Federal expenditures 1789-1860

[unionblue]

MobileBoy,

As I have stated before in other posts, timing is everything.

From the book, The Road To Disunion, by William W. Freehling:

The familiar majority then secured the latest and most notorious pro-southern law. Slaveholding states stood 71-11 for the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and Norhtern Democracts voted 42-39 with the South. As usual, Lower Northern Democrats voted strongest the southern way, 28-17. Upper North Democrats voted by a 50-0 count. In all, the free labor states opposed Douglas, 89-42. The Kansas-Nebraska Bill passed, 113-100, even though two-thirds of the majority section voted nay, because seven-eighths of the minority section and half the Northern Democrats voted aye.

The Slavepower's extra representatives aided Northern Democrats in securing the minority's legislation. Because every five slaves counted as three votes in apportining House representatives, Southerners received 19 more seats than a one-white-man, one-vote egalitarian republic would have provided. The Slavepower needed a third of those extra votes to pass Kansas-Nebraska. Anti-Nebraska forces had yet another reason to denounce the rape of republicanism.

The three-fifths clause had only occasionally been such a crucial factor in national decisions. But on some occasions, like this one, it had a devastating effect. The three-fifths clause had probably made Jefferson rather than John Adams President in 1800. The Slavepower's extra house seats had enabled William Cost Johnston's ultra gag rule to pass. The three-fifths clause had stopped the Tallmadge Amendments in Missouri Controversy times. Now, irony had been piled on irony in the tale of James Tallmadge, Jr. The three-fifths clause, having secured the Missouri Compromise and thus blocked post-nati emancipation in Missouri, had now helped make the Missouri Compromise inoperative and thus perhaps consolidate Missouri's uneasy Slavepower.

And I do not have my facts or history incorrect, but again I am merely repeating the words of the Southern leadership of the times.

Too many times in the period before the Civil War the South pretty much had its own way on the national stage and with the federal government. How else does one explain the repeal of the Missouri Compromise? The new and improved Fugative Slave Law? The Gag Order in Congress? Why wasn't the Wilmont Proviso enacted? Why wasn't slavery abolished in Washington D.C. when it was proposed in Congress before the Civil War?

As for your contentions concerning territory taken from Mexico, are you sure about all of the conditions, adjustments, and terms finally decided on in Congress and the federal government, the compromises mades on slavery for those areas? The South did not come out as badly as you assume.

As for my slavery obsession clouding my clouding my judgement, I sometimes worry at the lack of slavery being an issue being a concern for others. But that is only my opinion and worth just about as much as anyone elses. As for the last five presidents being from the southern section of the United States serving in our lifetimes, that has what to do with the issues and conditions during the Civil War? Zero, again in my own opinion. In fact, I have voted for the majority of them in my own lifetime.

You are right that I have not been to Mardi Gras in New Orleans, although I have traveled there. As to what point you are trying to make again it has little to do with the idea that the South pretty much controled the federal government before the election of Lincoln. Again, the Southern leadership of the time believed it, said it, and even proclaimed it. Please argue with their conclusions by presenting why they are wrong. I'm just passing their views along to the rest of the board in general, Mr. Taylor in particular.

I have traveled outside the State of Ohio and realize it is not the beginning and end of the known world, and trust me, there are people right here in Ohio that do not ascribe to my views, social, personal, historical, or political.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by elektratig

JTC,

Thanks for the interesting analysis.

Were Southerners actually looking at expenditures in these ways and concluding that they were unfair? My understanding was that the principal southern financial complaint concerned protective tariffs, because the protected industries were largely or exclusively in the North. Since southern industry did not benefit, protective tariffs amounted simply to a tax on southern consumers with no offsetting benefits.

That is part of it. There were two sides to the equation. One side is how much money the Federal government receives in the form of taxes/tariffs. The other is what the Federal Government spends that money on. And, yes, some Southerners were looking at Federal expenditures this way.

Originally Posted by elektratig

I don't recall reading about separate complaints that the resulting revenues were spent in a regionally unfair manner. The Democrats, of course, generally sought to keep expenditures low, both as a constitutional and philosophical matter an in order to eliminate the Federal debt, but again I didn't see that as based on a strictly sectional analysis of where the funds were being spent. Similarly, I recall SC's position on distribution of the proceeds of public land sales, but I thought they perceived that as related to the tariff -- if the proceeds are distributed, then Henry Clay and his ilk will simply have an excuse to raise (or at least not reduce) tariffs.

Strict construction of Federal powers was a major tenet of Democratic ideology. Let me provides some cases.
On May 4, 1822, President Monroe vetoed a bill to repair the Cumberland road, stating: Having duly considered the bill, entitled "An Act for the Preservation and Repair of the Cumberland Road," it is with deep regret, approving as I do the policy, that I am compelled to object to its passage, and to return it to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, under a conviction that Congress do not possess the power, under the Constitution, to pass such a law.
In the Senate, May, 1824, while the Senate was debating the Dismal Swamp Canal, Martin van Buren said he would not vote for the bill, for he did not believe that this government possessed the constitutional power to make these canals, or to grant money to make them.
On the other hand, Andy Jackson, the alleged fiscal tightwad, each year he was in the White House, spent nearly twice what the alleged spendthrift J Q Adams spent annually on internal improvements.
Muscoe Garnett, in a pamphlet titled The Union Past and Future in 1850, alleged that the Union was a mechanism that transferred money from the South to the North in the form of military pensions, and even the postal service (9599 postmasters in the North to 5664 in the South in 1847). Bigham of Michigan countered the assertion.
There some complaining as well as a bit of exaggeration by the complainers.
For example, in 1846, William Lowndes Yancey compared forts north and south (both already built and those recently proposed by the Secretary of War) and declared that there was an imbalance. North of Baltimore,
$21,543,201 had been (or would be) spent on fortifications and that there were 6762 guns, whereas south of Baltimore, the Federal government had spent (or would spend)
$10,293,675 and there were 3534 guns mounted.
Van Deusen did some additional research and Yancey counted Delaware as a Northern State and had not counted works recently completed, nor did he count anything facing the Gulf of Mexico. The corrected numbers were:
$19,640,130 & 6834 guns for the North,
$17,894,269 & 4486 guns for the South.
Still an imbalance, but much less of one than Yancey claimed.
Robert Barnwell Rhett had done a similar thing when he declared the internal improvements imbalance to be $10 million, when in fact the real number was $2.3 million ($8 million north and $5.7 million south).
That said, of $2.8 million spent on harbor improvements up to 1850, none of it had been spent in the South. (Globe, 29th Congress, 1st Session, app. Pg. 450) Now, the construction of many Southenrers was strict enough that they believed that dredging Boston harbor (and Charleston, too, for that matter) was the responsibility of Massachusetts and South Carolina. It is not an enumerated Federal power, and the States are by no means forbidden to do it. Thus it is a State responsibility.

Originally Posted by elektratig

Your observation that Democrats may have been less adept at bringing in what we would now call pork barrel projects for their constituents makes logical sense. It would be a little awkward for a congressman, having taken the position that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to fund a Maysville Road-type project, to turn around and push a similar project in his own district. I wonder whether the data bears out the hypothesis?

20th century conservative Republicans had the same problem. They proposed decreasing (or at least proposed slowing the increases) in Federal spending. Philosophically, to run on a platform of “We won’t do anything” against a party that makes promises of positive actions (“If you elect us, we’ll do this and this and this.”) is difficult, to say the least. It reminds me of the anecdote of Lincoln sending Little Mac a message that, if he wasn’t going to use the Army of the Potomac, Lincoln would like to borrow it for a while. The same applies to an strict constructionist Federal Government. The activist party says, in effect, that if the strict constructionist party doesn’t want to use the Federal government, the activists would like to borrow it for a while.

Finally, I'd like to thank cedarstripper for posting the Federal expenditures of 1856. A lot of work, and greatly appreciated. (sorry, samgrant)

[JohnTaylor]

Neil,
It is nice that Leonard L. Richards has written a book. I hope the following will deal with what seems to be his thesis. Wherever the historical record (and sound reasoning) differ from Richards’ thesis, I will side with the historical record.

In cedarstripper’s original post that generated this sub-thread, cedarstripper said, “On a macro level, the White House was inhabited by southerners or doughface Democrats (Pierce, Buchanan) for virtually the entire period until 1861, and the Southern states held ample power in Congress. Why would there be a gross imbalance?”
To which I stated “Southerners did not control Congress for most of the antebellum period, Democrats did for the bulk of that time.”

Originally Posted by unionblue

John Taylor,

With respect, you are incorrect when you state the South did not have control of the federal government. While we may disagree on the exact moment the South began to lose control of the federal government, there is much evidence the South did not agree with your own assesment.

[snip for brevity]
John, it has been pretty much established that due to increases in population, the House of Representatives had more Congressmen from the North than the South, but this fails to take in the fact of which parties they represented. The House had many 'doughfaces' men who owed their support to the Democratic Party, which was the primary vehicle for the South and its political agenda. We should also take into account the 'three-fifths' rule, which gave Southern representation in federal government a huge leg up for some time in the House.

The Senate, the office of President, and the Supreme Court were under the sway of the South, right up until the time of the election of Lincoln. So no, I do not tend to accept any argument that the South did not have control of the federal government.

It was only with the split of the Democratic party at the convention of 1860 did anyone besides a Southerner have a shot at the White House. And it was only because of secession did the Republican party gain a clear majority in the Senate and House.

Just doesn't fly with me, John.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Inherent in your argument is the idea that Northern Democrats (and Northern Whigs for that matter) were stupid, venal or both, and acted against their best interests up until the time when they discovered self-reliance and virtue in 1854.

The only way that Southerners wielded influence at the national level was to develop workable national political coalitions beyond just the South. If the South had developed some sectional policy that was opposed by every Northerner, Southerners would not have controlled anything at the national level. They had to adopt policies that most (or at least a significant minority of) Northerners supported for their policies to hold any sway at national level. Southerners as a group were generally successful in crafting policies that fostered nation-wide political coalitions. That involved the give and take of domestic politics. Southerners had to give on some issues and they gained in others. The Tariff of Abominations and the Tariff of 1833 were cases in point. Federal expenditures were an annual struggle of give and take. The South gave in on some issues and won on others, sometimes within the same bill. Now, if that is your definition of “controlling the Federal Government,” then we might be in violent agreement. The topic of this thread is Federal expenditures, and whether there was any sectional imbalance. It appears to me that there wasn’t much of one in the aggregate, although in some particular issues, or timeframes (e.g. internal improvements appropriations for the period 1838-1850), there may have been.

Now back to your assertion. Fast forward to 1860. Southerners found out that they had a political opponent that could form a ruling political coalition that included no one in the South. That meant that the Republicans did not have to moderate their policies to gain any Southern voters. Some Northern Democrats had weakened and even gone over to nearly the Republican position on issues such as the Territories and tariffs. What is more, the Republican’s spokesman in Congress had declared that he would answer to a “higher law” than the Constitution. A reasonable man might look at that statement and conclude that the restrictions that the Constitution places on the majority for the protection of the minority might not mean much in the hands of a party guided by that principle. What it meant was abundantly clear to Southerners who looked at the personal liberty laws of Northern States, and Republican prior knowledge and aid of the Harper’s Ferry invasion and post-facto protection of its perpetrators, etc.
Respectfully,
JT

[MobileBoy]

Neil,
I do like that book though I don't agree with everything asserted within its pages.I don't like Freeling's writing style to much though.What about you?I see only strong influence where you see control and that is where we differ here.Have a good one.

[matthew mckeon]

Dear JT,
Great post.
In your last paragraph, you state "prior republican knowledge and aid of" (Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry). Which republican do you mean? Lincoln? Seward? Chase? Edward Bates?

I just finished Reynolds' book on John Brown(thesis: he was a great guy! Really!). He makes the point that the Republicans didn't have prior knowledge of the raid, and universally disavowed it. The Democrats, both North and South attempted to paint the "Black Republicans" as bogeyman for political purposes. Guys like Yancey had been calling for secession for a long time and eagerly seized on the raid as a tool to stoke racial fear. But it wasn't reality.

[cedarstripper]

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

The South had parity in the number of senators until the sectional balance was broken in 1850. The South never controlled the House of Representatives, not even at the inauguration of the Congress under the Constitution in 1789. Check the original allocations of Representatives in the Constitution, and you’ll see that this is the case.

In these discussions, the division is usually drawn between "the North" and "the South". But when not hung up over issues like slavery in the territories, the political entities at play during the first half of the 19th century look like they might better be defined as New England vs the rest of the nation. "The South" vs "the North" may not be the best way to look at things. The southern states as often as not shared interests and votes with the MidAtlantic and Midwest states, but I think more importantly, they enjoyed a solidarity between themselves that the New England states did not develop with New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, or any of the Midwest states. It would take a Fugitive Slave Act and a Kansas to develop it.

As for the office of President......,

If feeling that you were a hopeless minority was cause to secede, Massachusetts should have walked long ago. If she had had her way, we wouldn't have had Presidents Jefferson or Jackson, but we would have had Presidents Pickney, Clinton, King, Webster, Clay, Scott and Fremont. On only one occasion did she pick a president that was not carried in the South - John Adams in 1796. From there till Lincoln, no president was elected who didn't carry the southern vote. Northern states lost the contest with some regularity. For most of New England the choice was simple - you either were in agreement with the South on the candidate....or you lost the election. Talk about ineffective.

I leave out the election of 1824 only because it was atypical. Although JQ Adams became president, Jackson and the South lead with both popular and electoral votes. It brings up the fact though that the ineffectiveness of the South was not all that great in 1860. Had the Democrats not split into three candidates, or had the Alabama platform not been so extreme, its quite likely that the 1860 election would have gone to the House and Lincoln would have gone home to Illinois.

As I think you have shown with your notings of state voting records, what struck me about state voting for president was the apparent absence of sectionalism along free state/slave state lines. But while there seems to have been little of this polarity, it appears undeniable that the South always got there man, the MidAtlantic and West less often, and New England hardly ever........'till 1860.

Cedarstripper

[cedarstripper]

Originally Posted by unionblue

I have traveled outside the State of Ohio and realize it is not the beginning and end of the known world, and trust me, there are people right here in Ohio that do not ascribe to my views, social, personal, historical, or political.

I was in Columbus a couple of weeks ago and this weekend in Cleveland (volleyball tournaments). Nice state. I've recommended it to my daughter graduating from college this spring, after she hopefully gets NYC out of her system.

Cedarstripper

[edit] forgive me for being off topic

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

Dear JT,
Great post.
In your last paragraph, you state "prior republican knowledge and aid of" (Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry). Which republican do you mean? Lincoln? Seward? Chase? Edward Bates?

Lincoln was a moderate, and knew nothing of Harper's Ferry prior to the attack, and condemned it, albeit in qualified terms, after the fact. Seward, Chase and Bates also had no prior knowledge as far as I know, and, I believe, also condemned the act.
Folks like Joshua Giddings, Samuel Gridley Howe, Frank Sanborn, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Theodore Parker, George Luther Stearns, and even Frederick Douglass were certainly Republicans, although not in office at the time. They all knew that the weapons they funded were going to Brown's hands, and had at least vague ideas of what he proposed to do with them. Douglass, for one, had very specific prior knowledge about what Brown was going to do at Harper's Ferry, and tried to talk him out of it, but failed to alert any law enforcement officials. Others backpeddled, left the country, checked into insane asylums or covered their tracks/burned their correspondence once the scheme failed.
As for Republican office-holders, Henry Wilson, Senator from Massachusetts testified before the Mason Committee, that Forbes had warned him that Brown was going to use the weapons for illegal purposes, but warned no law enforcement officials. He wrote a letter to Samuel Gridley Howe about it. I will post excerpts from his testimony on a separate thread along with portions of George Luther Stearns'.

[whitworth]

Those were the expenditures in the billions of dollars that the United States spent to maintain the Civil War.
It even overwhelmed Robert E. Lee, in its scope.