Money; THE Cause?

[cash]

Reluctance? -This is the best you can come up with? Laughable.

Your position is most certainly laughable.

Goods will be sent where there is demand and payment for them (a market).

Not when the potential for loss of the goods is perceived as greater than the potential gain.

"a country at war with itself"

For much of this period this was no war going on (Jan 1-Apr 12) and for the rest no major battles except for Bull Run.

Those who are intellectually honest will realize that the world was aware of the Fort Sumter situation, which existed since late December of the previous year. Thus, the world was aware that war was a very real and imminent possibility. The world was aware that the Star of the West was fired on in January.

Those who are intellectually honest will realize that 1 Jan 1861 to 12 Apr 1861 was 102 days, which is just under 28% of the year, which is not "much" of the year.

Those who are intellectually honest will realize that the frequency of land battles has nothing to do with actions of privateers.

Regards,
Cash

[trice]

In 1861 there is a 70% decrease in items imported for immediate consumption from the previous year and a significant increase of warehoused items ($14.4 mil over $5.8 mil) not having a market.

With numbers like these it is very conceivable that the South, with 30% of the population, paid upward of 70% of the tariff.

Or it may simply be that -- due to factors uniquely caused by Southern secession and war -- buying patterns changed. For example, immigration fell way off in 1861 so you would expect a huge drop in purchases by those people. With husbands, brothers, and sons off to the war, American families would have cut back on all sorts of expenses from new plows to suits of clothes.

Also, of course, mammoth amounts of money were now being spent to arm and equip the forces being raised. The nations of Europe were sweeping all the old weapons out of their arsenals because those crazy Americans were paying ridiculous amounts for arms, often bidding against one another (not only North vs. South but northerners against northerners and southerners against southerners). Certainly spending changed, as would only be expected. But that has no obvious relationship to your claim about the tariff. Can you show us some connection? Or is this merely something you would like to claim?

Tim

[Battalion]

Those who are intellectually honest will realize that 1 Jan 1861 to 12 Apr 1861 was 102 days, which is just under 28% of the year, which is not "much" of the year.

It was a SEVEN month period: 1 Jan-31 July 1861.

Those who are intellectually honest will realize that the frequency of land battles has nothing to do with actions of privateers.

Regards,
Cash

Confederate privateers were not on the scene until the latter part of May 1861.
The privateer act had no effect on foreign ships carrying goods to the US.

[OpnDownfall]

Entrepreneaurs, are quick to nose out opportunities from changing markets or political climates; good, solid, sober business men, tend to hold off putting their wares in harms way, even potential harm. The two types of businessmen are usually not one in the same.

[cash]

It was a SEVEN month period: 1 Jan-31 July 1861.

Those who know their history will know that the war started with the firing on Fort Sumter.

Confederate privateers were not on the scene until the latter part of May 1861.

Those who know anything about it will know the confederacy didn't share its sailing schedules with other political entities.

The privateer act had no effect on foreign ships carrying goods to the US.

Factually false.

Regards,
Cash

[trice]

Confederate privateers were not on the scene until the latter part of May 1861.

Jeff Davis called for applications for Privateers on April 17, 1861. At least four ships from Georgia applied that month; Gallatin and Hallie Jackson were the first two, on April 18, 1861.

Gallatin had been a US Revenue Cutter seized by secessionists when Georgia seceded. Built at the NY Navy Yard in 1831, with a crew of forty and 2-12lbers.

Hallie Jackson was out of Savannah, built in 1860, and captured by USS Union on June 10, 1861.

The Triton (owned by a group in Brunswick, GA) had a crew of 20 and a single gun. Also applied in April.

The Lamar was out of Savannah with a crew of 35 and a single 12-lber; applied April 30.

Schooner Savannah out of Charleston was commissioned May 18, captured the sugar-carrying brig Joseph on June 3, and captured by the USS Perry the same day. Savannah was purchased into the Navy from the Prize Court July 2 and became the USS Choptank in the Potomac Flotilla.

Steamship Joseph Landis out of New Orleans (100 men, 2 guns) applied for a letter of marque on April 22nd, 1861. There were many others out of Mobile and the Texas coast and New Orleans.

Obviously Confederates were preparing privateers for raids on commerce by April 18th, 1861. The above does not include any vessels sailing under authorization from the states -- or just on their owners enthusiasm. In all, 33 of the 52 Confederate Letters Of Marque for privateers were issued in 1861.

Note well: all 23 ships captured by Confederate privateers were captured in 1861. Only 8 of the privateers actually made a capture. There wasn't much of a practical effect from this, but what there was occurred in 1861.

The privateer act had no effect on foreign ships carrying goods to the US.

ROFL. While the Confederate law was relatively scrupulous about the rights of neutrals, neutral ships could be stopped and contraband property aboard neutral ships could be seized. The privateer got to keep 95% of his prize value.

But what does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread?

Tim

[Battalion]

Jeff Davis called for applications for Privateers on April 17, 1861. At least four ships from Georgia applied that month; Gallatin and Hallie Jackson were the first two, on April 18, 1861.

The Triton (owned by a group in Brunswick, GA) had a crew of 20 and a single gun. Also applied in April.

Key word- "applied"

Schooner Savannah out of Charleston was commissioned May 18, captured the sugar-carrying brig Joseph on June 3, and captured by the USS Perry the same day. Savannah was purchased into the Navy from the Prize Court July 2 and became the USS Choptank in the Potomac Flotilla.

Steamship Joseph Landis out of New Orleans (100 men, 2 guns) applied for a letter of marque on April 22nd, 1861. There were many others out of Mobile and the Texas coast and New Orleans.

Obviously Confederates were preparing privateers for raids on commerce by April 18th, 1861.

Instructions for these privateers were not issued until 6 May 1861.

The first ship commissioned under the privateering act appears to be the Triton (10 May 1861). Four more ships were commissioned 16 May 1861.
The first captures were in the latter part of May 1861.

My statement was correct.

ROFL. While the Confederate law was relatively scrupulous about the rights of neutrals, neutral ships could be stopped and contraband property aboard neutral ships could be seized...

Tim

"Could be"...but name one that was....

[trice]

Key word- "applied"

Uh-huh. Just as I said. What's your problem with that? They sent in their applications and started preparations for being privateers, visions of glory and fortune in their heads, no doubt.

Instructions for these privateers were not issued until 6 May 1861.

So? Preparations to go to sea with the privateers started in April. No one was sitting around whistling, waiting for the Confederate Congress to act. Everyone understood the passage of the act would be a formality with the war started.

The reason for the delay between Davis' call for applications and the passage of the law is, I would say, that Virginia had seceded and the Confederate Congress was moving from Montgomery, AL to Richmond, VA. If they hadn't moved, they probably would have passed it as soon as Davis asked them for it. He did ask on April 29th, because he wasn't entirely sure if he had the power and authority to issue such a call for privateers and thought a specific law should be passed to define it.

The first ship commissioned under the privateering act appears to be the Triton (10 May 1861). Four more ships were commissioned 16 May 1861.

First Letter of Marque was issued to the Savannah out of Charleston. She left harbor a little later, but captured the first prize and then was in turn captured by a US vessel the same day.

The first captures were in the latter part of May 1861.

My statement was correct.

So? The effect of Davis April 17 announcement is immediate: he has applications in hand the next day. News is probably reported in the North within a day or two, which means shippers have to take potential privateer attacks into account immediately, and insurance rates change. All this is caused by Davis' call for privateers, not by the passing of the legislation.

ROFL. While the Confederate law was relatively scrupulous about the rights of neutrals, neutral ships could be stopped and contraband property aboard neutral ships could be seized. The privateer got to keep 95% of his prize value.

"Could be"...but name one that was....

That is what the Confederate law allows. The problem is that the Confederate privateers were singularly inept as these things go. For example:

-- Of the 52 ships commissioned during the war, only 8 actually captured a prize.

-- Of the 52 ships commissioned during the war (33 in 1861), 9 met disaster and found a watery grave. Others were captured by US ships.

-- For the entire war, only 23 prizes were taken. ALL of them were taken in 1861. None were taken in the rest of the war. (May: 4, July: 12, August: 4, October: 3). Realistically, the first few months after the war started are the only period where real privateers had any impact.

But on money: the Confederates decided they could make more money running the blockade. Most privateers were sailing ships, and no steamships at all received Letters of Marque in 1864 or 1865 (6 sailing ships were). Is this the money motive you are trying to point out here?

Tim

[hawglips]

What are you talking about?

The statements by Cash were false-

"They mention it by saying it had been solved. They never mention it as a cause for secession, merely as a problem in the past that had been resolved."

Why can you not concede such an obvious falsehood?

[cash]

Those who know the history of this time period will know that it's not false. Those whose knowledge of the history of this time period is lacking may be confused.

Regards,
Cash

[Battalion]

59) "...We are prepared...to sustain you and your Administration in every measure, however extreme, for the suppression of this untoward rebellion and for the punishment of the treason....

...It is a matter of absolute necessity, not only for the Northern border States but for all the Northwestern States, to be able to control the business and commerce of the Ohio River and the Upper Mississippi in order to reach a vital part of this rebellion....

...The Mississippi and the Ohio Rivers must be kept at all times open to the legitimate commerce and business of the Northwest. The vast lumber and mineral interests of Wisconsin, independent of her commanding produce and stock trade, bind her fast to the North border States, and demand, like them, the free navigation of the Mississippi and all its tributaries from the highest navigable waters to their mouths.
It requires but slight knowledge of the country and of the character of the States to see all this...."

Alex. W. Randall, Governor of Wisconsin, to Abraham Lincoln, 6 May 1861

"....We can see a necessity for action now, not only for the safety of the General Government, but for the safety of the Union, men of the south border States, and of the northern border States, and also for our own interests in the way of our large trade and commerce upon the Mississippi and its tributaries. The common interests of all the north-west, must have a common protection, and in crushing out this wicked rebellion, the north-western States must make common cause with the Federal Government...."

Gov. Randall, message to Wisconsin Legislature, 15 May 1861

[ole]

Gov. Randall, message to Wisconsin Legislature, 15 May 1861

Am at a bit of a loss how this relates to "Money; the Cause," as the war had commenced in April. This would appear to be a reaction to, rather than a cause of, war.

And, Governor Randall is not reacting to a loss of income leached off Confederate wealth, but to a loss of income because of potential interference with it's eastern and international markets.

Nothing in the governor's message would indicate that money was a cause of the Rebellion.

ole

[trice]

59) "...We are prepared...to sustain you and your Administration in every measure, however extreme, for the suppression of this untoward rebellion and for the punishment of the treason....

...It is a matter of absolute necessity, not only for the Northern border States but for all the Northwestern States, to be able to control the business and commerce of the Ohio River and the Upper Mississippi in order to reach a vital part of this rebellion....

...The Mississippi and the Ohio Rivers must be kept at all times open to the legitimate commerce and business of the Northwest. The vast lumber and mineral interests of Wisconsin, independent of her commanding produce and stock trade, bind her fast to the North border States, and demand, like them, the free navigation of the Mississippi and all its tributaries from the highest navigable waters to their mouths.
It requires but slight knowledge of the country and of the character of the States to see all this...."

Alex. W. Randall, Governor of Wisconsin, to Abraham Lincoln, 6 May 1861

"....We can see a necessity for action now, not only for the safety of the General Government, but for the safety of the Union, men of the south border States, and of the northern border States, and also for our own interests in the way of our large trade and commerce upon the Mississippi and its tributaries. The common interests of all the north-west, must have a common protection, and in crushing out this wicked rebellion, the north-western States must make common cause with the Federal Government...."

Gov. Randall, message to Wisconsin Legislature, 15 May 1861

All of the above appear to be reactions to aggressive and violent action by Confederate authorities: the assault on Ft. Sumter, the internment of US troops peacefully withdrawing from Texas under the terms of a negotiated agreement, the Confederate seizure of the Star of the West (sent to evacuate the troops from Texas as per agreement), etc., etc. What is your purpose in posting this? What is it you think it says?

Tim

[Battalion]

60) "Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."

New York Times (correspondence), 27 September 1861

[trice]

60) "Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."

New York Times (correspondence), 27 September 1861

Once again, what is the point of your post? What is it that *YOU* think this means? Don't be shy: use your own words and be clear and exact in saying what you mean.

Tim

[cw1865]

It would be nice to actually have accurate tariff figures from the period.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the South, indeed, is paying 70% of the tariff. The analysis cannot end there, we must also look to where the government is spending the money too.

If you pick up a USA Today, or another newspaper, you will occasionally see an article showing where the governments gets revenue vis-a-vis where the government is spending its funds. Typically, wealthier states contribute more to the Federal government than they receive back with the reverse being true for poorer states.

So, do we know for every dollar remitted to the Federal government what the South received in return? (Probably not)

Even if we take the extreme position and posit that the South is paying 100% of Federal revenues and receiving nothing in return, is that enough to go to war over when Federal expenditures are 2.5% of GDP?

[cash]

It would be nice to actually have accurate tariff figures from the period.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the South, indeed, is paying 70% of the tariff. The analysis cannot end there, we must also look to where the government is spending the money too.

If you pick up a USA Today, or another newspaper, you will occasionally see an article showing where the governments gets revenue vis-a-vis where the government is spending its funds. Typically, wealthier states contribute more to the Federal government than they receive back with the reverse being true for poorer states.

So, do we know for every dollar remitted to the Federal government what the South received in return? (Probably not)

Even if we take the extreme position and posit that the South is paying 100% of Federal revenues and receiving nothing in return, is that enough to go to war over when Federal expenditures are 2.5% of GDP?

In 1860, the tariff collected in Northern ports amounted to $48.3 million (92.4% of the total tariff collected), in Southern ports $4.0 million (7.6% of the total tariff collected). The tariff collected at the port of New York alone constituted 66.7% of the total -- $34.9 million. By comparison, the total value of all goods imported through Charleston was only $2.0 million (and the net tariff collected there in 1858/59 was only $299,339.43). [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)."

"There were difficulties to be overcome before direct importations could be established other than deficiency of capital and credit, the long credit system, or the absence of a thoroughly Southern mercantile class. One lay in the comparatively small amounts of foreign goods consumed in the South. There is no way of calculating accurately the value of the foreign imports consumed in territory naturally tributary to Southern seaports; but the probabilities are that it did not so greatly exceed the direct importations as Southerners generally supposed. Some Southern writers made the palpably untenable assumption that the Southern population consumed foreign goods equal in value to their exports to foreign countries, that is about two-thirds or three-fourths of the nation's exports or imports. More reasonable was the assumption that the per capita consumption of imported goods in the South was equal to that of the North; but even that would seem to have been too liberal. A much higher percentage of the Northern population was urban; and the per capita consumption of articles of commerce by an urban population is greater than the per capita consumption by a rural population. Southern writers made much of the number of rich families in the South who bought articles of luxury imported from abroad; but there is no doubt that the number of families who lived in luxury was exaggerated. That the slaves consumed comparatively small quantities of foreign goods requires no demonstration. Their clothing and rough shoes were manufactured either in the North or at home. Their chief articles of food (corn and bacon) were produced at home or in the West. The large poor white element in the population consumed few articles of commerce, either domestic or foreign. The same is true of the rather large mountaineer element, because if for no other reason, they lived beyond the routes of trade. Olmstead had these classes in mind when he wrote: 'I have never seen reason to believe that with absolute free trade the cotton States would take a tenth part of the value of our present importations.' One of the fairest of the many English travelers wrote: 'But the truth is, there are few imports required, for every Southern town tells the same tale.' " [Robert R. Russel, _Economic Aspects of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861,_ pp. 107-108]

Regards,
Cash

[Battalion]

Panic of...
...............1861


58) "The [business] failures for $5000 and upward are as follows:

Year..........Failures.................Liabilities
1857...........4,932...............$291,750,000
1858...........4,225...................95,749,662
1859...........3,913...................64,394,000
1860...........3,676...................79,807,845
1861...........6,993.................207,240,427

New York World, July 1862

...and it should be noted-

The 1857 numbers include business failures in the South.

The 1861 numbers do not.

[trice]

...and it should be noted-

The 1857 numbers include business failures in the South.

The 1861 numbers do not.

From the information you are posting, it would appear a violent and aggressive war started over slavery by Southern secessionists was responsible for a large number of business failures in 1861. Thanks for once again showing that the North went to war because of Southern aggression.

Tim

[ole]

Where did I read that many business failures and setbacks were a direct result of southern repudiation of debts?

ole

[trice]

Where did I read that many business failures and setbacks were a direct result of southern repudiation of debts?

A few years back, Professor Spann (Indiana University?) wrote a book called Gotham at War. In the beginning of it, he notes that business failures in New York were 30% higher in the fourth quarter of 1860 (not 1861) than they were in the same period of any earlier year. He attributes this to rumors that Southerners would repudiate their debts to Northern merchants in the event of secession.

Subsequent to that, in early 1861, the Provisional Congress of the Confederacy passed legislation calling for private debts owed by Confederate citizens to be paid to the national government, in order that they could hold them as leverage in the hoped-for negotiations with the US.

All of this, of course, is just a form of organized extortion and blackmail. It makes perfect sense as a means of exerting pressure on the rest of the US, but it is clearly not a legal act (under US law) nor ethical business conduct. I have no idea how effective the Confederates were in their gathering and holding back of funds, nor how many business failures were actually caused by it.

Regards,
Tim

[cw1865]

but it is clearly not a legal act (under US law) nor ethical business conduct. I have no idea how effective the Confederates were in their gathering and holding back of funds, nor how many business failures were actually caused by it.

It wouldn't be legal in the Southern states either.

[trice]

It wouldn't be legal in the Southern states either.

I wouldn't think so in normal times. But then, the seceding states did many things in late 1860 and early 1861 that would be regarded as illegal under their own laws in normal times.

In this particular situation, US law did not recognize the existence of secession nor of the Confederacy, so all these acts are illegal under US law. The passing of the law I mentioned by the Confederate Congress probably made it legal inside the Confederacy -- but that only matters if the Confederacy wins the coming war and establishes their independence. If they had, of course, we'd probably find the issue of these debts in the peace treaty that never was.

Regards,
Tim

[cw1865]

It would clearly be illegal under US Law (Contracts Clause) - but it would also be illegal under Confederate Constitutional Law:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; [emit Bills of Credit;] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, or ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."


"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the [United] Confederate States; but no law of Congress shall discharge any debt contracted before the passage of the same;"

[cw1865]

The passing of the law I mentioned by the Confederate Congress probably made it legal inside the Confederacy.

To be specific, the law is probably unconstitutional...