Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
They have made a "positive assertion" in stating that the respective populations of North and South purchased items in the same relation to that population.
"It is also observable that the articles of pure luxury, with the consumption of which the ladies of New York have been charged, appear ludicrously small in the general account. Fashionable ladies do not wear woolens, nor baise, nor calicoes, at least those articles are not charged upon them as an extravagance, but they are upbraided with crinoline and lace, silks and precious stones, and that account seems to stand thus: 1850. 1857.
Silks................................... . $15, 0T, 777 ..$22,906,668 Embroideries.............................2, 434, 869 ..4, 448,175
Lace thread...................................185,925 ..321,961 Furs.........1.................................... 148,377 .. 508, 653 Jewelry..........................................8 52,287 .503,658 Gems.............................................. 66,963 .894,794 Total........................................$18,2 64,228 ...$29,089,043 Increase................................ .$10,824, 815
Wines.........................................$2,1 16,282 ..$4,274,202
Brandy, &c............................. ..3,166,841 .3,963,625 Cigars...........................................1 ,469,097 ..4, 221,096 Total...........................................$6 ,792,170 ..$12,458,923 Increase.......................................... .................. $5,666,753
These sums do not appear formidable when we bear in mind that the population has increased twenty-five per cent., and that the wealth of the country has increased $150,000,000 in the seven years embraced, and also that in the same time over $600,000,000 has been spent in railroads, of many of which very little remains. In the great prosperity which the country has manifested in the last ten years, it is to be considered that in this nation the prosperity is well distributed-that it is not confined to the higher ranks-while the great masses remain unchanged. When the crops are good, business active, and employment general, prosperity shows itself in the improved dress of almost every female in the land, as well as that of the males. The various combinations of silk, wool, flax, and cotton, are drawn upon for the adornment of all ranks.
Neil,
First, Jabez Curry's speech relies on the pure fiction of his making, and is disproven by the very same source he claims to base it on.
Cedarstripper
A report of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1838 shows that, in the five years, 1833-'37, out of $102,000,000 of expenditure, only $37,000,000 were in the slave States; yet, during the same years, they paid $90,000,000 of duties to $17,500,000 paid by the free States. The amount of customs collected, says Kettell, in the past seventy years, reaches eleven hundred millions of dollars, a large portion of which was disbursed at the North. Bounties to fisheries have amounted to over $13,000,000, and have been paid mostly to Maine and Massachusetts. Like unjust inequalities are exhibited in the appropriation of public lands, in the light-house system, in the collection of customs, in the internal improvement system, in the erection of court and custom houses, and hospitals and post officeAn intelligent writer says, that the heads of federal expenditure show that while the South has paid seven-ninths of the taxes, the North has had seven-ninths of their disbursements. The North furnishes, in great degree, our carriers, importers, merchants, bankers, brokers, and insurerss. One of the ablest statisticians and political economists in America, Mr. Kettell, a northern man, estimates the annual amount of means sent North by southern owners and producers, as the sum of their dealing with the North, at $462,560,394. The South furnishes six-sevenths of the freight for the shipping of the country, while the North supplies one-seventh. The South pays $36,000,000 per annum to the shipping interest for the transportation of the products of slave labor. "All the profitable branches of freighting, brokering, selling, banking, insurance, &c., that grow out of southern products, are enjoyed in New York. The profits that importers, manufacturers, bankers, factors, jobbers, warehousemen, carmen, and every branch of industry connected with merchandizing, realize, from the mass of goods that pass through northern cities, are paid by southern consumers." The same careful authority approximates the annual load which southern industry, dependent on southern labor, is required to carry, at $231,500,000, and distributes among bounties to fishermen, customs, importers, manufacturers, shippers, agents, travellers, &c. It is this North grown rich from the earnings of slave labor, dependent for its prosperity and profits upon southern wealth, that has placed Lincoln and them that "hate us to rule over us." Jeshurun has waxed fat and kicked.
Naturally, you would disagree with Mr. Curry but, did anyone of the day specifically disagree with him directly? We have your word that what he says is "pure fiction". What else can we look to for further evidence? You claim he is disproven by the same source he relies on. Can you tell us where we can find this 1838 Treasury Report that is not only his source of information but also the proof of his "fiction" so that we may see for ourselves?
What about Mr. Kettell? Is he telling "pure fiction", too? Being a Northerner that would be somewhat odd considering the sectionalism that gripped the country at the time. I've read that he was a respected statistician and political economist. Is this not true?
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
What else can we look to for further evidence? You claim he is disproven by the same source he relies on. Can you tell us where we can find this 1838 Treasury Report that is not only his source of information but also the proof of his "fiction" so that we may see for ourselves?
See post #127 I have the figures from the 1838 report which Mr. Eros emailed me, but I have no way to reproduce them here that I am capable of. They were sent to me in an Excel format.
Regardless, Mr. Eros lists and explains them in great detail for you in the post. Too bad Jabez doesn't have such high integrity.
Quote:
What about Mr. Kettell? Is he telling "pure fiction", too? Being a Northerner that would be somewhat odd considering the sectionalism that gripped the country at the time. I've read that he was a respected statistician and political economist. Is this not true?
You should look closely at what exactly it is that has been attributed ti Thomas Kettle. He has only been credited with saying that "eleven hundred millions of dollars" have been collected in the past seventy years - Kettle does not indicate from where. Of course, we know where they were collected, and it was almost all in the North, so it is disingenuous to even imply that Kettle is saying that they were predominately collected in the South.
The only other thing attributed to Kettle is that "$462.5 million" is annually earned by the North in dealing with the South, which of course deducts from the South's earnings from cotton and other exports.
I'm happy to read that you are accepting of Kettle. Here is a link to his book, History of the Great Rebellion. I'm sorry to say that I don't think you'll like most of what he has to write concerning secession and the confederacy. http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/...P6798.0001.001
I don't believe molasses (a replacement for sugar during the war), refined or otherwise, would make up for the disparity here (Used at the rate of 28.3 to 0.7?....Not likely).
According to this post the South purchased ZERO of this item from the North-
Canned, Smoked fish $3 million
Coffee 0 Sugar, Brown Molasses 0
Salt 0
Tea 4 million
Soap & candles 6
paper 7
Cotton Woven Goods 27
Woolen Goods 34
Ready-made clothing 24
Hosiery 4
Hats 7
Shoes 30
Linen Goods 4
Furniture 1
Carpeting 4
Musical instruments 2
Cast Iron Stoves 11
Farm Implements 4
Nails & spikes 2
Bar, sheet & railroad iron 8
Pig Iron 6
Cigars 0
Silk goods 12
TOTAL $200 million http://civilwartalk.com/forums/showt...=19389&page=11
According to this post the item bringing in the highest percentage of revenues from the tariff is...
...you guessed it-
"In FY 1860, the following seven articles brought in 75% of tariff revenues: sugar/molasses.................16.14%
manufactures wool.............15.11%
manufactures cotton..........13.19%
manufacturessilk...............12.03%
manufactures iron/steel.......8.96%
wines/spirits......................6.15%
cigars/tobacco...................3.23%
Total revenues collected......$ 53,979,570"
Thank you for the above post and for mentioning my previous post concerning the items and dollar amounts of said items imported from the North by the South.
You of course realize that the reason some of these items show zero, to include Sugar, Brown Molasses, etc., was due to the fact the South produced these intems locally, that is to say, in the South, and therefore had no need to import it from the North, or for that matter import it from outside the country, and therefore, would pay NO tariff on said item.
So again, if I may ask, what is your point? How did the tariff induce the South to consider unilateral secession, rebellion and war, death and destruction, for $1.94, collected from each free white male across the ENTIRE United States?
You generate facts and figures as though they can stand on their own to prove the unproven statement that the South paid 80% of the tariffs and you do so without weaving them into a case that gives weight to your premise. When in fact, this premise has long been proven not to be the case.
As to the idea that the enactment of the Morril Tariff was somehow the last straw in a series of tariff abuses and outrages upon the South, one only has to go the Congressional Globe web site, seek out each Tariff Bill, the dates when they went into effect, review it's stated rates, and one cannot help but come to the conclusion that this too is an idea that is 'bankrupt' for want of a better word.
Even that most rabid of secessionist states, South Carolina, REJECTED the idea that the tariff was what brought them to a state of rebellion. Even the father of marxism knew it was not about free-trade or the tariff. The Vice President of the Confederacy itself, knew the tariff was not the cause of unrest between the North and the South, and said so to the point he convinced the Georgia assembly in his reply to Senator Toombs.
The paper trail is there. It is just that one has to get past one's own cherished, oft-repaeated, myths to read it what it says.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Quoted from a speech by Hon. F.F. Perry, SC, House of Representatives, Dec. 11, 1850:
"In many instances of the highest importance and greatest moment, the policy of the United States has been in favor of the South and under the control of the South. ...I remember to have heard Mr. Calhoun say, not many years before his death, that the South always had, and always would control the Government when united. This is abundantly shown in our past history. Since the formation of the Federal Government, the Southern States have given to the Union, nine Presidents out of thirteen, and have had a very large proportion of all the Federal offices. Three fourths of this time the South have been in power, and have had control of the Government...."
Concerning expenditures of federal monies from the tariff he goes on to say:
"Lighthouses: More money spent on them in the South than the North. The majority of the money from the North to the South."
"Fortifications: The North has longer borders and coastline. Expenditures for the South including current projects, $19,215,266. Expenditures for the North - $8,749,897. Eighty percent of the money from the North."
"Before concluding, I must briefly allude to one other cause of uneasiness. It has been said that the people of the North make money out of the commerce of the country. It is this put down among the list of grievances. But is the North to blame for that? The question is briefly answered by a writer in De Bow's commercial Review, a work of high authority and standing at the South. Hear him:
The ships of the North come to our shores laden with rich stores from all quarters of the globe - silks and teas from china, coffee from Brazil, the manufactures of England, France, the spice of Sumatra, the gold of California. For almost every article of necessity and luxury we use from foreign countries we are indebted to Northern enterprise, to which we annually pay a large tribute, the immense profits of which might secure to ourselves had we the enterprise and energy to enter the field. Will any man of sense pretend to say that there is any action of the General Government to prevent a merchant of Charleston, Savannah, or New Orleans, from fitting out ships for the whaling business, importing teas from canton, or coffee from Brazil? Are the duties on foreign goods any higher in Charleston than New York? No.
"Sir, the case is well put, and I have only to add that, for the 'tribute' they pay, they receive from the North a valuable consideration, in the services described in this extract. And if they do not think so, they have the same right enjoyed by the citizens of my own State, to become carriers for themselves and the world, to enter into foreign and coast wise trade. And the remark will apply with equal force to every branch of business known to civilization."
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
32nd Congress, 1st session, April 23, 1852. The Hon. E.K. Smart of Maine in the House of Representatives in a speech entitled 'Defense of the North Against the Charge of Aggression Upon the South.' All of the figures used by the Congressman were prepared by the Treasury Department.
Costs of maintaining Washington DC for 70 years born by Tariffs: an average of 2 million per year, given an offset for starting smaller, some 100 million. Given that over 95% of this was paid from Tariffs and that 90% of all Tariffs come from the North, the benefit to the South was over 40 million.
The Government early on collected 12 million in direct taxes. This was dropped because the numbers of slaves counted in the enumeration for Congressional representation was several million, while miraculously the numbers counted in the process of collected taxes was only $393,219.
Under the tariff of 'Abomination' period, $27,000,000 was collected in surplus. The tax was derived by Tariff income per state, but distributed by representation.
The cost of collecting tariffs in the Southern states from 1791 to 1850 was always twice as much per dollar as in the Northern states. Due to the fact the South started out stronger in 1791 financially than she was in 1850, excepting one crop - cotton - the total average collection of taxes from the South was about 23% of the total outlay of the Federal government.
Sample returns from plantations showed that slave consumption of goods (not necessarily imported) equaled about $4.00 per slave per year, including Christmas presents. Given the large proportion of blacks in the South, it is clear why so little money was raised in the South from tariffs.
Post Offices: Post offices in the Northern states typically ran a profit, those in the South a loss on average of $600,000 per year on a consistent basis. The profit from the North covered this loss.
Acquisition of Territory: Total Federal payments to France, Spain and Texas for land acquisition was $39,000,000, 80% paid from the Northern states. Accrued value to the Southern states (non-taxable) of this territory was $435,000,000 (Louisiana, Texas, Missouri and Arkansas). To the North, $40,000,000 (Iowa and California [in 1852]). Of these lands, sales of land in the North brought in $30,000,000 more than sales of land in the South.
Of lands acquired by Federal funds, a percentage was given out to railroads and other usage. The South received 54,000 more acres free than the North. In the 1852 session, the Southern controlled Federal government had scheduled handouts of public lands to the South at a rate five times that of the North.
Mint Operations: One mint in the North, three in the South. The cost of minting coins in the North per coin was 1/3 the cost of minting coins in the South.
Seems like the debate over who got what from the tariff has been going on for a long time.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Thank you for the above post and for mentioning my previous post concerning the items and dollar amounts of said items imported from the North by the South.
You of course realize that the reason some of these items show zero, to include Sugar, Brown Molasses, etc., was due to the fact the South produced these intems locally, that is to say, in the South, and therefore had no need to import it from the North, or for that matter import it from outside the country, and therefore, would pay NO tariff on said item.
So again, if I may ask, what is your point? .....
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Sugar, Molasses, etc., is from Sugar Cane.
You don't put Sugar Cane in your coffee.
*
How much Sugar and Molasses does the South produce (the finished product)?
The answer is provided in my post- 0.7% of the entire production of the United States.
Companies and Persons Employed in the Manufacture of Refined Sugar
Region..............Companies...Employees
New England...............3...........310
Middle......................19..........1964
Western.....................4...........299
Pacific........................1...........120
Total........................27.........2693
Southern....................2.............38
(molasses had 2 companies with 21 employees)
2693 to 38!
*
It appears that the tariff on Sugar helped the North far more than the South.
*
"Almost all of the sugar grown in the United States during the antebellum period came from Louisiana. Louisiana produced from one-quarter to one-half of all sugar consumed in the United States. In any given year the combined crop of other sugar-producing states in the South was less than five percent of that of Louisiana....
Most Louisiana sugar was exported by sea to Atlantic ports and upriver to western states. Louisianians refined very little white sugar prior to the Civil War. They consumed some of the local crop in its brown-sugar or molasses form and distilled it into rum and taffia, a cheap grade of rum."
...these less-refined derivatives of sugar cane would be no more readily available in VA, NC, SC, GA, TN, etc...than they would be in IL, IN, IA, OH, etc.
Check your facts. Who produced the sugar cane in the United States? What State? How much?
Louisiana. In fact, in order to protect the profits from its sugar cane crop and the sugar made from it, it was the leader in demanding that a tariff be placed on sugar so that it would not be undercut by overseas suppliers. So in reality, the tariff was more a help to the South in general and Louisiana in particular. So how did this particular item of the tariff harm either the South or Louisiana? This is an easy one, IT DIDN'T.
It even demanded that this tariff be kept in place when it became a part of the Confederacy, so for goodness sake, this one can't fly with all the facts weighing it down.
Yes, the North refined it, it had to as the South did not have the wherewithal to do so. But how does this translate into a financial burden for the South? You still fail to answer this, but keep desperately moving to another stray, random fact or set of statistics that do nothing to prove the idea the tariff was the cause of the war.
When you boil it all down (even the sugar cane) it still comes out to $1.94!
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
