Secession; Always Viewed As A Right?

[cash]

Originally Posted by Beowulf

I have a question as to the signature you use, sir.

Sherman is referring to, what, exactly?

You can read a discussion about these statements in the archives of this group--a discussion where Battalion was shown beyond doubt to be a fraud.

Regards,
Cash

[cash]

Originally Posted by Beowulf

The greatest one I see is that the South was not paying 87% of all federal expenses.

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]

Now ask yourself: What percentage of the population of the United States was made up of people in the seceded states?

Answer: According to the 1860 US Census, there were 9,103,332 people in the states that seceded. There was a total of 31,183,582 people in the United States. That means 29.19% of the US population lived in the states that would become the confederacy.

Now, what percentage of the people in the seceded states were slaves who used few if any imported goods?

Answer: According to the 1860 US Census there were 3,521,110 slaves in those states. With a total population of 9,103,332 in those states, that means that 38.7% of the confederate states were slaves.

What conclusion can we draw regarding what percentage of the tariff was paid by the people in the seceded states?

Answer: Less than 29.19%, and probably less than 20%, but I'll be generous and say 25% or less.

Originally Posted by Beowulf

This is a justification that could justify Lincoln (to some degree) at Sumter. But if the Col. Baldwin incident is to be studied seriously, Lincoln is what? Just trying to start trouble at Sumter, and causing Virginia to be "out of the Union in 48 Hours"?

Baldwin's account has been examined by actual historians and has been found to lack credibility.

Originally Posted by Beowulf

This is most boggling to me, aside from his repeatedly
calling my sources LIARS and UNTRUTHFUL!

Simply calling them what they are.

Originally Posted by Beowulf

They certainly get more coverage and airplay than his does! (In my circles of travel, that is...)

Ever hear of Gresham's Law?

Regards,
Cash

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by cash

"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

In the article are words such as-

"probabilities"
"assumption"
"seem to have been"

...and many flat statements (with no supporting evidence) the writer assumes we should accept as fact.

[cw1865]

I actually agree with you on this one Battalion. At the end of the day the South has an economy that relies heavily on the export of cotton which comprises something like 2/3 of all US exports. They're not trading it for nothing.

Even if the tariff acts to limit per capita import consumption in the South, it still acts to raise the overall price level which will directly affects the South's terms of trade either vis-a-vis Europe or vis-a-vis the North.

[cedarstripper]

Originally Posted by cw1865

I actually agree with you on this one Battalion. At the end of the day the South has an economy that relies heavily on the export of cotton which comprises something like 2/3 of all US exports. They're not trading it for nothing.

The South does not own 100% of the value of this crop. It was complained by some that 40% of the money in raw cotton was earned by others. Factors, brokers, drayage, shipping, warehousing, insurance - they all ate up (earned) part of the pie.

Why is it that foreign exports are equated with the GDP? Because cotton exports might have made up 2/3 of US exports, it does not indicate 2/3 of US wealth, the true indication of ability to buy. We should not dismiss production that was consumed domestically.

Even if the tariff acts to limit per capita import consumption in the South, it still acts to raise the overall price level which will directly affects the South's terms of trade either vis-a-vis Europe or vis-a-vis the North.

The overall price level affects individual consumers, not regions. Those outside the South were equally affected by any increase in price on their purchases. Citizens of the North were still primarily agrarian too, as were those in the West.

Notice that the 1846 tariff act was agreeable to all sections and was even referred to as a "free trade" tariff, yet it held higher tariff rates than did the 1861 tariff act. Are we to suppose that Southerners were somehow more oppressed in 1861 than in the years of 1846 to 1857?

Cedarstripper

[ole]

In the article are words such as-

"probabilities"
"assumption"
"seem to have been"

...and many flat statements (with no supporting evidence) the writer assumes we should accept as fact.

At least the author quallified his statements. It is not required that they are accepted as facts. He left it to our discretion.

I'm not inclined to accept them as facts. However, as probabilities they seem to be logical.

ole

[ole]

I actually agree with you on this one Battalion. At the end of the day the South has an economy that relies heavily on the export of cotton which comprises something like 2/3 of all US exports. They're not trading it for nothing.

And I have to cross swords with you cw. The supply and demand dictated the price of cotton. The northern mills paid the same price for a pound of cotton as the English mills (less shipping and handling(. If there was an oversupply, the price went down; if there was an undersupply, the price went up. A pound of cotton was worth what it was on the world market. If the English wanted it more, then the New England mills would have to up their offer.

Trade was not immune to inherent rules of supply and demand. Take it from there.

ole

[ole]

Coming back and reviewing what you said and I said, my apologies, CW.

ole

[cash]

Originally Posted by cw1865

I actually agree with you on this one Battalion. At the end of the day the South has an economy that relies heavily on the export of cotton which comprises something like 2/3 of all US exports. They're not trading it for nothing.

They're getting money for it, not goods.

Originally Posted by cw1865

Even if the tariff acts to limit per capita import consumption in the South,

It doesn't. The tariff was applied to goods and materials most southerners didn't use.

Originally Posted by cw1865

it still acts to raise the overall price level which will directly affects the South's terms of trade either vis-a-vis Europe or vis-a-vis the North.

No, that's wrong. The tariff only affects certain goods, most of which southerners didn't use. The goods they used were primarily produced in the United States and were unaffected by the tariff.

Regards,
Cash

[Battalion]

..............................