Lincoln Lincoln's Revenues

[TallTallMan]

Lincoln's critics--such as the Kennedy Twins and DiLorenzo--are fond of this quote of Lincoln supposedly responding to a question about why he didn't let the South secede peacefully, he responded, "Let the South go? Where then shall we get our revenue?"

I would like to know the original source (Memoirs of Service Afloat may be it), even if it made it less suspect than it already is.

 

[RedRover]

Lincoln's critics--such as the Kennedy Twins and DiLorenzo--are fond of this quote of Lincoln supposedly responding to a question about why he didn't let the South secede peacefully, he responded, "Let the South go? Where then shall we get our revenue?"

I would like to know the original source (Memoirs of Service Afloat may be it), even if it made it less suspect than it already is.

From an online search, the earliest reference to the quote is from 1866, by Mr. Albert Taylor Bledsoe of Virginia, in "Is Davis a Traitor..." (Baltimore, 1866) commented about this reputed statement:

Mr. Bledsoe references above the 1860 book by Mr. Kettell, "Southern Wealth and Northern Profits." This was a book produced with a warning to the Southern States AGAINST secession, and among other reasons that the North would never let them successfully secede from the union, if for no other reason than economic ones alone.

Anyways, Bledsoe is not actually claiming to quote Lincoln. He is, to use the phrase, "putting words in his mouth" evidently.

However, from 1868, Mr. Frank H. Alfriend, (formerly publisher of the Southern Literary Messenger) published
"The Life of Jefferson Davis" which ascribed the statement directly to Lincoln:

Also published in Baltimore, in 1869, Admiral Semmes paraphrases the statement as if it came from the lips or sentiments of President Lincoln:

The statement is subsequently ascribed to Lincoln in occasional magazine articles into the 20th Century.


I have not seen any actual claim that Lincoln made any such statement himself, or that he was personally concerned with federal revenues, which were the purview of Congress to determine from whence and how to derive them.

 

[TallTallMan]

From an online search, the earliest reference to the quote is from 1866, by Mr. Albert Taylor Bledsoe of Virginia, in "Is Davis a Traitor..." (Baltimore, 1866) commented about this reputed statement:

View attachment 488840
View attachment 488841

Mr. Bledsoe references above the 1860 book by Mr. Kettell, "Southern Wealth and Northern Profits." This was a book produced with a warning to the Southern States AGAINST secession, and among other reasons that the North would never let them successfully secede from the union, if for no other reason than economic ones alone.

Anyways, Bledsoe is not actually claiming to quote Lincoln. He is, to use the phrase, "putting words in his mouth" evidently.

However, from 1868, Mr. Frank H. Alfriend, (formerly publisher of the Southern Literary Messenger) published
"The Life of Jefferson Davis" which ascribed the statement directly to Lincoln:

View attachment 488843


Also published in Baltimore, in 1869, Admiral Semmes paraphrases the statement as if it came from the lips or sentiments of President Lincoln:

View attachment 488842

The statement is subsequently ascribed to Lincoln in occasional magazine articles into the 20th Century.


I have not seen any actual claim that Lincoln made any such statement himself, or that he was personally concerned with federal revenues, which were the purview of Congress to determine from whence and how to derive them.

Thanks, homey! I never trusted it from day one.

 

[LetUsHavePeace]

The puzzle in all this is how "the South" could think that the sum total of tariff revenues - $53 million in 1860 - was the entire nation's wealth.

 

[RedRover]

The puzzle in all this is how "the South" could think that the sum total of tariff revenues - $53 million in 1860 - was the entire nation's wealth.

The secessionist movement had for years promoted the idea of the South being despoiled by federal revenue laws, as a sort of red-herring to blame any local economic woes upon. From 1851:

The issue of the tarriffs was just part of their argument. This article from 1856 gives some of the rationale:

The Cotton factors were business agents, who made contracts with the planters for their cash crops. In return for a guaranteed crop based on the land and the number of slaves, etc., the factor would advance credit to the planter. This credit frequently came in the form of manufactured goods from the North, or perhaps even imported stuff.

With credit in this manner based on the land and labor principally, it was common for planters to seek to increase the quantity of both, even if by mortgages, by which to secure more factor credit, etc.

Since both the merchants and banks who managed this system were principally in the North, and the cash crops coming out of the South, it was evidently easy for some to proclaim that in combination with the federal tariffs/duties which raised prices somewhat, these Northern interests, were despoiling the "wealth" of the South... that Southern Independence would throw off the yoke, etc.

When the Southern Confederacy formed, it sequestered all bank payments to the north on land or labor loans, etc. These were to be paid to Richmond instead, by which the Confederate government derived its first revenues... Meanwhile, the Southern Confederacy adopted a "free trade" policy that they promised would bring lots of English and European goods to the Southern ports to satisfy their needs and wants...

The war etc. saw these efforts overturned... not only did the blockade choke off any increase in cheaper goods from Europe, but the Confederate cotton crop was not exported, etc. The Confederate currency meanwhile inflated rapidly, etc.

 

[LetUsHavePeace]

The discussions about Confederate currency always begin with the assumption that the CSA followed the same practice as the United States - that the notes issued by Southern banks were the principal source of currency. For the Union U.S. Bank Notes were the principal circulating medium; as the Treasury almost instantly discovered, Federal IOUs that had no promise of gold attached to them - Greenbacks - were a failure. A U.S. chartered bank could not use Greenbacks to buy Treasury bonds and there was no profit to be made from exchanging them with other banks; banks could exchange their own bank notes with one another and thereby reduce their outstanding liabilities (and be able to re-issue the notes as new loans to customers), but Greenbacks were, for commerce, as useless as foreign printed money. The Confederacy's financial failure can be attributed to its failure to develop a comparable system. The Southern banks were effectively restricted from issuing their own notes (and using Confederate bonds as collateral) in the mistaken idea that allowing the circulation of currency by the banks where Southerners already had deposits might somehow compete with the CSA's direct issue of Graybacks. Only 8% of the Confederacy's expenditures were covered by the Treasury's income through tax collections; the other 92% was "paid" by Confederate IOUs that were for Southern banks what Greenbacks were for those in the North.

 

[LetUsHavePeace]

The financial success of the United States of America and the comparative failure of the Confederate States of America was not the result of any superior moral virtues on the part of what people who like to argue call "the North". The U.S.A. inherited a system of taxation and banking that was a legacy of President Washington and Thomas Willing, the President of the Bank of the United States. Coin would be collected from the people who had it - foreign shippers to America - and used as the yardstick to measure all IOUs, including bank notes. Contrary to the advice of Adam Smith, the Bank of the United States would allow small denomination copper and brass coinage and paper currency to circulate freely (Smith wanted the poor to only be allowed to exchange coins made of precious metal) and to allow state chartered banks to exchange IOUs with one another. (Smith and Ricardo both wanted the Bank of England to have the same monopoly over the forms of legal tender that our Federal Reserve has now.) When the war came, the C.S.A. did their best to follow the conventional advice of Smith, Ricardo and the Bank of England. The result was a financial system that, in the name of righteousness, condemned everyone in the Confederacy to abandon commerce for barter. By 1863 (!!!!) the Confederacy had returned to a medieval system of finance; taxes were to be 10% in kind.

 

[TallTallMan]

The South Was Right!, pg 50:

Ugh!

 

[TallTallMan]

From an online search, the earliest reference to the quote is from 1866, by Mr. Albert Taylor Bledsoe of Virginia, in "Is Davis a Traitor..." (Baltimore, 1866) commented about this reputed statement:

View attachment 488840
View attachment 488841

Mr. Bledsoe references above the 1860 book by Mr. Kettell, "Southern Wealth and Northern Profits." This was a book produced with a warning to the Southern States AGAINST secession, and among other reasons that the North would never let them successfully secede from the union, if for no other reason than economic ones alone.

Anyways, Bledsoe is not actually claiming to quote Lincoln. He is, to use the phrase, "putting words in his mouth" evidently.

However, from 1868, Mr. Frank H. Alfriend, (formerly publisher of the Southern Literary Messenger) published
"The Life of Jefferson Davis" which ascribed the statement directly to Lincoln:

View attachment 488843


Also published in Baltimore, in 1869, Admiral Semmes paraphrases the statement as if it came from the lips or sentiments of President Lincoln:

View attachment 488842

The statement is subsequently ascribed to Lincoln in occasional magazine articles into the 20th Century.


I have not seen any actual claim that Lincoln made any such statement himself, or that he was personally concerned with federal revenues, which were the purview of Congress to determine from whence and how to derive them.

I watched a video of Mike Scruggs saying "What about my tariff?" I'm assuming this is the same fake quote but paraphrased considerably?

At 24:50

 

[RedRover]

I watched a video of Mike Scruggs saying "What about my tariff?" I'm assuming this is the same fake quote but paraphrased considerably?

At 24:50

I would reckon so perhaps.

Even the "Redneck Manifesto" (1998) notes that the "our revenues" story is an attribution rather than a quote.

In February, 1861, Lincoln spoke at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania relative to tariffs...

Lincoln had no particular problem with tariffs, being a Henry Clay Whig by most accounts. From 1854:

 

[damYankee]

The South Was Right!, pg 50:

View attachment 497687

Ugh!

Knowing Lincolns use of humor I would believe he was being cynical.

 

[TallTallMan]

Knowing Lincolns use of humor I would believe he was being cynical.

He never said it. See post #2.

 

[JerryD]

Good thread and an important one as this myth seems to be a fav of the southern apologist crowd.

This whole myth of the south paying the lion's share of tariffs has been discussed and blown up before. First off, while its true that cotton was the major export of the US, tariffs are paid on imports, not exports. No tax is paid on exports. And despite the assertion in the 1856 newspaper article posted by Red Rover above, the great bulk of cotton was shipped from New Orleans, not New York. What is true is that over half of all tariffs were collected in New York City, even though Baltimore, Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, Mobile and New Orleans were active ports that also were engaged in international shipping. I am not aware of any data that shows how many goods destined for the south arrived in New York first, then had to be shipped overland to the south, but common sense indicates that articles destined to the south would most likely be shipped to southern ports. Shipping by water is much cheaper than shipping by rail, so it just makes no economic sense to ship to New York, and then transport via rail to, for example, the Black Belt in Alabama, as opposed to shipping first to Mobile or New Orleans. Especially when the largest plantations were located along rivers. Just as its stupid to think you would ship cotton by rail to New York from Alabama or Mississippi (the largest cotton producing states) for shipment to England, its equally stupid to think you would import goods to New York then ship by rail to Alabama or Mississippi. There is a reason that the best land for plantations was located along rivers, and not along railroad tracks.

 

[Belfoured]

Good thread and an important one as this myth seems to be a fav of the southern apologist crowd.

This whole myth of the south paying the lion's share of tariffs has been discussed and blown up before. First off, while its true that cotton was the major export of the US, tariffs are paid on imports, not exports. No tax is paid on exports. And despite the assertion in the 1856 newspaper article posted by Red Rover above, the great bulk of cotton was shipped from New Orleans, not New York. What is true is that over half of all tariffs were collected in New York City, even though Baltimore, Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, Mobile and New Orleans were active ports that also were engaged in international shipping. I am not aware of any data that shows how many goods destined for the south arrived in New York first, then had to be shipped overland to the south, but common sense indicates that articles destined to the south would most likely be shipped to southern ports. Shipping by water is much cheaper than shipping by rail, so it just makes no economic sense to ship to New York, and then transport via rail to, for example, the Black Belt in Alabama, as opposed to shipping first to Mobile or New Orleans. Especially when the largest plantations were located along rivers. Just as its stupid to think you would ship cotton by rail to New York from Alabama or Mississippi (the largest cotton producing states) for shipment to England, its equally stupid to think you would import goods to New York then ship by rail to Alabama or Mississippi. There is a reason that the best land for plantations was located along rivers, and not along railroad tracks.

Good points. As an aside, we also know that the Morill Tariff only passed in the Senate because Senators from seceded states had departed. And we know what was articulated as Reason No. 1 for secession by the secession ordinances and secession commissioners from those states. Anybody claiming the tariff was the basis for secession is pushing "spin".

 

[19thGeorgia]

"Interview between President Lincoln and Col. John B. Baldwin"
I didn't read all of this, but the controversy seems to be more about Lincoln evacuating Fort Sumter rather than the comment about revenue. Even so I see no reason to doubt the comment.
Quote starts at bottom of page (image) 20-

Image 20 of Interview between President Lincoln and Col. John B. Baldwin, April 4th, 1861. Statements & evidence.

The interview took place in Washington as a result of Pres. Lincoln's request that some member of the Virginia convention, then in session at Richmond, come for conference with himself. Also available in digital form on the Library of Congress Web site.

www.loc.gov

 

[TallTallMan]

"Interview between President Lincoln and Col. John B. Baldwin"
I didn't read all of this, but the controversy seems to be more about Lincoln evacuating Fort Sumter rather than the comment about revenue. Even so I see no reason to doubt the comment.
Quote starts at bottom of page (image) 20-

Image 20 of Interview between President Lincoln and Col. John B. Baldwin, April 4th, 1861. Statements & evidence.

The interview took place in Washington as a result of Pres. Lincoln's request that some member of the Virginia convention, then in session at Richmond, come for conference with himself. Also available in digital form on the Library of Congress Web site.

www.loc.gov

Here is the quote in question (I used this version, which was easier to search through):

A commentary on the interview:

https://www2.tulane.edu/~sumter/FinalOrder/FApr4.1Comm.html

Well, here's one reason to doubt the interview: both Lincoln scholars and Lincoln critics agree he was a shrewd politician. Why would he boldly confess to a member of a seceded state--even a Unionist--that he was only doing all this for a lotta cheese? That would make Honest Abe not only too honest but the worst politician of all time.

 

[TallTallMan]

Good thread and an important one as this myth seems to be a fav of the southern apologist crowd.

This whole myth of the south paying the lion's share of tariffs has been discussed and blown up before. First off, while its true that cotton was the major export of the US, tariffs are paid on imports, not exports. No tax is paid on exports. And despite the assertion in the 1856 newspaper article posted by Red Rover above, the great bulk of cotton was shipped from New Orleans, not New York. What is true is that over half of all tariffs were collected in New York City, even though Baltimore, Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, Mobile and New Orleans were active ports that also were engaged in international shipping. I am not aware of any data that shows how many goods destined for the south arrived in New York first, then had to be shipped overland to the south, but common sense indicates that articles destined to the south would most likely be shipped to southern ports. Shipping by water is much cheaper than shipping by rail, so it just makes no economic sense to ship to New York, and then transport via rail to, for example, the Black Belt in Alabama, as opposed to shipping first to Mobile or New Orleans. Especially when the largest plantations were located along rivers. Just as its stupid to think you would ship cotton by rail to New York from Alabama or Mississippi (the largest cotton producing states) for shipment to England, its equally stupid to think you would import goods to New York then ship by rail to Alabama or Mississippi. There is a reason that the best land for plantations was located along rivers, and not along railroad tracks.

Good points. As an aside, we also know that the Morill Tariff only passed in the Senate because Senators from seceded states had departed. And we know what was articulated as Reason No. 1 for secession by the secession ordinances and secession commissioners from those states. Anybody claiming the tariff was the basis for secession is pushing "spin".

I used to think tariffs were at least a 20% reason for secession (you'll see me saying such things on this forum in the past) but after I read Davis's Farewell Address and saw that he didn't mention tariffs once but mentioned the extension of slavery over and over, I realized something was wrong with all this. I was turned off the Tariff Factor more by watching the video in post #9.

 

[Belfoured]

I used to think tariffs were at least a 20% reason for secession (you'll see me saying such things on this forum in the past) but after I read Davis's Farewell Address and saw that he didn't mention tariffs once but mentioned the extension of slavery over and over, I realized something was wrong with all this. I was turned off the Tariff Factor more by watching the video in post #9.

Out of curiosity, I think Louisiana seceded. IIRC, the Morill Tariff hammered imported sugar. Play that one out for me ...

 

[19thGeorgia]

Well, here's one reason to doubt the interview: both Lincoln scholars and Lincoln critics agree he was a shrewd politician. Why would he boldly confess to a member of a seceded state--even a Unionist--that he was only doing all this for a lotta cheese? That would make Honest Abe not only too honest but the worst politician of all time.

Why would Lincoln be timid to discuss the subject? He had already done so quite often....and publicly.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Why would Lincoln be timid to discuss the subject? He had already done so quite often....and publicly.

View attachment 536746

Perhaps you should try to understand exactly what Lincoln was saying in '61 rather than honing in on one word. It was never about taxes or tariffs.