The Real Cause of the War

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
I been telling you advocates for the Confederacy that it had everything to do with the Monroe Doctrine for months.

https://civilwartalk.com/posts/2215772
https://civilwartalk.com/posts/2200729
https://civilwartalk.com/posts/2208695
The rest of your post is a theory but the evidence clearly shows it was merely a theory that never materialized. Had the South imported from abroad as much as the North and West, there could have been no sensible reason for such a detour: Southern ships could trade directly to Europe. But direct trade with Europe was not possible. The greater part of goods imported into the South originated from the West, not from Europe. Although the South depended upon Europe as well as the North for manufactured goods, its imports from Europe were smaller in value than imports into the North and West and smaller in bulk than the staples it exported. Thus, if the ships carrying cotton had sailed from Southern ports direct to Europe and back, they would have had to return in ballast. New York and New England's domination of the Southern market was therefore not accidental(Genovese, Eugene. The Political Economy of Slavery. Rev. Ed. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press, 1989).

The South also had little hope of increasing European imports to balance the trade to make it possible to trade directly with Europe. The reason for the inability to raise imports is the same reason for the South's limited industry: restricted Southern demand. The Southern cotton, iron, paper, wool, and railroad industries struggled because there was a low level of Southern patronage: the opinion of the editor of the Southern Agriculturalist in 1828, that the South lacked sufficient customers to sustain a high level of manufacturing, echoed throughout the antebellum period. Small demand therefore not only crippled the South's economy by hindering manufacturing and industrialization, but also by forcing foreign trade to be conducted through the North because direct trade was rendered severely unprofitable(Genovese, Eugene. The Political Economy of Slavery. Rev. Ed. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press, 1989).

So what that the south exported the majority of exports, the US had a closed economy. Those exports were only 5% of the GDP.

View attachment 367725

The U.S. was in a trade deficit when the south was exporting that 80% of exports and when tariffs were low. From 1800-1870, the United States ran a trade deficit for all but three years and the trade balance averaged about –2.2 percent of GDP. Then from 1870-1970, it ran persistent trade surpluses that averaged about 1.1 percent of GDP when tariffs were "supposedly" high.

View attachment 367812

You have it backward, the south was not simply important enough to break off from the north. The south was periphery region, nothing more and the consequences would have been beyond disastrous for them if secession was given. I think after all the data produced in this thread that if secession was allowed it would have been the south that faltered way before the north.

Your disastrous theory was already debunked anyway when Lincoln implemented an income tax to pay for the war. This is significant in regards to you thinking some tariffs and cotton exports revenue was so vital to the United States of America's existence.

Economics 101: tariff, income tax and excise tax all accrue government revenue. Historical statistics from the U.S. Bureau of the Census records show that in the 1850s the annual tariff revenue collected was $40-$50 million, which equated to 1.5% of GDP(U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics, Series U-210). But you don't think the government could have collected $50 million in taxes to replace the tariff revenue?

Losing cotton revenues would have put a strain on the US economy, but it would have easily been replaced. Taxation is taxation no matter how you look at it.
The trade deficit was made up by foreign earnings of the merchant fleet. The US had a big advantage in building wooden sailing and steamships. Those earnings made up most of the difference and the rest was evened out by foreign investors who needed US currencies to buy bonds and stocks.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
But that posed a potential problem in itself, no?Without the ability to legally import slaves from Africa, for example, while at the same time the institution continued to expand into the west, the price for domestic slaves (mainly from the upper South) would continue to increase dramatically, potentially outstripping profits. This was likely already happening. Such a circumstance might force new planters out in Texas, for example, to consider different forms of labor relations, thus threatening the institution of African slavery and the political power upon which it rested.
It was happening. Slave prices were very high in New Orleans and white workers were paid a premium over monthly wages in the rest of the US. I think it was about +$3/month. The shortage of labor, and lack of railroads, were holding Texas back from out producing the rest of the cotton growers.
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
I been telling you advocates for the Confederacy that it had everything to do with the Monroe Doctrine for months.

https://civilwartalk.com/posts/2215772
https://civilwartalk.com/posts/2200729
https://civilwartalk.com/posts/2208695
The rest of your post is a theory but the evidence clearly shows it was merely a theory that never materialized. Had the South imported from abroad as much as the North and West, there could have been no sensible reason for such a detour: Southern ships could trade directly to Europe. But direct trade with Europe was not possible. The greater part of goods imported into the South originated from the West, not from Europe. Although the South depended upon Europe as well as the North for manufactured goods, its imports from Europe were smaller in value than imports into the North and West and smaller in bulk than the staples it exported. Thus, if the ships carrying cotton had sailed from Southern ports direct to Europe and back, they would have had to return in ballast. New York and New England's domination of the Southern market was therefore not accidental(Genovese, Eugene. The Political Economy of Slavery. Rev. Ed. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press, 1989).

The South also had little hope of increasing European imports to balance the trade to make it possible to trade directly with Europe. The reason for the inability to raise imports is the same reason for the South's limited industry: restricted Southern demand. The Southern cotton, iron, paper, wool, and railroad industries struggled because there was a low level of Southern patronage: the opinion of the editor of the Southern Agriculturalist in 1828, that the South lacked sufficient customers to sustain a high level of manufacturing, echoed throughout the antebellum period. Small demand therefore not only crippled the South's economy by hindering manufacturing and industrialization, but also by forcing foreign trade to be conducted through the North because direct trade was rendered severely unprofitable(Genovese, Eugene. The Political Economy of Slavery. Rev. Ed. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press, 1989).

So what that the south exported the majority of exports, the US had a closed economy. Those exports were only 5% of the GDP.

View attachment 367725

The U.S. was in a trade deficit when the south was exporting that 80% of exports and when tariffs were low. From 1800-1870, the United States ran a trade deficit for all but three years and the trade balance averaged about –2.2 percent of GDP. Then from 1870-1970, it ran persistent trade surpluses that averaged about 1.1 percent of GDP when tariffs were "supposedly" high.

View attachment 367812

You have it backward, the south was not simply important enough to break off from the north. The south was periphery region, nothing more and the consequences would have been beyond disastrous for them if secession was given. I think after all the data produced in this thread that if secession was allowed it would have been the south that faltered way before the north.

Your disastrous theory was already debunked anyway when Lincoln implemented an income tax to pay for the war. This is significant in regards to you thinking some tariffs and cotton exports revenue was so vital to the United States of America's existence.

Economics 101: tariff, income tax and excise tax all accrue government revenue. Historical statistics from the U.S. Bureau of the Census records show that in the 1850s the annual tariff revenue collected was $40-$50 million, which equated to 1.5% of GDP(U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics, Series U-210). But you don't think the government could have collected $50 million in taxes to replace the tariff revenue?

Losing cotton revenues would have put a strain on the US economy, but it would have easily been replaced. Taxation is taxation no matter how you look at it.
Thanks for your detailed post. President Lincoln considered the federal tariff to be a very important issue. In his inaugural address of March 1861, he stated that the collection of the tariff was one of his most important tasks. The tariff was an important issue because it provided over 90% of the revenue for the federal government at that time. After the war began, the Union placed a blockade on southern ports which stifled their foreign trade. However, before the war began, there was serious concern that if the south was allowed to secede, the loss of tariff revenues and the free trade policy of the south would harm the northern economy. Please see the quotes from various northern newspapers on this matter located below.

1. St. Louis Missouri Republican quoted in New York Evening Post: March 27, 1861
“Every day our importers of foreign merchandise are receiving, by way of New Orleans, very considerable quantities of goods duty free . . . If this thing is to become permanent there will be an entire revolution in the course of trade and New York will suffer terribly.”

2. New York Evening Post: March 12, 1861
“That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe.”

3. Philadelphia Press: December 27, 1860
“If South Carolina is permitted to establish a free port with impunity, and to invite to her harbor all ships of foreign nations [instead of only US flag carriers for coastal trade as required by Federal law] would not disaster fall upon our great northern interests?”

4. Chicago Daily Times: December 10,1860
“Let us . . . look dissolution [disunion] in the face: At one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade [presently an American monopoly by law] would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. ……Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would alike follow. If protection be wholly withdrawn from our labor, it could not compete . . . with the labor of Europe. We should be driven from the market, and millions of our people would be compelled to go out of employment.”
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Thanks for your detailed post. President Lincoln considered the federal tariff to be a very important issue. In his inaugural address of March 1861, he stated that the collection of the tariff was one of his most important tasks. The tariff was an important issue because it provided over 90% of the revenue for the federal government at that time. After the war began, the Union placed a blockade on southern ports which stifled their foreign trade. However, before the war began, there was serious concern that if the south was allowed to secede, the loss of tariff revenues and the free trade policy of the south would harm the northern economy. Please see the quotes from various northern newspapers on this matter located below.

1. St. Louis Missouri Republican quoted in New York Evening Post: March 27, 1861
“Every day our importers of foreign merchandise are receiving, by way of New Orleans, very considerable quantities of goods duty free . . . If this thing is to become permanent there will be an entire revolution in the course of trade and New York will suffer terribly.”

2. New York Evening Post: March 12, 1861
“That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe.”

3. Philadelphia Press: December 27, 1860
“If South Carolina is permitted to establish a free port with impunity, and to invite to her harbor all ships of foreign nations [instead of only US flag carriers for coastal trade as required by Federal law] would not disaster fall upon our great northern interests?”

4. Chicago Daily Times: December 10,1860
“Let us . . . look dissolution [disunion] in the face: At one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade [presently an American monopoly by law] would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. ……Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would alike follow. If protection be wholly withdrawn from our labor, it could not compete . . . with the labor of Europe. We should be driven from the market, and millions of our people would be compelled to go out of employment.”

Any chance of seeing other multitude of editorials that do not mention tariffs as an important issue?

That's the main problem with editorials being used as evidence to support any position. If I can take a quote from Harry Truman and put a little 'spin' on it, it would read, "If you took all the editorials ever published in the United States during the Civil War and laid them end to end, they would point in all directions."
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
Any chance of seeing other multitude of editorials that do not mention tariffs as an important issue?

That's the main problem with editorials being used as evidence to support any position. If I can take a quote from Harry Truman and put a little 'spin' on it, it would read, "If you took all the editorials ever published in the United States during the Civil War and laid them end to end, they would point in all directions."
Newspaper editorials can serve as an important source for historical research. They reflect the time period in which they were created and offer a view into society that existed at the time. I am surprised that you and old Harry didn’t know that.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Newspaper editorials can serve as an important source for historical research. They reflect the time period in which they were created and offer a view into society that existed at the time. I am surprised that you and old Harry didn’t know that.

Your surprised that newspaper editorials reflect the opinion of the author of that editorial?

I'm surprised you didn't seem to know that. I mean after all, pick a day, pick a newspaper editorial and you'll find one man's opinion on a particular topic, admittedly, during that particular time and day.

But therein lies the problem with an editorial that should not surprise anyone, how exclusive the opinion and the timing of the topic.

Again, surprised you would not take that into account.
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
Your surprised that newspaper editorials reflect the opinion of the author of that editorial?

I'm surprised you didn't seem to know that. I mean after all, pick a day, pick a newspaper editorial and you'll find one man's opinion on a particular topic, admittedly, during that particular time and day.

But therein lies the problem with an editorial that should not surprise anyone, how exclusive the opinion and the timing of the topic.

Again, surprised you would not take that into account.
Actually, what I said is that newspaper editorials are a good historical source because they can reflect the view points that existed in society at certain time periods. They are used by historians in researching topics on a broad spectrum of past events. It appears that you were not aware of that.
 
Last edited:

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Since the south was settled, and Texas acquired before the telegraph and railroads spread across the country, the cotton 7 states naturally felt separate and distant from Washington, D.C. and the east coast urban corridor. Prior to 1844 the means to move information and merchandise rapidly into the south, did not exist.
If one considers how fast the telegraph spread, especially in the north, one has some understanding about why the southerners might think that the capital was far away and the roads were very bad.
Here is a telegraph link: https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/the-telegraph.html
These maps from the Central Pacific RR Museum are crude, but they do show how fast the railroad network expanded in the north.
http://cprr.org/Museum/RR_Development.html
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
For the old politicians from the south, it would have been natural not to accept that the northern states were a becoming a modern nation with electronic communication and reliable, weather resistant transportation. The naturally felt separate, and ripped off by the New York outfitters and the high prices and finance percentages.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
In conditions that existed already by 1861, news of Fort Sumter made it to Richmond in hours and from there to Washington, D.C. in a few more minutes. The mobilization followed in weeks, not months. The inertia that would have favored the Confederacy, did not exist. The news did not have to travel across an ocean and the troops also cross the ocean. The news went out on the wires, and the troops came pouring into the 5 border areas and D.C. on railroads.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Actually, what I said is that newspaper editorials are a good historical source because they can reflect the view points that existed in society at certain time periods. They are used by historians in researching topics on a broad spectrum of past events. It appears that you were not aware of that.

I'm aware newspaper editorials are "a" source, but they cannot support a topic alone, as they do not always reflect all the view points of a society at certain time periods.

What is mainly derived is one person's view of a topic at a certain time period which often as not does not reflect the views of others not rich enough to own a newspaper or to be employed by that paper and influenced by it's political leanings/interests/owners of the time.

And I am certain you are aware of that.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
The northern states were probably not capable of fighting a civil war prior to 1860, which is why they always compromised before. The expansion of the railroads added speed to the canals, rivers and Great Lakes systems. The telegraph united the regional newspapers to New York City.
The railroad industry bridged the Mississippi before the Civil War, and even Jefferson Davis knew that was a critical step. Aspinall's railroad across the Panamanian isthmus began about 1855. Mail traffic justified the Pony Express system before the war started. But the wire between Council Bluffs and Sacramento was connected in Ogden in October 1861.
If the cotton producers had waited even a few more years, the northern economy was going to have the 5 border areas in a tight hold. Unless they rebelled while the army was small and the navy dispersed, a war solution would have been very problematic.
Therefore, though they argued about slavery, underlying the debate was the sudden rise of physical connection in the northern states, reaching all the way to California and Oregon.
 
Last edited:

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Slavery was the center of the dispute. But the northern states did not know their own power, because it had grown so rapidly from 1840 to 1860. Confederates had good reason to think distance and inertia would protect them. They did not think carefully about the ability of navies with steam power to project strength in both the US Mexican War, and the Crimean War. The British doubted that the US could conquer a territory as vast as the Confederacy. Within a very short time after 1860, the US railroad system would have extended far out on the plains and would have been climbing the Sierra Nevada, one grade at a time.
Even the secessionists would have hesitated once it obvious that Nebraska would be admitted, and that Missouri and Virginia were deeply divided on southern issues.
The US would probably have been strong enough to fight a purely economic war and simply waited for some Confederate states, like Texas to request readmission.
The war occurred because no one thought carefully about steamships and steamboats, and no one knew how much easier it was going to be fight over long distances with telegraph communication and railroad logistics.
In the end, the US conquered the Mississippi, all the Confederate ports, all the unorganized territory in the west, and marched an army straight into the far south states. 155 years later, people still cannot believe how completely the US won. They have been denying it and suggesting non fact based scenarios in which the Confederacy won, ever since.
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Thanks for your detailed post. President Lincoln considered the federal tariff to be a very important issue. In his inaugural address of March 1861, he stated that the collection of the tariff was one of his most important tasks. The tariff was an important issue because it provided over 90% of the revenue for the federal government at that time. After the war began, the Union placed a blockade on southern ports which stifled their foreign trade. However, before the war began, there was serious concern that if the south was allowed to secede, the loss of tariff revenues and the free trade policy of the south would harm the northern economy. Please see the quotes from various northern newspapers on this matter located below.

1. St. Louis Missouri Republican quoted in New York Evening Post: March 27, 1861
“Every day our importers of foreign merchandise are receiving, by way of New Orleans, very considerable quantities of goods duty free . . . If this thing is to become permanent there will be an entire revolution in the course of trade and New York will suffer terribly.”

2. New York Evening Post: March 12, 1861
“That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe.”

3. Philadelphia Press: December 27, 1860
“If South Carolina is permitted to establish a free port with impunity, and to invite to her harbor all ships of foreign nations [instead of only US flag carriers for coastal trade as required by Federal law] would not disaster fall upon our great northern interests?”

4. Chicago Daily Times: December 10,1860
“Let us . . . look dissolution [disunion] in the face: At one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade [presently an American monopoly by law] would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. ……Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would alike follow. If protection be wholly withdrawn from our labor, it could not compete . . . with the labor of Europe. We should be driven from the market, and millions of our people would be compelled to go out of employment.”

Don't mention it, it took me about 3 minutes. Evidently, whomever wrote those editorials knew very little about economics. It appears, Lincoln adjusted with the Morrill Tariff and the Revenue Acts of 1861 and 1862 provided enough revenue to debunk your one assertion: The south was simply too important for the Union to let it secede and the consequences would have been disastrous. How do you explain how the Morill Tariff and the Revenue Acts along with a light income tax replaced the south's revenue contributions? Like I told you, taxation is taxation, no matter where it derived from... Did the south really pay for the tariff on imports? Through my research the south didn't import many necessities, but more luxury items. I seen the data and posted on here before how the protective tariff did not hurt consumers, it came back neutral. Therefore, when you say the south was hurt by tariffs your talking about plantation owners.

Let me get this straight, the US national debt was $63 million, by 1865 it ballooned to $2.7 billion. The US government invaded a region for the express reason because it was too important economically by increasing its national debt by 4,000 percent for the possibility they would buy material to build mansions and ball gowns to buy? LOL.
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
Don't mention it, it took me about 3 minutes. Evidently, whomever wrote those editorials knew very little about economics. It appears, Lincoln adjusted with the Morrill Tariff and the Revenue Acts of 1861 and 1862 provided enough revenue to debunk your one assertion: The south was simply too important for the Union to let it secede and the consequences would have been disastrous. How do you explain how the Morill Tariff and the Revenue Acts along with a light income tax replaced the south's revenue contributions? Like I told you, taxation is taxation, no matter where it derived from... Did the south really pay for the tariff on imports? Through my research the south didn't import many necessities, but more luxury items. I seen the data and posted on here before how the protective tariff did not hurt consumers, it came back neutral. Therefore, when you say the south was hurt by tariffs your talking about plantation owners.

Let me get this straight, the US national debt was $63 million, by 1865 it ballooned to $2.7 billion. The US government invaded a region for the express reason because it was too important economically by increasing its national debt by 4,000 percent for the possibility they would buy material to build mansions and ball gowns to buy? LOL.
The Union wasn’t just concerned over the loss of tariff revenue collected from the southern states as a result of secession. There was also concern there would be a diversion of foreign trade from the north to southern ports as well. The Confederacy had a free trade policy that outlawed protective tariffs. On the other hand, the northern states had just passed a new protective tariff (Morrill Tariff) that substantially increased duties on imported goods. Therefore, foreign merchants would choose to ship their goods through southern ports to take advantage of the lower tariff rates. This would result in the loss of valuable commerce and tariff revenue for the North. In addition, a low Confederate tariff would cause Southerners to buy more manufactured goods from Europe as opposed to the Northern states where prices were inflated by protective tariffs. The southern states were an important market for manufacturers in the north. The economic consequences from secession were a major concern for northern merchants and politicians.
 
Last edited:

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
The Union wasn’t just concerned over the loss of tariff revenue collected from the southern states as a result of secession. There was also concern there would be a diversion of foreign trade from the north to southern ports as well. The Confederacy had a free trade policy that outlawed protective tariffs. On the other hand, the northern states had just passed a new protective tariff (Morrill Tariff) that substantially increased duties on imported goods. Therefore, foreign merchants would choose to ship their goods through southern ports to take advantage of the lower tariff rates. This would result in the loss of valuable commerce and tariff revenue for the North. In addition, a low Confederate tariff would cause Southerners to buy more manufactured goods from Europe as opposed to the Northern states where prices were inflated by protective tariffs. The southern states were an important market for manufacturers in the north. The economic consequences from secession were a major concern for northern merchants and politicians.

I already discussed this in post #279: But direct trade with Europe was not possible. The greater part of goods imported into the South originated from the West, not from Europe. Although the South depended upon Europe as well as the North for manufactured goods, its imports from Europe were smaller in value than imports into the North and West and smaller in bulk than the staples it exported. Thus, if the ships carrying cotton had sailed from Southern ports direct to Europe and back, they would have had to return in ballast. New York and New England's domination of the Southern market was therefore not accidental(Genovese, Eugene. The Political Economy of Slavery. Rev. Ed. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press, 1989).

The South also had little hope of increasing European imports to balance the trade to make it possible to trade directly with Europe. The reason for the inability to raise imports is the same reason for the South's limited industry: restricted Southern demand. The Southern cotton, iron, paper, wool, and railroad industries struggled because there was a low level of Southern patronage: the opinion of the editor of the Southern Agriculturalist in 1828, that the South lacked sufficient customers to sustain a high level of manufacturing, echoed throughout the antebellum period. Small demand therefore not only crippled the South's economy by hindering manufacturing and industrialization, but also by forcing foreign trade to be conducted through the North because direct trade was rendered severely unprofitable(Genovese, Eugene. The Political Economy of Slavery. Rev. Ed. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press, 1989).
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
I already discussed this in post #279: But direct trade with Europe was not possible. The greater part of goods imported into the South originated from the West, not from Europe. Although the South depended upon Europe as well as the North for manufactured goods, its imports from Europe were smaller in value than imports into the North and West and smaller in bulk than the staples it exported. Thus, if the ships carrying cotton had sailed from Southern ports direct to Europe and back, they would have had to return in ballast. New York and New England's domination of the Southern market was therefore not accidental(Genovese, Eugene. The Political Economy of Slavery. Rev. Ed. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press, 1989).

The South also had little hope of increasing European imports to balance the trade to make it possible to trade directly with Europe. The reason for the inability to raise imports is the same reason for the South's limited industry: restricted Southern demand. The Southern cotton, iron, paper, wool, and railroad industries struggled because there was a low level of Southern patronage: the opinion of the editor of the Southern Agriculturalist in 1828, that the South lacked sufficient customers to sustain a high level of manufacturing, echoed throughout the antebellum period. Small demand therefore not only crippled the South's economy by hindering manufacturing and industrialization, but also by forcing foreign trade to be conducted through the North because direct trade was rendered severely unprofitable(Genovese, Eugene. The Political Economy of Slavery. Rev. Ed. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press, 1989).
Thanks for your comments but there was a valid concern in the north about the economic effects from secession and the southern tariff system before the war began as shown in the historical record. An article in the New York Times on March 12, 1861 stated: “ We have high duties in commerce, at the very moment when the seceding States are inviting commerce to their ports by low duties. ..…..We cannot expect nations whose prosperity depends so largely upon commerce as does that of England and France to be insensible to such appeals…..” .

This issue has also been addressed by historians as shown below.

“In addition to the forts and party unity, Lincoln had another vexing worry. He had to make a decision about collecting revenues, which meant the tariff. The question of the tariff and its collection had two components. The first had to do with the potential loss of federal revenue from the customs duties normally generated by the states that had seceded. The Confederacy now controlled the customshouses in each of them. ……..The second factor regarding the tariff had a political as well as an economic dimension. When the Morrill Tariff enacted by the Republicans went into effect, on April 1, its rates would almost double those in the tariff law of the Confederate States. This differential could mean the potential shift of foreign trade from northern ports to southern. …….Northeastern mercantile and financial interests quickly became aware of the possible negative consequences for them. At the end of March, a committee of New York merchants came to the White House to press the President on the government’s policy. To a reporter, they revealed their distress: “The present uncertainty as to the new tariff is destroying trade and legitimate speculation.” This tariff conflict and its possible financial repercussions caused a shift in business opinion. Before it had been almost monolithic against coercion, but now it was turning to form up behind Lincoln’s inaugural pledge to collect revenue and hold the forts.” Source: We Have the War Upon Us by William J. Cooper, 2012, pages 247-8.

“On April 1, the North and South would cease to have the same schedule of duties, for that was the date when the new Morrill Tariff would go into effect. Thereafter the duties levied in northern ports would be almost double those levied in the ports of the Confederacy under the old tariff of 1857. Under these conditions every Yankee merchant was convinced that he faced bankruptcy. European goods would avoid northern entrepots (ports) and flow directly to the South, whose cities would achieve a position of mercantile supremacy. ……The English and French press made it quite clear to American businessmen that foreign merchants and manufacturers intended to take full advantage of the low southern tariff.” Source: And the War Came, The North and the Secession Crisis 1860-1861 by Kenneth Stamp, 1970, page 232.

There was genuine concern from northern merchants and politicians about the economic effects of secession and the southern free trade policy. A group of merchants even discussed this in a private meeting with Lincoln and began to advocate the use of force against the south.
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
Thanks for your comments but there was a valid concern in the north about the economic effects from secession and the southern tariff system before the war began as shown in the historical record. An article in the New York Times on March 12, 1861 stated: “ We have high duties in commerce, at the very moment when the seceding States are inviting commerce to their ports by low duties. ..…..We cannot expect nations whose prosperity depends so largely upon commerce as does that of England and France to be insensible to such appeals…..” .

This issue has also been addressed by historians as shown below.

“In addition to the forts and party unity, Lincoln had another vexing worry. He had to make a decision about collecting revenues, which meant the tariff. The question of the tariff and its collection had two components. The first had to do with the potential loss of federal revenue from the customs duties normally generated by the states that had seceded. The Confederacy now controlled the customshouses in each of them. ……..The second factor regarding the tariff had a political as well as an economic dimension. When the Morrill Tariff enacted by the Republicans went into effect, on April 1, its rates would almost double those in the tariff law of the Confederate States. This differential could mean the potential shift of foreign trade from northern ports to southern. …….Northeastern mercantile and financial interests quickly became aware of the possible negative consequences for them. At the end of March, a committee of New York merchants came to the White House to press the President on the government’s policy. To a reporter, they revealed their distress: “The present uncertainty as to the new tariff is destroying trade and legitimate speculation.” This tariff conflict and its possible financial repercussions caused a shift in business opinion. Before it had been almost monolithic against coercion, but now it was turning to form up behind Lincoln’s inaugural pledge to collect revenue and hold the forts.” Source: We Have the War Upon Us by William J. Cooper, 2012, pages 247-8.

“On April 1, the North and South would cease to have the same schedule of duties, for that was the date when the new Morrill Tariff would go into effect. Thereafter the duties levied in northern ports would be almost double those levied in the ports of the Confederacy under the old tariff of 1857. Under these conditions every Yankee merchant was convinced that he faced bankruptcy. European goods would avoid northern entrepots (ports) and flow directly to the South, whose cities would achieve a position of mercantile supremacy. ……The English and French press made it quite clear to American businessmen that foreign merchants and manufacturers intended to take full advantage of the low southern tariff.” Source: And the War Came, The North and the Secession Crisis 1860-1861 by Kenneth Stamp, 1970, page 232.

There was genuine concern from northern merchants and politicians about the economic effects of secession and the southern free trade policy. A group of merchants even discussed this in a private meeting with Lincoln and began to advocate the use of force against the south.

You are talking here about the effects of secession, not the causes.
 

EricAJacobson

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
A war that resulted in the deaths of over 700,000 young men was brought about because of a dispute about tariffs? Really?

Exactly. Over 1.1 million Vietnamese and Americans died fighting over communism in Indochina in the 1960s and 1970s. What in the devil is so hard to understand that Americans died in the early 1860s over the the issue of slavery and its expansion? Politics, politics, and domestic and foreign policies.
 

EricAJacobson

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
"If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope -- fervently do we pray -- that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"

Like him or not, Lincoln knew as well as any person that it was about slavery. Period. The Southern institution and the American problem needed to end for the country to survive and live up to the promise of the Declaration of Independence.
 

Similar threads

Top