Money; THE Cause?

[Battalion]

My guess is you think you already have the answer and, if so, you should simply post the figures for us. Is that the case?

Tim

Found it. The vote in the House of Rep's was 83 to 54.

The chief proponent of using blacks as soldiers was Thaddeus Stevens (abolitionist, promoter of equal rights for blacks*, genocide of Southern whites). Here is one of his speeches-

"...Why should our race be exposed to suffering and disease, when the African might endure his equal share of it? Is it wise, is it humane, to send your kindred to battle and to death, when you might put the colored man in the ranks and let him bear a part of the conflict between the rebel and his enfranchised slave? Why should these bloody graves be filled with our relatives rather than with the property of traitors slain by their own masters, who, in their turn, would fall by the hands of the oppressed? I have but little respect for the northern man who would save the rebels' property at the expense of the life of white men.

We have heard repeated the usual slang of Democrats, so freely and falsely used by them to prejudice the minds of the people, that Republicans are trying to make the black man equal in all things to the white. The distinguished gentleman from Kentucky and his allies from Ohio have talked of Sambo's commanding white men. Sir, the bill contains no such provisions. They are to be employed only as soldiers or non-commissioned officers as is provided by the original bill....I do not expect to live to see the day when, in this Christian land, merit shall counterbalance the crime of color. True, we propose to give them an equal chance to meet death on the battle-field. But even then their great achievements...would give them no hope of honor. The only place where they can find equality is in the grave. There all God's children are equal...."

Thaddeus Stevens, House of Representatives, 2 February 1863

~

*Except in PA.

[trice]

Found it. The vote in the House of Rep's was 83 to 54. ...

Sounds about right where my guess would have been. It is widely known Lincoln faced opposition in getting the measure through.

But, of course, the Union passed the measure years before the Confederacy did, and with far less reason to fear for the survival of their country if they did not. It would be interesting to see how the Represenatives and Senators from slave states in the US Congress voted on the measure, since their citizens might have a "money" reason for voting against it. Could you break these figures down for us?

In March 1865 only the fanatics and the fools in the Confederate Congress can think they will survive without a miracle.

Tim

[OpnDownfall]

Slavery was the one constant in the south's bid for independence. But in southern eyes, what was a slave, if not valuable property worth a lot of money?
A slave was not only valuable in real terms, but was also, percieved as 'representing' the acceptable 'ideal' source of of not only wealth, but also power and prestige in southern society.
IF money was the cause of the CW, it is well to remember that it was the south that based its rebellion on economics (slavery and/or tariffs) and that many of the moneyed interests in the north were willing to let the south secede with no resistence.

[cash]

What was the vote in the United States Congress on using blacks as soldiers?

Look it up. The bill was passed 17 July 1862.

Regards,
Cash

[Hanny]

Quote:Ole
The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the people of the Northern States, but, after the taxes are collected, three-fourths of them are expended in the North.
Strong statement, Hanny. I will assume that you have some statistical back up for this assertion.
In the interest of political propaganda, the threat to slavery was indeed an easier sell than import tariffs. The voting public was largely unaffected by the tariff which outrageously taxed luxury items that few, north and south, could afford anyway.
Outside of the threat to slavery, the cost of luxury goods, and waning political clout, I believe the planter class resented the money it cost to get their cotton sold -- money that was going to northerners. I can only imagine why they didn't attempt to fix the situation, or what they expected to do about it after they had engineered secession. I can only conclude that the fire-eaters wanted out so badly that they couldn't rationally think through the ramifications.
Shippers depended on full loads, both ways. They could pick up cotton at southern ports, but they had no market in those ports for what they could deliver -- no distribution. They were not about to deliver goods to northern ports and then sail empty to southern ports to pick up cotton. There was simply no way to change the status quo during a few years -- let alone a few war years.
Foolish.

Well Hammonds claim does have a basis in fact, in the 30-40, that was the case, total revenue was $107.5 million, with $90 millions coming from Southern states (he used Dl/Marlyand as southern states for this calculation), and the north paying $17.5. By 1860 expotrts from those same Southern states was $214 and North$47 million, in both instances in thme therfore the southnern contribution was 87% or so of tax and exports.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~rdavis2/tariffs.html
Here are the numbers for the 20 years before the war: what the economic side of push for secesion wa stherfore tied to the economic policy pushed through Congress, Morril being defeated in 58 as it promised a return to the 40s period of dutiiable traiffs, which whle being uniform, as the Constition provides it must be, the effect of it was un uniform and borne mor heavily on southern States, particlry SC.

Year. Overall . Rate on
...... rate .... dutiable imports only
1840 . 17.6% . 34.4%
1841 . 17.4% . 34.6%
1842 . 19.0% . 25.8%
1843 . 20.1% . 29.2%
1844 . 30.5% . 36.9%
1845 . 29.3% . 34.5%
1846 . 27.7% . 33.4%
1847 . 24.2% . 28.0%
1848 . 23.5% . 26.3%
1849 . 23.4% . 26.1%
1850 . 24.5% . 27.1%
1851 . 24.3% . 26.6%
1852 . 24.4% . 27.4%
1853 . 23.4% . 25.9%
1854 . 23.5% . 25.6%
1855 . 23.4% . 26.8%
1856 . 21.7% . 26.1%
1857 . 19.1% . 22.5%
1858 . 17.3% . 22.4%
1859 . 15.4% . 19.6%
1860 . 15.7% . 19.7%
now what the federal Gov did when they got it, is also of intrest.
Federal expenditures 1789-1860
________1789-1834____1834-1837____1838—1850____1851—1860______Total
Fortifications
Free____$5,265,332___$1,122,644___$4,711,611___$5, 281,373____$16,380,960
Slave___$10,019,249__$1,666,990___$4,357,427___$6, 004,100____$22,047,767
Internal improvements
Free____$2,452,635___$1,779,958___$2,013,511___$1, 780,077____$8,026,183
Slave___$1,859,710___$1,872,903___$545,229_____$1, 428,090____$5,705,932
Lighthouses
Free____$2,001,946_____$509,319___$1,155,375___$2, 976,079____$6,642,720
Slave___$2,161,047_____$530,769_____$636,760___$2, 044,640____$5,373,218
Hospitalization
Free________________________________$392,032___$68 8,238______$1,080,271
Slave_______________________________$282,005___$75 7,813______$1,039,819
Pensions
Free____$21,894,322___$8,012,252______________$5,5 89,210
Slave___$6,816,542____$2,588,091______________$2,8 16,534
But Hammond never mentions that as it makes the wrong point, in 58 Sc leaders forsaw the 60 election, if there was no pro southern president he could not use the veto to block and northern majoirty congress measures, Republicans had tied their election to include morril tariff as what your going to get, seeing this a likly outcome, SC leaders had elections just prior to 6o fought on the principle of electing seceionsist or cooperationlist, the secesionst vone hands down and its legislature was packed with slave major slave owners and secionist who were not reprentative of the state at all, but first past the post election ment bthe 169 reps were pretty solidly from 25% of the social group and all had vested intrest in secesion, when Chicago adopted morril as the plank of republican policy if elected, which the south had defeated in 58, but was what the couintry was now being asked to have if you elct the republicans, Hammond commented.
"The tue issue is now made. The south is to be Africanised and the elctions of 1860 are to decide the question. In other words is emanciptation or disUnion after 186o, unless Seward is repudiated (Seward just haveing made his irepresable conflict speech). If he is not and we make jelly of him and his party in 1860, if we promptly acept and fight the issue on through as tender, or failing that, we are consolidat4ed, in a southern Republic.
First things first was to unite SC behind the movers and shakers who agreed that secesion was the prefered outcome, should the Republicans sweep congress and the prsidency, second up was to convince other southern ststes to follow where SC would lead, but failing that they would go alon if need be.

Trice
Simply because you seem to be unable to stay on point, or to correct yourself when you admit you are wrong. If you understand that the South Carolina secessionists themselves refused to go along with your point, you also understand you are wrong in your supposition. Yet you continue to post as if nothing said gets through to you, when you say you have acknowledged the correction. Be done with it.

i have no problem with admittingh bwhen i am wrong, it is after all how one learns, by admitting error and beniffiting from the ex[posure of taht which contradicts a pre concieved notion or fact etc. The day YOU admit to being wrong, rather than seeing everything as a contest of showing your opinion is right over othwers will the day YOU pass from childhood into adulthood.
I pointe out again taht the debates of SC and other first wave secesionist include debate over the tariff while not includding it in the cause of and acts of secesion, for the simple legal reson nthat secesion over paying a lawfully inacted tax is not a breech of the constition that allows the remedy of secesion.
Be done with you of man of stray man, to you as well. Nothing of the uneducted rubbish your post contain does indeded not get through to me, because its rubbish and i take littel note of it.

TriceThe suggestion that slavery was a cover story, to gain popular support for a revolt overy an unpopular tariff (unpopular, apparently, to those who had to pay it, at any rate) is interesting, but is it true?
As noted on other threads, othern southern states would not support SC in it's nullification process, in 1832 but did in 1860, BECAUSE it was disguised as an issue over slavery? In other words, SC wanted to secede because of the onerous duties on their luxury good, but the rest of the south seceded because SC duped them into believing that secession was about slavery?

Alabama did exactly as SC did in 1860, they debated the issue of the tariff as a cause for concern to examine the cost/benifit of staying in the Union, then as is the custom is US Conventions, they decide by a series of motions put forweard, generaly distilling monoirty points down to central one with the widest majority support, any action, in this case secesion, requires it to belawful action, so what happens sthen is the will of the majoirty expressed through the resolutions adopted is then presented in alegal correct form as the will of the people.
Sure Sc wanted out of fiscal policy alone back in calhouns time, it was non statrer as being a viable long term remidy unless enough states couldbe convinced to follow, and no one would over the single issue at that time of taxation, and no one would in 1860 either, but enough monirty intrest in many southern states found the tariff to them in therir state to be a n issue in 1860 taht was more important than the bigger picture, which was the deep south went out over threats to slavery proposed by the republicans.

OpnDownfallIf that is the truth, WHY were they so ignorant of the tariff? Perhaps because they did not give it much thought? WHY would they not give it much thought? Perhaps because it simply did not affect their lives to the point where they had to give it much thought? Perhaps because it simply was not an issue that would rouse them to kill hundreds of thousands of their fellow Americans?

you touch upon a good point, people perception of the tariff were more important that the realty of its effects, politicans always use issues to sway public opinion, linking SH with international terroirsts like AQ swung public opinion, dispite there being no link, only a fear of one. the end result was the tariff was overe egged, since SC was heavily into shipping with some 405 of its citizens involved in maritime commererce, it was easy to sell to tyhem because most were aware of how it effected them when the rate was high or low.

OpnDownfall
First off, were most southerners ignorant and so lacking in education and thinking ability (in other words, were they so stupid) as to not understand the tariff and how it affected their lives?

Literacy in the south was 75%, reading of pamphlets books etc was not how they got there info, it was word of mouth, everage time in school was 3 months a year, less than half that of the north.
SC was differnt from almost all other states, except NYC which almost secceded on fiscal issues alone, but only in specific instances in most ststes was the tariff an in issue, it was a n issue to those who had a lot of politcal clout, the 90% of cotton used for export was centralised in production of relativly few people, and they saw huge economic advantage/disadvatge in the tariff, and they had undue influece on political life in theri states.

OpnDownfallBut if we go with this theory, then the cause and threat to slavery was advanced, because this was a threat the majority of common southerners could understand? That they percieved a threat to slavery was a threat common to the all? Something that they all understood and an issue that would rouse them to support secession and put them in the mood to kill hundreds of thousands of their fellow Americans? All because southern leaders knew their poor, ignorant citizens could not grasp the concept of how the tariff was hurting them?

youve confused the tarif and slavery, the tariff was important to the wealthy and or those involoved in actiosndependednt of the level of tariff for employement, salvery was something a all knew beniffted everyone finacialy and was central to societtys balance, it was easy for those concerned about the tariff to sell the threat to slavery as being the issue all agreed upon, while the movers and shakers were also motivated by economic concerns.

[Hanny]

http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/smithwr/smith.html

Ala deabtes contained mention of traiff a sa cause, Ala secesion ordinces make no mention of traiff as a cause because like SC constional law practice requires a lbreech of contract, high traiff is not a breech of the constitional compact, threats to slavery were as they made economic, social and political nonesene of the intent of the instrument itself.

[OpnDownfall]

The south would not secede over tariff but would secede over percieved threats to slavery, thus the main issue, of Tariffs, was subsumed into the minor issue, of slavery?
The south fought a bloody civil war to the bitter end to defend it's right to not pay its taxes? A defense that was so lacking in popular support that the populace (north and south) had to be hoodwinked into believeing that it was mostly about the right to own slaves? Even IF true, this only confirms that Slavery Was the main, issue as far as the citizens of the south were concerned.
The ONLY reason to own slaves in 1860, was their dollar value And as the main source of wealth and prestige in southern society.

[trice]

The south would not secede over tariff but would secede over percieved threats to slavery, thus the main issue, of Tariffs, was subsumed into the minor issue, of slavery?
The south fought a bloody civil war to the bitter end to defend it's right to not pay its taxes? A defense that was so lacking in popular support that the populace (north and south) had to be hoodwinked into believeing that it was mostly about the right to own slaves? Even IF true, this only confirms that Slavery Was the main, issue as far as the citizens of the south were concerned.
The ONLY reason to own slaves in 1860, was their dollar value And as the main source of wealth and prestige in southern society.

When the Confederacy was getting started in February-March 1861 in Montgomery, one of the first things the new Provisional Government did was to pass a Tariff of their own. The rates were different, but it covered far more items than the Morrill Tariff did. Streetcorners and parlors in Montgomery were filled with lobbyists, all looking to get some particular item protected when it was to their benefit.

This is natural politics. The new government needed to pay for itself, so they needed to tax someone. The cut of the money and specie that Louisiana had seized from the US at the New Orleans Mint and the Customs House, and the Customs they had taken over the collection of there, weren't going to last very long. But the actions of the new Confederacy show us the argument about tariffs was a minor one about the details of rates, not a deep philosophical one.

Regards,
Tim

[OpnDownfall]

I agree, Trice. But I am willing to discuss the idea, that IF money was indeed 'THE Cause' then the fact that the monied interests in the south And a great number of monied interests in the north were in favor of secession, would lend even more credence to the claim that the south started the war.
Did most of the monied interests favor secession because they thought it would destroy their fortunes or was it because they thought it would save their investments in a slave economy.
If the war was about money, then we need to look south not north.

[trice]

I agree, Trice. But I am willing to discuss the idea, that IF money was indeed 'THE Cause' then the fact that the monied interests in the south And a great number of monied interests in the north were in favor of secession, would lend even more credence to the claim that the south started the war.
Did most of the monied interests favor secession because they thought it would destroy their fortunes or was it because they thought it would save their investments in a slave economy.
If the war was about money, then we need to look south not north.

Generally speaking, the North seemed particularly reluctant to start a war, and the South seemed intent on starting one: if not with the North, then with someone else soon after they gained their independence. Jefferson Davis refused to meet an envoy from Mexico, sent to discuss recognizing the new Confederacy, precisely because he felt it might prove embarassing if he ended up invading Mexico in a year or two.

There were elements in the Confederacy at that time, particularly in the Fire-Eaters, who saw this new Confederacy as spreading aggressively, the new flag to fly from Delaware Bay to the Pacific, over Cuba and down into Nicarauga. Even as the Civil War raged, there were Confederate agents down in Mexico trying to subvert the northern Mexican states.

Slaves and power and money are all tied up in that, but none of it seems connected to the North.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

As quoted by HANNY:

TriceThe suggestion that slavery was a cover story, to gain popular support for a revolt overy an unpopular tariff (unpopular, apparently, to those who had to pay it, at any rate) is interesting, but is it true?
As noted on other threads, othern southern states would not support SC in it's nullification process, in 1832 but did in 1860, BECAUSE it was disguised as an issue over slavery? In other words, SC wanted to secede because of the onerous duties on their luxury good, but the rest of the south seceded because SC duped them into believing that secession was about slavery?

This is actually from a post by OpnDownfall, #142 in this thread. I did not make it and have no intention of replying to you about something I did not say.

I have now had to post to you about half-a-dozen times to ask you to stop attributing things to me said by other people. Some of those referred to more than one passage where you had done this. Since you actually had to put in the "trice" to imply this, you have once again made an error, consciously or not.

Many of the posts you have made referring to outside sources have also been shown by others to be simply wrong, or badly inaccurate. You have timelines wrong. You have events wrong. You create confusion for yourself as well as others. You have clearly made an effort to read widely or you would not be familiar with many of these topics at all, but just as clearly you are having a terrible time accurately presenting or remembering what you have seen.

STOP THIS. Exercise more care in what you do. You tell me you learn from your errors. Prove it by cleaning up the erroneous way in which you post. Start by making sure you reference the proper person when you quote from their work. No one can rely on what you say when you consistently make simple errors that a little care and attention would eliminate -- and when you continue to do it after being notified of the problem, they will eventually have to assume you make the errors on purpose.

I'd suggest you simplify. DO NOT combine quotes from different posts, and different people's quotes, in one of yours. This may help you eliminate the mistakes, or at least to cut them down.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

I agree, Trice. But I am willing to discuss the idea, that IF money was indeed 'THE Cause' then the fact that the monied interests in the south And a great number of monied interests in the north were in favor of secession, would lend even more credence to the claim that the south started the war.
Did most of the monied interests favor secession because they thought it would destroy their fortunes or was it because they thought it would save their investments in a slave economy.
If the war was about money, then we need to look south not north.

The state legislatures in the South were dominated by people who owned slaves. So were the secession conventions. Slaves were highly associated with money, and most people who can afford to serve in such a fashion have money to a certain level -- or they'd be out trying to grub a living from the land instead of spending a lot of time in the legislature or a convention.

If those people had truly been against secession, it never would have happened. They led the effort to get it enacted, and they made the decision to do it. Either the majority of them truly believed it, or they were convinced by an extremist minority to support it.

But I can't say I have ever seen any real evidence that "a great number of monied interests in the north were in favor of secession". Has anyone?

Regards,
Tim

[Battalion]

33) It is at this juncture of things that the "money power" of the North interposes...not to propose compromise of any kind, but casting its weight in the scales on the side of the "anti-slavery" Government at Washington, it hopes to crush the South into submission, and compelling it to resume its former relations with the North, to thus restore the Southern trade to this city. Of course this "money power," these Rag Barons of the North, do not pretend to any sympathy with S--bo, or any desire to realize Mr. Lincoln's idea of "impartial freedom with negroes" -they simply desire peace and the restoration of Southern trade, and to accomplish this desirable result, they lavishly supply them with [illeg.], and tell the anti-slaveryites to go ahead and crush out the "rebellion" as promptly as possible.

New York Day Book, 22 May 1861

[ole]

Well Hammonds claim does have a basis in fact, in the 30-40, that was the case, total revenue was $107.5 million, with $90 millions coming from Southern states (he used Dl/Marlyand as southern states for this calculation), and the north paying $17.5.

I'm probably being even more dense this morning than usual so, let me lay out my understanding one more time so y'all more mathematically gifted can shoot holes in it.

If total revenue was $107.5MM in a given year -- and revenue for all intents and purposes was exclusively derived from duties on imports -- and most of these revenues were collected in northern ports.....how in heck does one determine that the southern share of this was $90MM and the northern share was $17.5 MM?? If we assume that the duty was passed on to the end user, does that mean that the white south (population: roughly 9MM compared to the white north's roughly 28MM) consumed 83.7 percent of the dutiable imports? Need some help here.

By 1860 expotrts from those same Southern states was $214 and North $47 million, in both instances in thme therfore the southnern contribution was 87% or so of tax and exports.

Need some help here, as well. How does the value of exports figure into the cost of imports? That cotton exports generated huge revenues for the planters and those involved in the trade is an indisputable fact. But these revenues were not shared by the federal government. Seems to me that the value of exports has no bearing on federal funding.

Federal expenditures 1789-1860
________1789-1834____1834-1837____1838—1850____1851—1860______Total
Fortifications
Free____$5,265,332___$1,122,644___$4,711,611___$5, 281,373____$16,380,960
Slave___$10,019,249__$1,666,990___$4,357,427___$6, 004,100____$22,047,767
Internal improvements
Free____$2,452,635___$1,779,958___$2,013,511___$1, 780,077____$8,026,183
Slave___$1,859,710___$1,872,903___$545,229_____$1, 428,090____$5,705,932
Lighthouses
Free____$2,001,946_____$509,319___$1,155,375___$2, 976,079____$6,642,720
Slave___$2,161,047_____$530,769_____$636,760___$2, 044,640____$5,373,218
Hospitalization
Free________________________________$392,032___$68 8,238______$1,080,271
Slave_______________________________$282,005___$75 7,813______$1,039,819
Pensions
Free____$21,894,322___$8,012,252______________$5,5 89,210
Slave___$6,816,542____$2,588,091______________$2,8 16,534

Again, my apologies for being quite dense, but these figures do not demonstrate to me that the white south, with a population approximating 1/3 of the white north, was getting gouged when it came to federal expenditures. Would appreciate having my error corrected.

Ole

[ole]

33) It is at this juncture of things that the "money power" of the North interposes.......
New York Day Book, 22 May 1861

Outside of the irrelevancy of an editorialist's comment, I have a question: I note that many of Battalion's posts have a number preceding them. To me, this means that the latest post is a paste-in of talking point number 33. Does anyone (besides Battalion) know the source of these talking points?

Ole

[trice]

33) It is at this juncture of things that the "money power" of the North interposes...not to propose compromise of any kind, but casting its weight in the scales on the side of the "ant--slavery" Government at Washington, it hopes to crush the South into submission, and compelling it to resume its former relations with the North, to thus restore the Southern trade to this city. Of course this "money power," these Rag Barons of the North, do not pretend to any sympathy with Sambo, or any desire to realize Mr. Lincoln's idea of "impartial freedom with negroes" -they simply desire peace and the restoration of Southern trade, and to accomplish this desirable result, they lavishly supply them with [illeg.], and tell the anti-slaveryites to go ahead and crush out the "rebellion" as promptly as possible.

New York Day Book, 22 May 1861

So? Here you are posting a section of what appears to be an editorial or a letter to the editor, at a guess, written after the secessionists have violently and willfully attacked the Union. No one can tell from what you posted what it is supposed to mean, or who it is from. What, exactly, is it? What is your purpose in posting it? What, exactly, do you think this shows?

Tim

[trice]

Outside of the irrelevancy of an editorialist's comment, I have a question: I note that many of Battalion's posts have a number preceding them. To me, this means that the latest post is a paste-in of talking point number 33. Does anyone (besides Battalion) know the source of these talking points?

Ole

No, not me, although I've wondered about it before. Perhaps it is a private list he maintains to allow him to cut-and-paste such things.

The New York Day Book, it seems, was first published in 1855 and I have seen it described as a pro-slavery publication. It seems to have ceased publishing in 1858, so I'd be interested in seeing how this is a quote from an 1861 date, if this is indeed the right paper. But maybe it is really the one below.

OTOH, the Day-Book of New York was a Buchanan supporting paper published in the late 1850s. If so, we would have to view any opinions it gave us as coming from the Buchanan Democrat viewpoint. It was also known at some point by the name Caucasian and as "the white man's newspaper". Here is an editorial in that paper, August 26, 1861:

But it is said we are "disloyal." Disloyalty!--What is it? To be "loyal" must we believe in "the irrepressible conflict" of Seward, "the negro equality" of Chase, the "ultimate extinction" theory of Lincoln, and that the Helper book is a "valuable political document?" Must we believe that Seward is as great a statesman as Jefferson, that Cameron is as incorruptible as Diogenes and that Lincoln is as learned as Machiavelli? Must we believe that black is white, that two and two make five? In fact, must we commit intellectual suicide? Does Mr. Lincoln's Administration demand all this as the price of "loyalty?" If so, the price exceeds our ability to pay.

But it is said we oppose the Government. How, where or when? Bring on your accusers: let the case be brought before the court. Let me see the counts and the specifications. If to be "loyal" means sincere reverence for the Constitution--a fervent love of the Union--an inevitable repugnance to its overthrow, and earnest labor and exertion to prevent such a great national catastrophe--if these be the price of "loyalty," then do we and have we rendered them cheerfully, earnestly, and with a single eye to the good of our country. What more can we do? We cannot prevent the avalanche of falsehoods with which day after day Republican papers slander and libel us. To ask justice or mercy from these fanatical journals that seek to destroy the independent Democratic press because they fear its power, is to ask the lion to give up its prey after he has caught it. Puritanical tyranny never yielded power until choked into repentance.

At all events our right and duty as an Amer-citizen are fulfilled, and if for this we fall under the ban of official punishment, we shall not fail to protest against the unconstitutional usurpation, or to defend, until the pen is snatched from our hand, the rights of the people, and to execrate, ever though a dungeon opened its portals before us, the hypocrisy of a party which, getting into power under the pretence or regard for the negro, had riveted the chains of slavery upon millions of white men.

Back in the election of 1856, The Salem Register, the Pittsburgh Post, the New York Herald and the New York Day Book seem to have felt that slavery was a superior system of labor, and the Day Book appears to have thought that extending slavery to poor white Americans, Germans, and Irish would be a good thing.

As to relying on old newspapers for research, historian Barbara Tuchman once said: “As to newspapers, I like them for period flavor perhaps more than for factual information. One must be wary in using them for facts.”

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Outside of the irrelevancy of an editorialist's comment, I have a question: I note that many of Battalion's posts have a number preceding them. To me, this means that the latest post is a paste-in of talking point number 33. Does anyone (besides Battalion) know the source of these talking points?

Ole

BTW, the editor of the New York Day-Book was Dr. John Van Evrie. He was often called the foremost pro-slavery man of the North.

Today, you can still find references to his works in studies of the psychology of slavery. Books like Negroes and Negro “Slavery:” The First an Inferior Race; The Latter Its Normal Condition (New York: Van Evrie, Horton & Co., 1861) and White Supremacy and Negro Subordination (New York: Van Evrie, Horton & Co., 1868). Self-published, too.

Notice that he is still writing this stuff years after the war. He was one of those who believed that the Caucasian and the Negro were actually different species, and that intelligence in Chinese immigrants indicated the presence of Caucasian blood. What a bunch of ... well, you know.

Regards,
Tim

[Battalion]

BTW, the editor of the New York Day-Book was Dr. John Van Evrie. He was often called the foremost pro-slavery man of the North.

Today, you can still find references to his works in studies of the psychology of slavery. Books like Negroes and Negro “Slavery:” The First an Inferior Race; The Latter Its Normal Condition (New York: Van Evrie, Horton & Co., 1861) and White Supremacy and Negro Subordination (New York: Van Evrie, Horton & Co., 1868). Self-published, too.

Notice that he is still writing this stuff years after the war. He was one of those who believed that the Caucasian and the Negro were actually different species, and that intelligence in Chinese immigrants indicated the presence of Caucasian blood. What a bunch of ... well, you know.

Regards,
Tim

I've also posted items from the pro-abolitionist Chicago Tribune:

"...Before and during the American Civil War, the new editors pushed an abolitionist agenda and strongly supported Abraham Lincoln, whom [Joseph] Medill helped secure the Presidency in 1860. The paper remained a force in Republican politics for years afterwards..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tribune

~

Whether abolitionist or not...
..what does that have to do with observations in financial matters?

~


3)"POLITICS AND FINANCE"

"...If the government of a country has no credit, its individuals will not be likely to stand in good odor in the markets of the world. When 'the faith of the United States' is protested in Wall street or Lombard street, the faith of all the citizens of the United States is protested. But however grave a calamity this might be, it is a minor circumstance as compared with the wide-spread and irreparable disasters to result from the violent shock to our domestic commerce and the utter overthrow of mutual confidence consequent upon disunion. Every consideration, pecuniary, moral and legal, points to a firm maintenance of the Constitution and geography of the United States.
Is it not time that the citizens of Chicago and other commercial centres in the Northwest were giving an expression of their views on these questions?
The interests to be affected one way or another are their interests. We are confident that the press will do its duty in the premises. We believe that Congress will do its duty, but we have no guaranty half so sure as the voice of the people publicly proclaimed. Let it be sounded abroad that the Northwest declares 'the Union must and shall be preserved,' and a thousand echoes will be awakened...repeating and reiterating the glorious words."

Chicago Tribune, 14 December 1860


4)"COLLECT THE REVENUES"

"...if the 'peace policy' of the Secessionists prevail, bankruptcy of the Government and ruin and convulsion of business are certain consequences. The Government would not only be destroyed but the Free States would virtually be reduced to the condition of plundered and conquered provinces of his Majesty, Jeff Davis..."

5)"SELF PROTECTION"

"The national existence of the Government depends upon the collection of the imposts, and consequently that is its first and highest duty. To preserve peace by permitting a usurper to seize its revenues is to make war on itself...is to commit suicide and end its existence with its own hands. When a government declines to collect its revenues it begins to die, as a man begins to die when he refuses to eat. The sort of 'peace' which will be obtained by the non-collection of Federal duties in Southern ports, will be the peace of the grave yard....If Lincoln's administration fails to collect the revenue throughout the whole Union, it will cease to be. Jeff Davis' government will collect them and reign in its stead. The whole matter resolves itself into the simple question of which of these governments shall collect the revenues in the Southern ports. The one that don't, dies. The one that does, rules..."

Chicago Tribune, 25 March 1861 (both)

6)"We learn through private sources that there are indications of a marked change of sentiment on the part of those connected with the great commercial interest of New York city. Heretofore that class have been the staunchest upholders of the pro-slavery policy of the Democracy....
But these great interests have become seriously alarmed at the present aspect of commercial affairs....By the adoption of a lower tariff of duties than is in force in the United States, foreign imports are likely to seek the ports of the seceding States, and the commercial supremacy of New York is seriously threatened. This is more than the flunkeys of that city bargained for or expected. The objection to enforcing the laws is daily growing weaker. The very men who clamored so lustily against their execution thirty days ago, now begin to ask, 'Have we a Government?' We shall be surprised if, within the next thirty days, the merchants of New York are not calling loudly upon the Administration to enforce the laws, to blockade the ports of the rebel States, to reinforce the forts, and to disperse the rebels who have taken up arms against the Federal Government."

Chicago Tribune, 27 March 1861

[ole]

As to relying on old newspapers for research, historian Barbara Tuchman once said: “As to newspapers, I like them for period flavor perhaps more than for factual information. One must be wary in using them for facts.”

Ms. Tuchman has the probable final word on editorial quotes: period flavor. I'm guessing there were a few southern editors who expressed an opposing opinion to the northern examples -- until they were hung or run out of town.

Ole

[trice]

...
Whether abolitionist or not...
..what does that have to do with observations in financial matters?

...

As you have been asked by me, by others, time after time after time: what is it you think these quotes you like to throw around mean in relation to your claim?

Why do you seem reluctant to speak up when asked?

Tim

[Battalion]

"Direct Trade"

34) "Not only in England, but on the Continent, there is a large party active in the service of the Secessionists...for years they have been making efforts to establish direct steam communication between Europe and Southern ports. The project has never seemed feasible, but now, taking advantage of the peculiar condition of affairs in America, they have found companies for running steamers to Charleston and New Orleans"

New York Post, 29 April 1861

[Battalion]

35) "New York suffers dreadfully from the war. Many large factories are doing little or nothing, and hungry operatives are to be found in our streets, at this the ordinarily busy season of the year. Our wholesale merchants are going down one after the other, till the question is not who has failed, but who has not, and the Republican papers denounce the publication of lists of bankrupts...as an act injurious to the public welfare."

New York Daily News, May 1861

[trice]

"Direct Trade"

34) "Not only in England, but on the Continent, there is a large party active in the service of the Secessionists...for years they have been making efforts to establish direct steam communication between Europe and Southern ports. The project has never seemed feasible, but now, taking advantage of the peculiar condition of affairs in America, they have found companies for running steamers to Charleston and New Orleans"

New York Post, 29 April 1861

So your point is that someone at the New York Post thought the European money wanted a way into America?

Tim

[trice]

35) "New York suffers dreadfully from the war. Many large factories are doing little or nothing, and hungry operatives are to be found in our streets, at this the ordinarily busy season of the year. Our wholesale merchants are going down one after the other, till the question is not who has failed, but who has not, and the Republican papers denounce the publication of lists of bankrupts...as an act injurious to the public welfare."

New York Daily News, May 1861

So your point is that the New York Daily News, a Democratic paper, says the war is going dreadfully in May of 1861? After what, 3 or 4 weeks? Again, why not just say clearly what you, yourself, mean? What is it you fear?

Tim