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.
The Southern states were absent from the Union only part of the fiscal year (July 1860-June 1861).
If that part equates to 22% what would be the % if they had been absent the entire year? That 22% may have zoomed up to over 50.
United States Imports........Millions of $
Year........Total.........Dutiable.........Free
1860.........336.............268..............68
1861.........274.............207..............67
1862.........178.............128..............50
Imports decrease by almost 50% over a two year period
(even with a war going on and the necessity to import more items)
1863.........225.............195..............30
1864.........301.............263..............38
1865.........210.............170..............40
1866.........423.............366..............57
The war is over and imports suddenly increase 100%...
...and remain steady for the remainder of the decade-
1867.........378.............361..............17
1868.........345.............330..............15
1869.........395.............373..............22
1870.........426.............406..............20
All,
Just some recaps:
At Neil's suggestion, I have moved the above discussion here from the Slavery - The Cause? thread. It is argued by Battalion that the flucuations in import levels in the last eight months of FY 1861 can be used to measure the loss of the southern slave-states to the foreign commerce with Europe, and that the reduction shown is alone due to that factor. So, lets look closer at them.
As has been pointed out in posts in the other thread, to examine commerce levels between the years of 1861 and 1865, one must consider the effects of the Civil War on money, credit, and risk, as well as the priorities and surplus cash of citizens to afford dutiable foreign imports.
Its also pointed out that if these above factors are ignored in insistence that drops and rises in import levels only measure the coming and goings of the slave-states, then the near return of FY1864 imports to pre-secession levels and then subsequent drop again the next year disproves the theory, as all confederate states were still out of the Union in 1864. That alone demonstrates that fluctuations in imports are not soley due to the South being in or out of the Union.
Battalion's claim that the 100% rise in imports in 1866 shows that the confederate states have now rejoined the Union is also demonstrated to be false I think by the fact that during the post-war years of reconstruction, the South could be characterized as climbing out of devastation and racked with bankruptcy, not immediately resuming their alleged spending spree with Europe to new, record levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
"Statement exhibiting the receipts from customs....
For quarter ending September 30, 1860 [July-Sept].....$16,119,831.22
For month of October, 1860......................................3,716,54 8.72
Total [for July thru Oct 1860].................................$19,836,379.94 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage....db&recNum=899
(third column, bottom of page)
hit the "Higher Quality Image (TIFF - 215K)" button for larger image
Total for Fiscal Year 1 July 1860- 30 June 1861...........$39,553,819.81
The above statistics show that $19.8 million in imports during the first four months of FY 1861 are followed by $19.7 million for the remaining eight months of FY1860, and are used by Battalion to show a correlation between a decline in imports and secession. The theory relies on an assumption that imports and the duties collected are at a consistent level throughout the year. In fairness to Battalion, he did not group these numbers this way, but was following a speech by Senator Hunter.
If we divide the $16.1 million by the three months (July, August, Sept) of 1860, we get an average of $5.36 million/month. Since only $3.7 million was collected in October, 1860, we can see that the rate of duties collected had already seriously declined from the 1st quarter level. Since October was pre-secession, its clear that factors other than the loss of the southern market were responsible.
Cedarstripper
Last edited by cedarstripper; 01-18-2006 at 11:26 AM.
Battalion's apparent claim that secession reduced imports by xxx% is quite suspect and perhaps dismissable. I would like, however, to explore his contentions a little further. His numbers show a far greater decline than I would have expected, given the turmoil, reluctance to ship, cessation of importing luxuries, etc. Is there anything more out there than "extraneous circumstances"? Ole
ole,
One item I will offer for the great jump in imports in 1866 is rail iron. Post-war land grant railroads were required to be built with domestic rail, which drove demand and the price through the roof. The rebuilding of existing raillines could be done with imported rail that was not in short supply. I think 1866 saw a sharp increase in imported rail iron which lasted until domestic manufacturing capacity could catch up to demand.
I disagree with Battalion's assertion that war needs would cause an increase in foreign dutiable imports. I see no reason for sugar consumption to increase during war, nor manufactures of wool, cotton or silk. If the war department did have to import any manufactures for uniforms, etc. I suspect that these orders would have entered duty free. Many of you here may know whether there was a need to import arms or the iron to domestically manufacture them. But again, I must suspect that those orders entered duty free, or drawbacks of duties were given on materials for government orders.
Imported cigars and tobacco products may have needed to increase during the war years, but I see no reason for it. If more booze was consumed during the war years, I doubt it was imported from France.
That covers the seven articles responsible for about 80% of import duties.
Thankyou for moving your tariff responses to this thread. I think it will contribute to it and preserve it in the right area.
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
Cedarstripper, this is the response to the last message you left to me in the "Slavery" thread.
Quote, Cedarstripper:
"Rose,
I'm not sure where I ever would have written that. For 1859, only $3,135,433 was collected from Custom-houses in what would become the confederacy. In FY 1860, only $52.7 million was collected nation-wide. The recollections of Baldwin do not make a lot of sense.
While Baldwin was described as a Unionist, it is noteworthy that he went on to vote for secession, accepted a commission in the confederate army, held a seat in the confederate congress throughout the war, and was said to consistently object to unionism in congress as much as any other southerner."
You are correct. I am mistaken and I picked up some incorrect figures. My apologies. Lincoln was referring to all tariff collections when he was speaking to Baldwin, which does make sense, because if the Southern states left the Union not only would the tariff collections in the South be lost, the duties in the North would decrease with the loss of Southern markets.
There were many Unionists that chose the path of their Southern homeland. Lee was one, also. I don't think this makes Baldwin a liar and I don't believe Southerners objected to "Unionism" so much as they objected to the type of Union they were living in, or under, to put it more accurately.
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
Rose, to put a finer point on a dead horse: implicit in the "where will the government get it's revenue" type statements is the realistic anticipation that if southern ports didn't collect duties, then it would be unfair (and possibly impossible) to collect duties in northern ports. Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
To put it in a nutshell, I find the theory unimaginable that Lincoln needed to hold on to the gulf states in order to maintain the tariff revenue from their import market. From a purely dollars and cents point of view, it makes no sense at all. Loss of revenue from seceded states would mostly, if not completely, be offset by the reduction in federal expenditures on that section. I realize that statement will set off bells ringing to anyone who is of the impression that expenditures on the free states exceeded their per capita share and/or 80% of revenues originated in the South. But my reading of the history supports neither, and I find I am always in good company.
Regardless, even if the loss of the confederate states had meant a net loss of funds to the Treasury, the cost of even a moderate war would have dwarfed them may times over.
To put it in a nutshell, I find the theory unimaginable that Lincoln needed to hold on to the gulf states in order to maintain the tariff revenue from their import market. From a purely dollars and cents point of view, it makes no sense at all. Loss of revenue from seceded states would mostly, if not completely, be offset by the reduction in federal expenditures on that section. I realize that statement will set off bells ringing to anyone who is of the impression that expenditures on the free states exceeded their per capita share and/or 80% of revenues originated in the South. But my reading of the history supports neither, and I find I am always in good company.
Regardless, even if the loss of the confederate states had meant a net loss of funds to the Treasury, the cost of even a moderate war would have dwarfed them may times over.
Cedarstripper
It wasn't merely the loss of tariff revenue that alarmed Mr. Lincoln, although he wasn't willing to give up any of it. He had made that plain to the Southern states. It was the idea that the Confederate states would establish free trade that had Mr. Lincoln upset. This was alarming to the Northern states and is reflected in newspaper articles of the time.
December 10, 1860, Daily Chicago Times: “In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it is now. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufacturers would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow.”
March 18,1861, The Boston Transcript: "...the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."
I've read other, similar editorials from Northern newspapers. In fact it's odd that some of those newspapers were shouting that the South had every right to secede, but once those two words, "free trade", were spoken Northerners did a fast turnaround.
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
I take it then that you will accept the statements made by the Southern press in their editorials that they spoke for the entire South? Editorials that claimed secession was simply enacted to protect the institution of slavery?
If you need any such Southern editorials, I will be glad to provide them to you.
The True Issue, Richmond Enquirer, March 23, 1861.
"Negro slavery is the South and the South is Negro slavery." Georgia editorial.
"...our ideal is a proslavery republic." Augusta Daily Constitution editorial.
I have always found it strange that President Lincoln makes one mention of the tariff and it's collection in his first inaugural speech, and the rest of his speech is ignored. As it must be by those who insist that the war was brought on for any other reason than slavery and the South's desire to spread and protect that instition at all costs. It is strange to me how so much evidence can be willfully ignored to present such a case, not based on historical fact or documents or the numerous facts and figures presented from historical collections that prove the tariff had no impact on the war's cause.
All it takes is the empassioned, sincere belief in a dead cause that brought forth such death and destruction for such a shameful and evil purpose. I suppose it could be a sincere desire to protect one's ancestors or to bring peace of mind to their present-day decendents.
But it requires real effort to subvert one's mind and it's ability to reason and come to correct and honest conclusions to suppose this war was fought over something as minor as a tariff that had hardly any impact on the nation's citizens.
The greater impact, the debate, the passion and feelings of the time, the one issue that confronted and tore a nation apart was not tariffs collected in any port, but the desire to keep human beings in bondage for profit. Let the men who advocated secession speak for themselves, without filters, without excuses, as they felt they needed no excuse for the course of action they took to defend that institution. I take them for honest men, wrong in their convictions, but honest in their desire to proclaim their actions to the world. They have spoken.
We should listen.
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
It wasn't merely the loss of tariff revenue that alarmed Mr. Lincoln, although he wasn't willing to give up any of it. He had made that plain to the Southern states.
If you base this statement on his inaugural address, I think you, at the very least, misinterpret the statement in denial of its intent and the addresse's content, to declare that secession was considered illegal and that Lincoln would not capitulate, but would uphold the authority of the presidency, the federal government, and the Constitution.
Quote:
December 10, 1860, Daily Chicago Times: “In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it is now. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufacturers would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow.”
If you think this writer's opinions accurately predicted conditions, then I ask you how much of it came true? It is an op-ed. They come in all colors. Cherry-picking out a couple that seem to work is a weak way to support "what alarmed Lincoln." If a "free-trade zone" in the South would be a ruin to commerce in the North, then why did this writer in Chicago not worry about the "free-trade zone" that already existed in Canada?
Quote:
March 18,1861, The Boston Transcript: "...the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."
I have developed a natural distrust of quotes that only show up in the exact same edited form. They are begging to be taken out of context.
Quote:
I've read other, similar editorials from Northern newspapers. In fact it's odd that some of those newspapers were shouting that the South had every right to secede, but once those two words, "free trade", were spoken Northerners did a fast turnaround.
Tell me, did you search out these editorials from northern newspapers yourself, or were they searched out, edited, compiled and packaged for your consumption by others with an agenda? I have no doubt that had you scrolled through the editorials of these papers, you would also have been equally impressed by opinions charging treason to the traitorous rebels and the destruction of the union over the negro. Certainly they are part of the picture, but I take little stock in the use of them to accurately determine policy or a section's attitudes.
Rose, to put a finer point on a dead horse: implicit in the "where will the government get it's revenue" type statements is the realistic anticipation that if southern ports didn't collect duties, then it would be unfair (and possibly impossible) to collect duties in northern ports. Ole
That's an excellent point, Ole. But, remember the rest of the states were still operating under the Federal Governement as the United States of A. Should they refuse to collect taxes for their government it would be a rebellion. The Southern states claimed to no longer be a part of the Union, therefore, not subject to the laws of the Federal Government.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
