- Aug 16, 2015
Can you explain this figure? By "the nation's taxes", do you mean Federal revenue? The primary source of Federal revenues was tariff collections. The majority of the tariff proceeds were collected in northern ports. The argument can be made that the South was the region that benefited most from tariff revenues.The south was paying 80 percent of the nation's taxes
Most stock transactions occurred in local exchanges: New York only became the preeminent exchange during the conflict. The Rothschilds make convenient 'whipping boys' for every ill known to humanity but in reality, had little to do with the antebellum U. S. Economy. The Rockefellers were an obscure family at the time: John D. Rockefeller was a Clerk who had just become a partner in a produce business in Ohio.the stock market which was also in New York and largely controlled by the Rothschild's/Rockefellers,etc...
Really? 80% of the Federal taxes came from the south? That's strange that a lot of you folks can't discern microeconomics from macroeconomics. Again for the 10,000th time, cotton was one microeconomic chip in a vast macroeconomic pie chart that consisted of 5% of the nation's GDP, yep cotton exports were only 5% of the GDP. So how did you calculate 80% of national taxes from 5% exports? Sugar, rice and tobacco were on the serious decline, so I would love to know how 80% of taxes came from the south?I disagree, the northern banks were charged outrageous rates to the planters to begin with. Which was not justified. This still was not enough. Greed set in and the morill tariff was enacted by Lincoln. The south was paying 80 percent of the nation's taxes and receiving little in return from federal government. Lincoln was subsidizing Indus try in the north not the both the north and the south.
So by succeeding, the Confederacy attempted to divert the loans at more reasonable loan rates to the CSA and csa state banks would in turn invest in the southern economy. So the controllers of New York Banks(Rothschild's and friends) would loose control of the South's economy and exhoborant interest payments.
Also you are correct in that the South invested in land and slaves rather than the stock market which was also in New York and largely controlled by the Rothschild's/Rockefellers,etc...
Therefore the South was not dependent upon the northern elite....Can you say another cause for Lincoln's war??
You really need to actually studying this yourself and stop reading lost cause websites... or where ever your ideas from.I disagree, the northern banks were charged outrageous rates to the planters to begin with. Which was not justified. This still was not enough. Greed set in and the morill tariff was enacted by Lincoln. The south was paying 80 percent of the nation's taxes and receiving little in return from federal government. Lincoln was subsidizing Indus try in the north not the both the north and the south.
The northern politicians would have gotten some type of tariff. But the might have to reduce rates on some items, while increasing rates on sugar and imported tobacco products. There would have been some sausage grinding.Keep in mind also, the south could have tallied enough votes to block the Morrill Tariff or they could have filibustered, which there was no time limit on back in that era.
Well firstly, the south was dependent on imports to survive. There was very little manufacturing in the south which caused them to trade with Europe. The Morill Tariff are on imports. The North wanted a Monopoly on manufactured goods. This warranted the morill tariff.You really need to actually studying this yourself and stop reading lost cause websites... or where ever your ideas from.
The morill tarrif was only passed because of the secession. With out that, it would not have passed congress.
Also the Federal government was running a huge deficit in the last years of the 1850ties. Raising tarrifs was the main way for the federal government to get an income.
The claim that the south paid 80% is simply ignorant.
A tarrif is something you paid on imports. The rate was the same all over the country.
With the south having a much, much smaller (white) population than the north, how should they be able to import 80% of all goods imported?
Simple logic should tell you that this claim can't be correct.
(But WJC have posted the graphics I planned to... showing where the money was collected)
Also I would suggest you actually studied the federal budget for 1860. The biggest expense was the army. And 25% of it was in Texas.
I repeat, 25% of the army was in Texas to defend that state against any aggression from Mexico and to guard settlers and similar.
Forts was being build and maintained in the south to defend it. Lighthouses made sure the ports was accessible. The postal service just just as present in the south as in the north.
The federal government was actually spending more money in the south than it was collecting there.
How can Lincoln subsidize anything before he become the president?
And how can a president subsidize anything?
(when it is congress that have authority over federal spending.)
So you are claiming that If a person in the south owe money to a bank in New York, then he now owe it to a none existand CSA central bank?The Constitution of the Confederate States of America
You claimed that the south paid 80% of the taxes.Well firstly, the south was dependent on imports to survive. There was very little manufacturing in the south which caused them to trade with Europe. The Morill Tariff are on imports. The North wanted a Monopoly on manufactured goods. This warranted the morill tariff.
Secondly, look at what Lincoln did once in office. He subsidized the railroad with northern congressman and of course it went bankrupt.
Thirdly, despite a much smaller white population... The southern economy accounted for 40 percent of the nation's economy. You are ignorant. The war was fought over tax dollars.
"The Morill tariff was passed before the civil war began without the vote of 7 southern states."
I suggest the you read the CSA Constitution and Lorenzo's book:" The Real Lincoln". Both of these answer why succession occured.
Where are you getting this information from? It's pretty well established that the tariff, the expansion of slavery, and Republican ideas of big government (anti-state's rights) were the causes of Southern Independence. I've read the Declarations of Secession and major speeches by leading Confederates, and have never seen this banking issue. I've also never encountered it in the history books, even those by authors with a Northern bias. So again, where did you read or hear that this debt issue was the cause of secession?For 150 years, Southerners have clung to 'The Cause' of States Rights for why the Civil War was fought. In an attempt to rewrite history and thus promote their 'righteousness', even some Neo-Confederates on this forum and elsewhere continue their propaganda of "The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery." Not only was the Civil War all about the struggle to free the African-American slaves, Southerners have attempted to mute how the Rebels never took black Union soldiers prisoner - they were always ruthlessly shot! Furthermore, the real reason for the Southern Secession movement has been effectively kept out of the history books. In 1860, Southern plantation owners were greatly in debt to New York City banks to the tune of over $1 billion dollars! That was a HUGE amount of money back then and no matter how much cotton they sold, they could never pay it back. The plantation owners figured if they could get the Southern States leaders to secede, then they wouldn't have to repay their debts. Wow! I was never taught that in school; you won't find that 'little fact' in a college textbook, battlefield park gift shop or History Channel program.
The combined worth of the African slaves in the Southern States was greater than all the other combined wealth in the United States. Yes, money and greed were the real cause of the Civil War but that wouldn't get hundreds of thousands of Southern men to fight and maybe die for that! So the slave owners' propaganda was "States rights and no Northerners coming down here and telling us how to live!"
Have you heard of anything more evil? Of course, the Northern bankers were also at fault. Their lending practices forced the plantation owners to take drastic actions! It's time to write the truth in the history books.
Your sources are not legitimate. Edited.You claimed that the south paid 80% of the taxes.
but Only 7,7% of the total tariffs where collected in the south.
Charleston imported for about 2 million$ in 1860, New York City imported for 231 million. other northern ports had $95.3 million in imports...
The south only collected $4.0 million in tariff revenues, whereas New York City collected $34.9 million in tariff revenues and the total for northern ports was $48.3 million.
[Source: Douglas B. Ball, Financial Failure and Confederate Defeat, p. 205, Table 18, “Trade Figures by Port in 1860” and “Customs Collections by Major Port (1860)”]
Now you claim the war was over taxes?
Other than Tarrifs, the federal government had no real income.
(other than the post service giving a bit and some sales of land)
And as I already pointed out, the federal government was spending more money in the south then it collected.
The total expenditure in 1859 was: 69 million.
war department - 22,5m = 32%
Navy department - 14,5m = 18%
Interest on public debt - 2,6m = 3,8%
Indians - 3,6m *= 5%
Veterans pensions - 1,2m
Postal - 4,8m = 26%
Civil and misc - 12,9m = 19%
source - Historical Statistics of the United States 1789-1945, page 300 ( book published by the federal government)
I don't have a number for the cost of all military expenses in the south, but with 25% of the army in Texas, we take 25% of the expenses... and that is 5.625 million. More than the value of the Tarrifs collected in the entire south.
In short, for the government having the south part of the country was bad business.
Also The issue in the last years of the 1850ties was that the government went from a surplus to a huge deficit.
(1859) -15,584,512$ (that that is with a expenditure of only 69 million)
(source same book as above)
If not raising Tarrifs, please explain how the Federal government should get this huge issue under control?
Remember no income tax would have been acceptable. And taxing exports would have driven the south to rebellion even faster.
And finally You just lost any credibility you might have.
Lorenzo is a modern political hack, who misquote, and take things out of context and invent things...
So now you got two option.
Look up the numbers yourself and see that your claim actually make no sense at all... And realize that you have been lied to by a modern political hack. And learn from the mistake.
Or keep believing in myths and modern political motivated lies... and go somewhere else... because you will not be taken serous if your only evidence is a secondary source from someone as untrustworthy as Lorenzo.
I agree with all of the above...I am simply stating that it is extremely odd that no one can answer the question about the amount of debt the planters owed to northern bankers??? I have a book on the way that has loan data. "Timeline of the Civil war"..Should arrive todayWell according to the UDC the cause of the war was:
U. D. C. CATECHISM FOR CHILDREN.
 What causes led to the war between the States, from 1861 to 1865?
The disregard, on the part of States of the North, for the rights of the Southern or slave-holding States.
 How was this shown?
By the passage of laws in the Nothern States annulling the rights of the people of the South—rights that were given to them by the Constitution of the United States.
 What were these rights?
The rights to regulate their own affairs and to hold slaves as property.
[the rest can be found here: https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Children_U_D_C_Catechism_for_1904]
So much for the claim that it was over money owed to banks in the north.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|J||Slavery as the Primary Cause of the Civil War: the Real Lost Cause Argument.||Slavery as the Cause for Secession||702|
|Restricted Is Lost Cause a real thing or not?||Wartime Politics, & Debates (Moderated)||422|
|B||The Real Cause of Secession||Additional Discussion on Secession||377|
|Real cause of the War revealed! [?]||Civil War History Discussion||40|