The Real Cause of the Civil War: In 1860, Southern Plantation Owners owed $1 billion+ to NY Banks

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

GwilymT

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
920
Location
Pittsburgh
#1) there is no evidence to back up the 40% claim, or the 80% claim, or any other made up number.
#2) politically motivated sources from Lost Cause apologists are not generally considered sound history.
#3) the causes of secession were clearly outlined in the various secession documents and debates... none of them mention debt to northern bankers.
 

GwilymT

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
920
Location
Pittsburgh
For anyone tempted to take anything written by DiLorenzo as gospel, I’d direct them to this thread:

 

Red Baron

Private
Joined
Nov 12, 2019
Messages
95
#1) there is no evidence to back up the 40% claim, or the 80% claim, or any other made up number.
#2) politically motivated sources from Lost Cause apologists are not generally considered sound history.
#3) the causes of secession were clearly outlined in the various secession documents and debates... none of them mention debt to northern bankers.
Of course there is no mention of the debt. No one on here finds that odd?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

WJC

Major General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,820
Next year's crop loan would come from the CSA bank or southern state Banks because all debts were to be transferred to the CSA at succession
You were asked for a source supporting that claim and answered:
The Constitution of the Confederate States of America
So far as I am aware, there is no provision in either the Feb 8, 1861 Provisional Constitution or the March 11, 1861 Constitution for the central government to assume private debts. Neither, to my knowledge, did any Northern bank arrange to transfer its Southern loan portfolios to any Southern bank.
Can you provide more specifics?
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,677
Location
Denver, CO
Whatever they thought was the main issue, the clear result of secession and the Civil War was the Republicans took firm control of the available lands in the west, and firmly excluded slavery from those lands, the territories formed them and the resulting states. This result was communicated back to Europe. Irish, English, German and Scandanavian immigration resumed while the war was still happening.
Oddly, the tariff adjustment was insignificant during the Civil War. The US imposed numerous taxes, including a British style income tax, issued $400M in unbacked paper currency and borrowed about $2.4B in short term debt.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,061
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I disagree, the northern banks were charged outrageous rates to the planters to begin with. Which was not justified.

Your source for this personal opinion? Did you learn this from a book, a website, or period article from before the Civil War? Evidence would be nice vice just your say so.

This still was not enough. Greed set in and the morill tariff was enacted by Lincoln.

Was it? Are you sure Lincoln enacted the Morrill Tariff? I was of the view that Congress had something to do with it.

The south was paying 80 percent of the nation's taxes and receiving little in return from federal government.

Simply not true. 80 percent is a figure tossed around with little regard for the facts of the time. And the South got plenty of return from the federal government in return. Have you actually seen the Morrill Tariff rates listed before the firing on Ft. Sumter? What do you base the 80% figure on? Where did you first hear such a percentage?

Lincoln was subsidizing Indus try in the north not the both the north and the south.

Was Lincoln in charge of "subsidizing Indus(try) in either the north or the south? Again, doesn't Congress have something to say about how tariff (not taxes, as there was no such thing as taxes by the federal government before the war, only revenue from the tariff on foreign imports into the country) revenue is spent?

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.

Again, where did you first read this? Where does this theory come from? What book or source do you base this assumption on?

So the controllers of New York Banks(Rothschild's and friends) would loose control of the South's economy and exhoborant interest payments.

Same question. Where did you find this out? Who told you the above? What do you base this theory on?

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...

Source, please, and no assumptions or personal opinions. What FACTS do you have that prove this statement?

Therefore the South was not dependent upon the northern elite....Can you say another cause for Lincoln's war??
I can't say anything to any of the above because they all appear to be your personal opinion with no evidence or historical sources to support them, other than the Southern elite, in fear of having slavery restricted, even eventually abolished, led their citizens in a failed rebellion, costing hundreds of thousands of lives of US citizens, North and South, for one of the worst reasons for such a rebellion.

Unionblue
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
20,004
Location
Laurinburg NC
I wouldn't be surprised if debt to northern banks wasn't one of the reasons for a number of Southerners. I remember in a Colonial history class the professor saying it was at least one of the reasons a number of wealthy colonists (including George Washington) joined the rebels during the first war for independence.
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,677
Location
Denver, CO
I cannot get back to the source, but debt sequestration was part of President Davis' war program.
And before the war there was a famous liquidation in Charleston, in which a large number of slaves were disbursed to buyers at auction. Northern railroads were becoming serious competitors for capital and for the most part the could service their bonds. Northern banks were beginning to pursue their security interests much more aggressively.
Putting an international boundary between the southern debtors and the New York creditors was a factor in the on set of secession. I could not prove it, though.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,677
Location
Denver, CO
Between debt sequestration, issuing letters of marque, and blocking navigation of the Mississippi at Columbus, KY, the early Confederate moves created unnecessary enemies and solidified northern and British opinion against the Confederacy.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top