and that help domestic producers who make the same goods.
So a high Tariff would help domestic producers of say clothing and hurt UK producers.

(So if you want to compare it to today, it is Trump who are asking for higher tarrifs and pretty much everyone else including most republicans who are for free trade.)

Who do it hurt?
It make the price of the goods imported more expensive... so it effect the people who buy imported goods.
It also hurt the merchants who ship the goods since less is shipped.

Where where tarrifs collected?
"New Orleans was the southern port that collected the most in the tariff, and it was only $3.1 million. The total south only collected $4.0 million in tariff revenues, whereas New York City collected $34.9 million in tariff revenues and the total for northern ports was $48.3 million.
[Source: Douglas B. Ball, Financial Failure and Confederate Defeat, p. 205, Table 18, “Trade Figures by Port in 1860” and “Customs Collections by Major Port (1860)”]
So by fare the most tarrifs was collected in the north. But the merchants naturally passed the bill unto the buyer.

So who buy stuff imported from Europe?
The poor in the north? no
The poor in the south no
The rich in the north yes
The rich in the south? yes
The slaves? no

So yes, politically support of high tariffs was found in the north. and opposition in the south.

In 1856 the south had been ready to seceded.. If the north elected an anti slavery president.

And now to the part where the website and many myth makers deceive you.
The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.

Again misleading.
In 1846 it went from 32% to 25%. then the south won that election in 1856 and in 1857 they lowered it to 17% just before the crisis.
So calling it low "during 46-57" is simply misleading.

This change, done by the south is Something the page do mot even mention. Why? it undermines the whole myth it is creating.
(in 1857 69 million was collected. in 1858 it fell to 46,6 million)

The issue in the last years of the 1850ties was that the government went from a surplus to a huge deficit.
(1856) +4,485,673$, (1857) +1,169,605$, (1858) -27,529,904$. (1859) -15,584,512$

So obviously there is debate about how to solve the issue, and one of the solutions (when you don't have income tax and corporate taxes) are raising the tariffs again.

By 1860 there are debates about it. And the bill do parse the House. But debates don't make states secede.


The website want you to believe that the states left over tariffs. What it don't tell you is the simple fact that the south still controlled the Senate and there is no way the tarrifs could have been changed with out them accepting it. If they had stayed in the union.

The election of an anti slavery president made the first group of slave states leave.

That change the situation in the senate. And by 1860 April, they agree that the federal government need more income and raise the tariffs. By this time the orders to fire on Fort Sumter had already been given by the CSA government.

The Moril Tarrif happened because of secession... not the other way around.


Can you provide evidence otherwise? I said it was slavery and taxes. I'm not discounting the issue of slavery within the CSA. But do you really think even though only a small percentage of Southerns owned slaves that over a million Southerns would fight? Of course not, it was a mix of slavery, taxes, states rights and the cultural identity of the Southern people..
First of all, you are the one starting out with some claims. then it is you who need to prove it.

And about 1/3 of all household in the states that became the CSA owned slaves. That is not "a small percentage"
And in SC it was 46%. Then you need to add the households that was dependent on the institution.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

[Arawn1030]

Please start out by proving that the federal government spend 75% of its budget on building railroads and canals... you can't because that is simply not correct.

The total expenditure in 1859 was: 69 million.
war department - 22,5m = 32%
Navy department - 14,5m = 18%
Interest on public debt - 2,6m = 3,8%
Indians - 3,6m *= 5%
Veterans pensions - 1,2m
Postal - 4,8m = 26%
Civil and misc - 12,9m = 19%
source - Historical Statistics of the United States 1789-1945, page 300
https://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/HistoricalStatisticsoftheUnitedStates1789-1945.pdf

Yes the maintenance of some canals and harbors was done by the government, but anyone can se that the 75% statement is just not correct.


Also - Linking to a random website about modern politics and that don't actually give sources for its statements is very very untrustworthy.
It is a Modern political website (republican) using a lost cause myth to promote a modern political goal.

It do get some things right but only present the fact that support their political views.
And it deliberately deserving you about cause and effect.




First of all, what tax are we talking about? income tax? corporate tax?

No we are talking about tariffs. That is something that the merchants pay when they bring imported goods into the country.
This gave the federal government something like 90% of their income.

So who do it help?
Since it is on imported goods it make anything produced in Europe more expensive and that help domestic producers who make the same goods.
So a high Tariff would help domestic producers of say clothing and hurt UK producers.

(So if you want to compare it to today, it is Trump who are asking for higher tarrifs and pretty much everyone else including most republicans who are for free trade.)

Who do it hurt?
It make the price of the goods imported more expensive... so it effect the people who buy imported goods.
It also hurt the merchants who ship the goods since less is shipped.

Where where tarrifs collected?
"New Orleans was the southern port that collected the most in the tariff, and it was only $3.1 million. The total south only collected $4.0 million in tariff revenues, whereas New York City collected $34.9 million in tariff revenues and the total for northern ports was $48.3 million.
[Source: Douglas B. Ball, Financial Failure and Confederate Defeat, p. 205, Table 18, “Trade Figures by Port in 1860” and “Customs Collections by Major Port (1860)”]
So by fare the most tarrifs was collected in the north. But the merchants naturally passed the bill unto the buyer.

So who buy stuff imported from Europe?
The poor in the north? no
The poor in the south no
The rich in the north yes
The rich in the south? yes
The slaves? no

So yes, politically support of high tariffs was found in the north. and opposition in the south.

In 1856 the south had been ready to seceded.. If the north elected an anti slavery president.

And now to the part where the website and many myth makers deceive you.
The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.

Again misleading.
In 1846 it went from 32% to 25%. then the south won that election in 1856 and in 1857 they lowered it to 17% just before the crisis.
So calling it low "during 46-57" is simply misleading.

This change, done by the south is Something the page do mot even mention. Why? it undermines the whole myth it is creating.
(in 1857 69 million was collected. in 1858 it fell to 46,6 million)

The issue in the last years of the 1850ties was that the government went from a surplus to a huge deficit.
(1856) +4,485,673$, (1857) +1,169,605$, (1858) -27,529,904$. (1859) -15,584,512$

So obviously there is debate about how to solve the issue, and one of the solutions (when you don't have income tax and corporate taxes) are raising the tariffs again.

By 1860 there are debates about it. And the bill do parse the House. But debates don't make states secede.


The website want you to believe that the states left over tariffs. What it don't tell you is the simple fact that the south still controlled the Senate and there is no way the tarrifs could have been changed with out them accepting it. If they had stayed in the union.

The election of an anti slavery president made the first group of slave states leave.

That change the situation in the senate. And by 1860 April, they agree that the federal government need more income and raise the tariffs. By this time the orders to fire on Fort Sumter had already been given by the CSA government.

The Moril Tarrif happened because of secession... not the other way around.


First of all, you are the one starting out with some claims. then it is you who need to prove it.

And about 1/3 of all household in the states that became the CSA owned slaves. That is not "a small percentage"
And in SC it was 46%. Then you need to add the households that was dependent on the institution.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

When did I say railroads and canals? Sorry if there was a confusion, I meant that the Federal expenditure over whelming benefited the North over the South even though the South was heavily unindustrialized compared to the North.

How does it undermine the myth? I'm genuinely asking. As far as I'm seeing your just showing me more evidence to back up my claim that many states and many southern people wanted to secede against unjust tariffs.

The commercial boom collapsed in 1807 when the war of nerves with Britain began and American merchant ships no longer enjoyed immunity. Coincidentally, the clock ran out on the lucrative slave trade. New England capital shifted from commerce to manufacturing ventures that exploited wage labor. The textile mill system of southern New England grew up under the embargo and the subsequent British blockade during the War of 1812. Capitalists hired whole families displaced by agricultural disruption and quickly reduced them to debt peonage. The product was sold in large lots to Southern slaveowners or to "slop shops" that clothed the urban poor. The mechanics' old values gave way to the new ones of cost-cutting, access to merchant capital, and willingness to subdivide work and exploit unskilled labor. The boom turned a few mechanics into bosses and many into wage laborers. By 1816, 100,000 factory workers, two-thirds of them women and children, produced more than $40 million worth of manufactured goods a year. Capital investment in textile manufacturing, sugar refining, and other industries totaled $100 million. The war ended in 1815, and American markets reopened to the cheaper, better made British products. In spite of the protective Tariff of 1816, the American economy collapsed in 1819. Fortunes vanished. Recovery took years. And Northern capitalists vowed never again to be without protection. From then on, they used political power for protection purposes; they convinced the voters that the crumbs that dribbled from the industrialists' tables were their essential interests, and had to be protected at all costs. It took until the 1840s for the New England regional market to really emerge. But sectional divergence of the boom-bust cycle was apparent by 1825-6, when cotton prices tumbled and the North suffered no ill effects. The cotton prices stayed low until the 1860s forcing the South to export more and more cotton only deepening the issue of divide between North and South.

Where are you getting 1/3? The sight you gave clearly says 8%, most of whom owned less then 50 slaves. If you want to add up the Confederate state slave owners as you clearly did you come up to 294,599 slave owners. That is still only 3.2% of the Confederate population excluding slaves which would make it even less. So, yes that is a very small percentage. Do you still honestly think that over a million men would go out a die for a system that only 3.2% of their population acts on? Of course not, the politicians may have said slavery in 5 out of the 11 states that left the Union but the average Confederate knew that the South left for taxes, states rights and cultural identity.

[thomas aagaard]

"On Dec. 25, 1860, South Carolina declared unfair taxes to be a cause of secession: "The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths (75%) of them are expended at the North (to subsidize Wall Street industries that elected Lincoln)"
and
I meant that the Federal expenditure over whelming benefited the North over the South even though the South was heavily unindustrialized compared to the North.

32% was used by the war department. The army had every single infantry company out west. Much was in Texas guarding the border to mexico. How to that benefit the north more?
18% was used by the navy. Sure most merchants was from the north, but without a navy to protect the merchant fleet there would be no exports of Cotton. Again not a clear advantage for the north.
3,8% was public debts
5% on Indians - how do this benifit the north more than the south.
2% on Veteran pensions - that is for the war against mexico a war strongly supported by the south and made to expand slavery so that one was for the south.
7% on The postal service was for everyone.
The 19% for Civilian stuff include the actual running of the government,

Please explain where the 75% used only on the north can be found...

During the late 1840ties and 1850ties the tariffs where low. And they where low because the south (and northern democrats) controlled the senate.
So obviously there would be no need for the south to seceded over high tarrifs... when they where low and it was the south that controlled the rate.


Where are you getting 1/3? The sight you gave clearly says 8%, most of whom owned less then 50 slaves. If you want to add up the Confederate state slave owners as you clearly did you come up to 294,599 slave owners. That is still only 3.2% of the Confederate population excluding slaves which would make it even less.

you make two mistakes.
1. Iam talking about households you are talking slaveowners.
This is Another common misdirection. (not saying you do so deliberately)
In 1860 a rather low % of people actually owned anything. Children did not. Most women did not. Adult males still living at home (and that was common until you married) didn't own anything.
The "master" of the household owned the house, land, and everything else.

This is no different than if a household with two adults and two children got a car and that is owned by one parent. The other parent and any children all benefit from the car.
So everyone in a slave owning household naturally got the benefit of slavery.

That is why the census did its recording on households.

And that is 8% of the total both north and south.
For the % for the CSA states you need to do the math your self. And the exact % depend on what exact states we include.
But it will be about 1/3 of all households in the CSA that owned slaves.

Then add the people who in one way or another was involved in slave trade, running plantations or simply sold items to the plantations.
Or moved the cotton, yes, including the merchants who shipped it to Europe.



So, yes that is a very small percentage. Do you still honestly think that over a million men would go out a die for a system that only 3.2% of their population acts on? Of course not, the politicians may have said slavery in 5 out of the 11 states that left the Union but the average Confederate knew that the South left for taxes, states rights and cultural identity
No they did not leave for taxes. Since the south had the Tarrifs they wanted.
No they did not leave over states rights. Since no state rights was under threat.

Yes culture is a huge part of it. Since the south was a civilization build on slavery and it was a huge part of the culture. So yes, even poor southerners had an interest in preserving slavery, Since the local economy was dependent on it and since that would help preserve their culture.

[Arawn1030]

"On Dec. 25, 1860, South Carolina declared unfair taxes to be a cause of secession: "The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths (75%) of them are expended at the North (to subsidize Wall Street industries that elected Lincoln)"
and
I meant that the Federal expenditure over whelming benefited the North over the South even though the South was heavily unindustrialized compared to the North.

32% was used by the war department. The army had every single infantry company out west. Much was in Texas guarding the border to mexico. How to that benefit the north more?
18% was used by the navy. Sure most merchants was from the north, but without a navy to protect the merchant fleet there would be no exports of Cotton. Again not a clear advantage for the north.
3,8% was public debts
5% on Indians - how do this benifit the north more than the south.
2% on Veteran pensions - that is for the war against mexico a war strongly supported by the south and made to expand slavery so that one was for the south.
7% on The postal service was for everyone.
The 19% for Civilian stuff include the actual running of the government,

Please explain where the 75% used only on the north can be found...

During the late 1840ties and 1850ties the tariffs where low. And they where low because the south (and northern democrats) controlled the senate.
So obviously there would be no need for the south to seceded over high tarrifs... when they where low and it was the south that controlled the rate.


Where are you getting 1/3? The sight you gave clearly says 8%, most of whom owned less then 50 slaves. If you want to add up the Confederate state slave owners as you clearly did you come up to 294,599 slave owners. That is still only 3.2% of the Confederate population excluding slaves which would make it even less.

you make two mistakes.
1. Iam talking about households you are talking slaveowners.
This is Another common misdirection. (not saying you do so deliberately)
In 1860 a rather low % of people actually owned anything. Children did not. Most women did not. Adult males still living at home (and that was common until you married) didn't own anything.
The "master" of the household owned the house, land, and everything else.

This is no different than if a household with two adults and two children got a car and that is owned by one parent. The other parent and any children all benefit from the car.
So everyone in a slave owning household naturally got the benefit of slavery.

That is why the census did its recording on households.

And that is 8% of the total both north and south.
For the % for the CSA states you need to do the math your self. And the exact % depend on what exact states we include.
But it will be about 1/3 of all households in the CSA that owned slaves.

Then add the people who in one way or another was involved in slave trade, running plantations or simply sold items to the plantations.
Or moved the cotton, yes, including the merchants who shipped it to Europe.



So, yes that is a very small percentage. Do you still honestly think that over a million men would go out a die for a system that only 3.2% of their population acts on? Of course not, the politicians may have said slavery in 5 out of the 11 states that left the Union but the average Confederate knew that the South left for taxes, states rights and cultural identity
No they did not leave for taxes. Since the south had the Tarrifs they wanted.
No they did not leave over states rights. Since no state rights was under threat.

Yes culture is a huge part of it. Since the south was a civilization build on slavery and it was a huge part of the culture. So yes, even poor southerners had an interest in preserving slavery, Since the local economy was dependent on it and since that would help preserve their culture.

You mean the Northern thugs who not only did not protect Texas but activity abandoned them?

As the The Texas Ordinance of Secession (February 2, 1861) states quite clearly, "The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas."

I don't know much about the US Naval activity before the war so I cant comment on that.

The 75% come in as most projects were within the North as the North made very little effort to help industrialize the agricultural southern states. Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%--20% of this tax money was being returned to the South.

[thomas aagaard]

You are really not wanting to actually read what I tell you.


"You mean the Northern thugs who not only did not protect Texas but activity abandoned them?"
So the prewar army was only made up of Northerner? Funny how I can name a lot of CSA officers who served in the prewar US army... some like Lee even in Texas.
How well the army did in the prewar years is really out side this topic and a big topic in its self.
The fact is that the army did what it could with the resources they had.


" Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%--20% of this tax money was being returned to the South"

So now its 75% of the money was from the south? And you have still not backed it up with any sort of evidence at all.

First of all try actually think about how absurd this claim is.

Tariffs are not sectional.
And it was the south who controlled the rate, and they lowered it in both 1846 and in 1857... as I already mentioned.

So obviously it was not unfair for the south.

Tariffs are paid on imports. (And as we already seen more than 90% of the money the federal government had, came from tariffs.)

The population of the states that became the CSA made up just 29% of the total population. And that is including slaves who did not buy imported good.
The white population of the 11 states that would become the csa only make up 17% of the total population in the union in 1860

So would 17,5% in the south logically be responsible for 75% of all imports? Naturally not.

As I already showed in an earlier post:

Where where tariffs collected?
"New Orleans was the southern port that collected the most in the tariff, and it was only $3.1 million. The total south only collected $4.0 million in tariff revenues, whereas New York City collected $34.9 million in tariff revenues and the total for northern ports was $48.3 million.
[Source: Douglas B. Ball, Financial Failure and Confederate Defeat, p. 205, Table 18, “Trade Figures by Port in 1860” and “Customs Collections by Major Port (1860)”]

Only 7,7% of the total tariffs where collected in the south.


And lets repeat what you wrote
50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
As shown above 77,5% of the money collected in the south was collected in New Orleans... so that is also factual wrong.


My guess is that you are reading some neo-confederate website... much of you write are common on such pages. And it simply don't match the historical figures for where Tariffs was collected, and what the money was spend on.

[Arawn1030]

You are really not wanting to actually read what I tell you.


So the prewar army was only made up of Northerner? Funny how I can name a lot of CSA officers who served in the prewar US army... some like Lee even in Texas.
How well the army did in the prewar years is really out side this topic and a big topic in its self.
The fact is that the army did what it could with the resources they had.



So now its 75% of the money was from the south? And you have still not backed it up with any sort of evidence at all.

First of all try actually think about how absurd this claim is.

Tariffs are not sectional.
And it was the south who controlled the rate, and they lowered it in both 1846 and in 1857... as I already mentioned.

So obviously it was not unfair for the south.

Tariffs are paid on imports. (And as we already seen more than 90% of the money the federal government had, came from tariffs.)

The population of the states that became the CSA made up just 29% of the total population. And that is including slaves who did not buy imported good.
The white population of the 11 states that would become the csa only make up 17% of the total population in the union in 1860

So would 17,5% in the south logically be responsible for 75% of all imports? Naturally not.

As I already showed in an earlier post:


Only 7,7% of the total tariffs where collected in the south.


And lets repeat what you wrote
50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
As shown above 77,5% of the money collected in the south was collected in New Orleans... so that is also factual wrong.


My guess is that you are reading some neo-confederate website... much of you write are common on such pages. And it simply don't match the historical figures for where Tariffs was collected, and what the money was spend on.

I'm reading everything your saying.

You know what I meant. The Army in Texas had didn't protect the Texas people, militias had to do that.

The Tariff of 1828 precipitated the first secessionist crisis, in South Carolina in 1832. The battle pitted Vice-President John C. Calhoun against President Andy Jackson, ending with the Nullification Crisis. Luckily, another compromise was reached, courtesy of Henry Clay, and the crisis was avoided. Part of the compromise included a roll-back of tariffs to the 1816 levels over a 10-year period.

When the period was up, however, the pro-Tariff Whigs decided to reapply them to pay for their "internal improvements." The only problem was these internal improvements benefited Northern shipping interests and Western land speculators and not the South. For example, lighthouses had always been state-owned and run. The Northern shipping magnates wanted more lighthouses in the South and when state governments said no, they simply nationalized existing lighthouses and began increasing the number with the tariffs.

It's not neo-confederate propaganda, it's the effects of oppressive tariffs on the Southern States.

[thomas aagaard]

For example, lighthouses had always been state-owned and run. The Northern shipping magnates wanted more lighthouses in the South and when state governments said no, they simply nationalized existing lighthouses and began increasing the number with the tariffs.

A basic wiki page gives plenty of information on this, the Tariff of 1842: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1842

It's not neo-confederate propaganda, it's the effects of an oppressive tariff to the Southern States.

How do you export Cotton out of New Orleans or Charleston without Light houses?



So now the issue is the 1842 Tariff? That is 18 years before the election of Lincoln...
Yes it was high, and it was lowered again in 1846.. and again in 1857.
So by 1860 the tariffs had been low for 16 years and the south could have keeped it low.

Had this been the real issue they would not have left in 1860, but when ever the south (and northern democrats) lost control of congress. And they did not in 1860.


So please explain:
How the rate that the south decided on was oppressive? When they lowered it in 46 and 57.
How a tariff that is the same rate for everyone could be only oppressive to the south?
How it could be specifically oppressive to the south when 92% of the money was collected in the north?

And please actually provide actual sources for you fact and numbers.


How about admitting that you have been wrong about your claims.
75% of the tariffs was not collected in the south.
75% of the federal budget was not spend in the north.


Was 75% of the money spend on infrastructural improvements actually spend in north?
I have no idea. But it is up to you to prove it. And you have not in any way done so.

[Arawn1030]

How do you export Cotton out of New Orleans or Charleston without Light houses?



So now the issue is the 1842 Tariff? That is 18 years before the election of Lincoln...
Yes it was high, and it was lowered again in 1846.. and again in 1857.
So by 1860 the tariffs had been low for 16 years and the south could have keeped it low.

Had this been the real issue they would not have left in 1860, but when ever the south (and northern democrats) lost control of congress. And they did not in 1860.


So please explain:
How the rate that the south decided on was oppressive? When they lowered it in 46 and 57.
How a tariff that is the same rate for everyone could be only oppressive to the south?
How it could be specifically oppressive to the south when 92% of the money was collected in the north?

And please actually provide actual sources for you fact and numbers.


How about admitting that you have been wrong about your claims.
75% of the tariffs was not collected in the south.
75% of the federal budget was not spend in the north.


Was 75% of the money spend on infrastructural improvements actually spend in north?
I have no idea. But it is up to you to prove it. And you have not in any way done so.

That's not it, there were to many light houses and the Southern states were paying more to keep them up.

If it really was over slavery why would in August of 1852 Lincoln say "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it… what I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." Lincoln also said on September 18th, 1858, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have I ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races." In 1861 Lincoln was asked "why not let the South go in peace?" He replied by saying "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" he was not seeking to abolish slavery.

John Parker, a former slave, recorded that many colored Confederate soldiers were killed in action. The "Richmond Howitzers" were partially manned by black militiamen who saw action at the 1st Battle of Bull Run. There were also two black regiments, one free and one slave, who participated in the same battle on behalf of the South. One black Confederate was a non-commissioned officer by the name of James Washington. One was in Company D, 35th Texas Cavalry, Confederate States Army and became 3rd Sergeant. There were also higher ranking commissioned black Confederates. James Russell was a free 'man of color' and the cook for Company C, 24th South Carolina Volunteer Infantry. Unfortunately, he was killed in action at Missionary Ridge on November 25th, 1863. Private Louis Napoleon Nelson was also a free man of color and served time in the 7th Tennessee Cavalry under General Nathan Bedford Forrest. He fought at Shiloh, Lookout Mountain, Brice's Crossing, and Vicksburg and survived the war.

General Grant made the comment that, "The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced it has any other object, or that the government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the abolitionists, I pledge to you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side" in a letter to the Chicago Tribune 1862. Union General William T. Sherman said in 1864 "I am honest in my belief that it is not fair to my men to count negros as equals. Let us capture negros, of course, and use them to the best advantage." As I said before, these two men both owned slaves, and did not want to free them. I honestly do not see how so many "politically correct" people can stand there and say the "North was right."

Confederate General Robert E. Lee, however, saw the world of slavery from a different view. He said "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery is an institution of a moral and political evil" In 1858. In 1866 he also made a statement that "All the south ever desired was that the union, as established by our forefathers, be preserved; and that the Government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." It wasn't a far fetched idea yet the people in this country then and still today are yet to grasp hold of something like morals, purity, or truth. But I guess that's where Confederate States President Jefferson Davis comes in with "Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again."

So yes the war was over trade in large part. The egregiously inequitable effects of a U. S. protective tariff that provided 90 percent of federal revenue. Foreign governments retaliated for it with tariffs of their own, and payment of those overseas levies represented the cost to Americans of their U. S. government. Southerners were generating two-thirds of U. S. exports, and also bearing two-thirds of the retaliatory tariffs abroad. The result was that that the 18.5 percent of America's citizens who lived in the South were saddled with three times their proportionate share of the federal government's costs.

https://deadconfederates.com/tag/southern-ports-paid-75-percent-of-tariffs-in-1859/

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/walter-e-williams/was-1861-a-civil-war/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/walter-williams-was-the-civil-war-about-tariff-revenue/article/2521959

Hope these help. I will gladly admit I am wrong when I am wrong, slavery was an issue (obviously) but the tariff, state's rights and southern culture were all issues as well that effected each other.

[FrancisM]

Arawn, all you do is make claim upon claim, without bothering to show a single bit of proof.

[thomas aagaard]

And again you dont back up you claims with any evidence.


Prove that the states and not the federal government paid for lighthouse.
(you can't since they where organised under the department of the treasury and they where federal property)

Prove that tariffs was high during the 1846-1860 period compared to earlier and compared to rates in European countries.



And two black confederate regiments at Bull run... you now completely lost your head.

Prove it. Enlistment papers? Who where the white officers? What brigade where they in? who was the brigade commander? Where are they mentioned in the OR? What firearms where they issued? what uniforms? What did they actually do during the battle? how many men did they loose? Where did they serve later? Unit history?

All of it thing that would help prove they existed.... but you can't provide any of it, because they did not exist.,



So now you are complaining about European Tariffs on exports? Every time I disprove your claims you just come up with some other reason... this is just childish.

How about actually showing some sources and numbers? you clearly can't


And finally the last part is simply a clear misunderstanding of basic economy.
When the rich slaveowner sell his cotton to a northern merchant he don't pay tariffs.

When the cotton is shipped it is the UK factory who end up with the bill.

Tariffs are used to protect domestic production.
The UK was not making cotton during this period. So need for a high protective Tariff. A high tariff would only HURT UK factories.
They did have production in egypt and India but it was mostly sued locally and the expansion was caused by the civil war and that the south could not export sufficient quantities.



Oh and did you actually read: https://deadconfederates.com/tag/southern-ports-paid-75-percent-of-tariffs-in-1859/
" So the Port of New York, by itself, handled almost two-thirds (64.5%) of the value of all U.S. imports, and almost three-quarters (72.7%) of the value of all tariffed imports:"
The south did not pay 75% of the tariffs.

It pretty much give the exact same explanation of why you are completely wrong.
(not surprisingly since I have read that blog before)

[Arawn1030]

And again you dont back up you claims with any evidence.


Prove that the states and not the federal government paid for lighthouse.
(you can't since they where organised under the department of the treasury and they where federal property)

Prove that tariffs was high during the 1846-1860 period compared to earlier and compared to rates in European countries.



And two black confederate regiments at Bull run... you now completely lost your head.

Prove it. Enlistment papers? Who where the white officers? What brigade where they in? who was the brigade commander? Where are they mentioned in the OR? What firearms where they issued? what uniforms? What did they actually do during the battle? how many men did they loose? Where did they serve later? Unit history?

All of it thing that would help prove they existed.... but you can't provide any of it, because they did not exist.,



So now you are complaining about European Tariffs on exports? Every time I disprove your claims you just come up with some other reason... this is just childish.

How about actually showing some sources and numbers? you clearly can't


And finally the last part is simply a clear misunderstanding of basic economy.
When the rich slaveowner sell his cotton to a northern merchant he don't pay tariffs.

When the cotton is shipped it is the UK factory who end up with the bill.

Tariffs are used to protect domestic production.
The UK was not making cotton during this period. So need for a high protective Tariff. A high tariff would only HURT UK factories.
They did have production in egypt and India but it was mostly sued locally and the expansion was caused by the civil war and that the south could not export sufficient quantities.



Oh and did you actually read: https://deadconfederates.com/tag/southern-ports-paid-75-percent-of-tariffs-in-1859/
" So the Port of New York, by itself, handled almost two-thirds (64.5%) of the value of all U.S. imports, and almost three-quarters (72.7%) of the value of all tariffed imports:"
The south did not pay 75% of the tariffs.

It pretty much give the exact same explanation of why you are completely wrong.
(not surprisingly since I have read that blog before)

Hope these links help

-Tariffs-

http://www.ashevilletribune.com/archives/censored-truths/Morrill%20Tariff.html

http://www.thetribunepapers.com/2014/01/05/true-causes-of-the-uncivil-war-understanding-the-morrill-tariff/

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/06/war-over-slavery_rhetoric_is_i.html

-Black Confederates-

http://rense.com/general56/theforgottenblackconfed.htm

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/09/black-confederates/

http://www.scv-kirby-smith.org/Black%20Confederate.htm

[thomas aagaard]

Random websites... are not evidence.



Prove that the states and not the federal government paid for lighthouse.
(you can't since they where organised under the department of the treasury and they where federal property)

Prove that tariffs was high during the 1846-1860 period compared to earlier and compared to rates in European countries.

Prove that 75% of the tariffs was collected in the south
You can't because as I have already shown 92% was collected in the north.

Prove that 75% of the federal money was used on improving the North
You can't because it was not.

Prove that 75% of the money used on infrastructural improvements was spend in the North
This might actually be true, but it i still up to you to prove it... and you have not done so.

Prove the existence of two black regiments at Bull run.
Enlistment papers?
Who where the white officers?
What brigade where they in?
who was the brigade commander?
How big where the regiments?
What law allowed the recruitment of black soldiers? (CSA law don't allow for it)
Where are they mentioned in the Official Records?
What firearms where they issued?
what uniforms?
What did they actually do during the battle?
How many men did they loose?
Where did they serve later?
Unit history?

If they existed you should have no problem finding at least some of this information in our primary sources.



This is all claims you have made in this topic. and you have still not given any evidence of any of it.

[Arawn1030]

All of those are within the websites. Sourced with quotes and statistics.

[thomas aagaard]

And it is up to you to give the relevant quotes with the primary sources.

The one who make the positive claim, have to prove it.
And your clearly can't.

[Arawn1030]

So copy and paste entire websites?

I post the websites as a hole because it gives context to the quote or the statistics instead of just throwing numbers and quotes out there.

[thomas aagaard]

Just to repeat your claims about money.

"The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths (75%) of them are expended at the North (to subsidize Wall Street industries that elected Lincoln).
The total expenditure in 1859 was: 69 million.
war department - 22,5m = 32%
Navy department - 14,5m = 18%
Interest on public debt - 2,6m = 3,8%
Indians - 3,6m *= 5%
Veterans pensions - 1,2m
Postal - 4,8m = 26%
Civil and misc - 12,9m = 19%
source - Historical Statistics of the United States 1789-1945, page 300 ( book publisehd by the federal goverment)
https://www2.census.gov/prod2/statco...s1789-1945.pdf

So where are the 75% spend on the north?
You can't explain.


The 75% come in as most projects were within the North as the North made very little effort to help industrialize the agricultural southern states.
Again please give us a breakdown of how the federal government spend its money on internal improvements... to prove this claim.
(Iam sure the sources on it exist)



Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%--20% of this tax money was being returned to the South.
No

"New Orleans was the southern port that collected the most in the tariff, and it was only $3.1 million. The total south only collected $4.0 million in tariff revenues, whereas New York City collected $34.9 million in tariff revenues and the total for northern ports was $48.3 million.
[Source: Douglas B. Ball, Financial Failure and Confederate Defeat, p. 205, Table 18, “Trade Figures by Port in 1860” and “Customs Collections by Major Port (1860)”]

So not only are you wrong about how much was collected in the south. You where even wrong about where in the south it was collected... since New Orleans took in 3,1 out of 4 million.

this website you linked to (https://deadconfederates.com/tag/sou...riffs-in-1859/) write:
"So the Port of New York, by itself, handled almost two-thirds (64.5%) of the value of all U.S. imports, and almost three-quarters (72.7%) of the value of all tariffed imports:""
And He give this source... that is arguably a primary source on this.
https://deadconfederates.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/importsatnewyork1859-60.pdf




So all of your claims are wrong or something you have not proven in any way.

[Leifr]

I believe Thomas Asgaard is looking for the exact reference and sources used to back up these claims. Simply providing a link isn't worth anyone's time and is a detriment to the validity of your argument. The onus is on you, Arawn, to provide these valid sources.
And a reminder; be friendly, be cordial and discuss within appropriate limits.