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.
European manufactured goods brought in on European ships to New Orleans (or Mobile, Charleston, etc).
They unload their cargo and guess what they take on in its turn?
That's right- cotton, sugar, tobacco to ship back to Europe.
~
How much money made by Yankee shippers, importers, &etc?
$Zero
How much money lost to Yankee shippers, importers, and domestic manufacturers (without their protective tariff)?
Multiple $100s of Millions Annually
Percentage of Northern economy- probably well over 20%
Battalion,
I know that people have shown you on this forum several times that these numbers simply do not stand up to the light of examination.
Instead of simply asking rhetorical questions and acting as if you have proved something with this hot air, try doing realistic calculations on the economics involved. In short, let's see some actual hard work and facing-of-the-facts on economic matters from you instead of wild, unsupported, flimsy claims.
For example, *you* just claimed that "Multiple $100s of Millions Annually" were going to be lost to Northern manufacturers in this. How so?
The 1860 Census says the "ANNUAL VALUE OF PRODUCTS IN MANUFACTURING" is $1,875,930,342 for all of the states. Total population of the country is 31,183,744. Total population of the 11 states that formed the Confederacy is 9,103,332. In rough terms, the population of the soon-to-be-Confederacy is just under 30% of the population of the country in 1860.
But we have no indication at all that the states of the Confederacy are consuming 30% of the manufacturing capacity of the nation. Expensive farming equipment was rare in the South and common in the North, particularly in the Mid-West of 1860. Southerners had relatively little in the ways of RR infrastructure, while in Ohio by 1860 there was no spot in the state more than 25 miles from a rail line. Southerners were not building steel mills, coal and iron mines, steamships, factories, etc. They are not heavy consumers of winter clothing manufactures in comparison to the rest of the country. Add in that a large portion of the population lives in slavery, has no income to speak of, and cannot/will not be involved in buying luxury goods, fine furniture, etc. and that their masters' wealth was often of the property-rich, cash-poor type that does not encourage buying externally for internal consumption.
Realize that the cost for goods to be delivered directly from Europe likely was and always would be more expensive to Southerners. New York was a central distribution hub with a network of communication spreading out from it. Commerce did not prosper there because of tarriffs or laws that favored Northerners. New York prospered because of economic factors that simply did not exist in the South. Europeans in many cases would prefer to ship goods to New York because of the markets there and the constant traffic -- something that will not exist in sleepy Southern cotton and tobacco ports, no matter what fervid Fire-Eaters might dream.
Take all that and dig up some solid facts to support your position. Building any Southern port up to rival New York, Philadelphia, Boston or Baltimore would take generations of effort and investment for a host of reasons, practical mundane reasons having nothing to do with politics. They have to do with the availability of transport (Southern rivers stink for this purpose geographically, and Southerners had spent the last 40 years screaming about internal improvement spending by Northerners; the economics of Southern society would never support the type of RR system needed, etc.) They have to do with the availability of qualified, trained, skilled workers -- these are generally free men but also employees, a condition the South looked down on socially -- and I have a hard time seeing slaves running the train system or the factories. But go ahead. I'd love to see you make a reasonable case for any of these economic castles in the sky secessionist supporters like to float on the air. Where will the investment capital come from, how will Southerners pay for it, what tarriffs will they impose on themselves (or do you expect direct taxes) to pay for the needed infrastructure, where do the engineers and skilled managers and craftsmen come from? Will it become legal to educate slaves to the level needed to do these tasks? Will slaves who know what they are doing be able to boss about white men who don't?
Personally, I think an independent Southern Confederacy would have drifted into ruin as soon as they tried any serious expansion, or as soon as they ran into the boom-bust cycle of the commodities they depended upon. The boll weevil might have pushed them towards being a third-world country if they had lasted that long. But you go right ahead and show us just how these fantastic thinks you post would have come about.
That's the point.
What would it have been without a war?
Probably no where near as much, but you can't seriously imply that the north went to war to stimulate war-based industry.
It has been conclusively established that the northern industrialist, financier, worker, and farmer was against war as a means of maintaining national unity. Lincoln wouldn't have had much of an army without the outrageous act of firing on the country's flag.
It has also been conclusively established that most on both sides anticipated a short war once it started. Disruption in business as usual would be catastrophic in such a war -- no time to re-tool and take advantage of the demands placed on it. War was resisted by the northern money-men, not encouraged.
Your submissions seem to be based on the idea that the north lived off the south's wealth. Northern cloth, shoes, and other necessities were sold in the south, but not anywhere close to the volumes sold in the north.
Imported goods were transferred to the south for sale there, but again, not even close to the volumes sold in the north. To credit southern complaints of northern gouging, an imported case of cigars or cognac would cost more in the south than in NYC simply because of the cost of transportation to the south. And the north might have enjoyed a larger share of Federal largesse than the south. When you factor in a per-white-family-capita, the disparity becomes quite minimal.
The nation's income was primarily recieved from import taxes and, to a negligible degree, from land sales. That southern exports outvalued northern exports has no bearing on import taxes and Federal funding and spending. The disparity in the value of exports did not entitle the south to an equal disparity in national income.
In short, you have provided no real evidence that the war was about money.
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
The nation's income was primarily recieved from import taxes and, to a negligible degree, from land sales. ...
Also, an acre of land in the North generally sold for 3 times what a similar acre sold for in the South. As a result, Federal land sales in northern states yielded a much larger sum, and so there was a tendency to sell Federal land there becuase it was easier to raise funds that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
In short, you have provided no real evidence that the war was about money.
I agree that Battalion has shown no evidence that Northerners went to war over money. It appears to me, however, that the economic issue of slavery was closely tied in to secession for Southerners, and there would have been no war at all without secession. If Battalion is trying to say that it was this "Money" that brought us to the disaster of Civil War, I'd have to agree that it played a strong part.
The gov'ts of the southern states were galvanized into action (secession) to protect the source of southern wealth, it's slaves. The north was galvanized into action when it was attacked (yes! to attack a federal installation, is to attack the Federal Gov't; when you attack the Federal Gov't you are attacking the whole country)
In any case, a significant portion of the moneyed interests located in the north favored letting the south go, rather than put their investments at risk by a shooting war, at least until the unprovoke attack on Ft. Sumter, when patriotism was deemed more important than the pocket book.
The southern leadership made war to protect their source of wealth, the northern leadership made war For the Flag (or, if you prefer, The United States of America).
In the context of the above, it can reasonably And logically, be argued that Money, may, indeed, have been the cause of the war.
European manufactured goods brought in on European ships to New Orleans (or Mobile, Charleston, etc).
They unload their cargo and guess what they take on in its turn?
That's right- cotton, sugar, tobacco to ship back to Europe.
~
How much money made by Yankee shippers, importers, &etc?
$Zero
How much money lost to Yankee shippers, importers, and domestic manufacturers (without their protective tariff)?
Multiple $100s of Millions Annually
Percentage of Northern economy- probably well over 20%
Completely wrong on all counts.
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]
In other words, they might possibly have tried direct trade once, though it's doubtful. Who knows what the few who wouldn't have gone bankrupt would do after that?
You can't just blindly follow the confederate propaganda. You have to look deeper.
"How much money lost to Yankee shippers, importers, and domestic manufacturers (without their protective tariff)?"
"Multiple $100s of Millions Annually"
Someone help me out here, because I honestly don't know, but was there even that much money available to the South or to the entire nation? Was there enough money supply in circulation to come up to, match or exceed the amounts Battalion claims in this statement?
Living in the 21st century, in a day an age when Trillions of dollars are tossed about with little or no concern, I was under the impression that the money supply at the beginning of the Civil War was based mainly on 'hard' money with a very limited amount of paper currency.
I'd appreciate any information on this idea, as I think it would directly impact the idea behind this thread.
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
In searching for an answer to the question about the US Money Supply I asked Battalion and the members of this board, I found some interesting web sites that tend to show how difficult it was to do business in the era right before and the early part of the Civil War.
Scroll down to the Northern section and see the difficulty the North was having financing the war and ask yourself, where were all those 100s of millions of dollars available to finance the Northern war effort?
A Brief History of Central Banking in the United States.
Again, going through this site, I wonder where all this money that was collected by these shippers, importers, etc., had went, as it has been shown by the 1860 census that the majority of the nation's wealthy men live in the South.
I'm game, if anyone can show me where's the money and why the federal government only had two hundred thousand dollars in its coffers at the start of the Civil War (source: The book, Greenback, The Almighty Dollar and the Invention of America, by Jason Goodwin.) Where is all that tariff money, those 100s of millions?
It wasn't until April of 1862 that the treasury department under Chase issued $150 million on the credit of the United States. Up until that time, because everyone, both North and South, thought the war would be quickly over, Chase had been borrowing the money to finance the Union war effort from banks.
Where was all this money that the South had been paying on those evil tariffs, to those evil middle-men (shippers, importers, etc.)?
Sorry, 100s of millions figure doesn't cut it when you keep bumping into these cold, hard, financial facts, at least, to me it doesn't.
But I admit, I could not be seeing something, so if anyone, ANYONE, can provide some more information on this, I'd appreciate it.
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
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)."
Who were the importers selling the goods to?
...and passing on the cost of the tariff?
The Yankees of the 1860s seem to disagree with those of 2007
28) "New England, New York and Pennsylvania which have derived more direct benefit from the Union than any other section, will suffer most in the breaking up and rearrangement of the elements."
Portland (Maine) Eastern Argus, 12 December 1860
29) "The shrewd men of the North are fully aware...and no doubt have already made a calculation of the profit and loss which will inure to them by a dissolution of the Union. They cannot but foresee a very large dimunition, if not an entire loss, of their Southern trade."
Who were the importers selling the goods to? ... and passing on the cost of the tariff?
The answer is largely dependent upon what imported item. Cigars, liquors, silks, perfumes, glassware and china, furniture and other high-end things would go to the wealthy buyers, north and south. Ordinary things not produced in the US would be sold to ordinary people, north and south. The really poor, north and south, would be buying virtually nothing.
So it comes down to where the buyers lived. It is an over-generalization to break consumption of all imports along per capita lines, but realistically, that's about as far as it can be carried without speculating on details that can yield no hard numbers.
Did wealthy southerners consume more cigars per capita than did wealthy northerners? Cognac? Perfume? China? Glassware? Furniture? Play with the numbers but it still doesn't present a better figure than per capita.
Did ordinary southerners consume more piece goods and processed sugar per capita than did ordinary northerners? Play with the numbers but it still doesn't present a better figure than per capita.
Import duties were US revenues applied to the costs of running the government and its projects. They did not accrue to the inporter and make him wealther. Duties paid by the importer would, of course, be passed on to the consumer as part of the price of goods. Were you implying that a disproportionate share of "passing on" went south? That the south bought more of the goods subject to higher rates?
Everyone who bought an import subject to duty paid that duty as a part of its price. To make a case that the tariffs disproportionately impacted the south, you will have to show that the south bought disproportionately more of those products than did the north.
If you can do that, I will sit up and take notice, but it will take more than hand-wringing northern editorials and prematurely crowing southern editorials.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
