Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Treasury of Virtue/Great Alibi - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2   
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2012 03:00 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
21st Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

sounds like the war is about to re-ignite ;)



 Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2012 03:21 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
22nd Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

  This thread appears to have started life as a discussion contrasting the postwar views of northern authors and those of southern ones. Now it seems that it has evolved into something else entirely.



You have chosen to ignore Savez. click Here to view this post


You have chosen to ignore Savez. click Here to view this post


You have chosen to ignore Savez. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2012 05:27 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
26th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I have Johan on ignore. He's proven to me he is a pathological liar and a narrow minded weak historian. I have nothing for him. Whatever he posts is garbage to me.

Final warnings are final. Savez has been banned



 Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2012 07:19 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
27th Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I am using my ereader so not sure how to post a link on it..from what I remember Alexander Stephens left no doubt whatsoever that it was about slavery in his Cornerstone speech of 1861 on what their reasons were in leaving the Union. Lincoln had no intention of abolishing slavery....just wanted it contained to where it was at. The Union soldiers that enlisted in 1861-62 were motivated by saving the union and country. They didnt really give a damn about the slaves one way or another. So the slave owners really screwed themselves by pushing for disunion.

Last edited on Fri Sep 7th, 2012 07:20 pm by BHR62



 Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2012 08:04 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
28th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

BHR62-

  In 1860, neither section of the country understood the other. Most northerners didn't think that the southerners would fight a war to leave the Union. Most southerners didn't think that the northerners would fight a war to force them to remain.

  Obviously, both sides were profoundly wrong. Those who expected a war to result thought that it would be over quickly. Neither side could imagine that a four year war would take place and would claim over 600,000 American lives.

  From the southern point of view, they were losing on the issue of expanding slavery to the territories. As they saw it, this would lead to them being: "Surrounded" and outvoted by hostile northern and western politicians.

  Eventually, as they saw it, the dispute would move from the question of expanding slavery to one of abolishing it altogether. The south was clearly losing political power as time passed.

  Slavery was certainly the catalyst issue. But it was part of a larger issue of money and political power. (As most great conflicts have been throughout human history.) Southerners were providing most of the revenues of the Federal Government and, as they saw it ( rightly or wrongly), they had been mistreated for decades.

  In 1860 and 1861, southerners looking to the future could see little benefit in remaining part of the United States of America. As time passed, the two sections had grown more and more different. After the better part of a century of compromises, the majority of southerners finally decided, rightly or wrongly, that it was time to take control of their own destiny.



 Posted: Sat Sep 8th, 2012 06:02 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
29th Post
Old Blu
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 16th, 2008
Location: Waynesboro., Virginia USA
Posts: 330
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote: BHR62-

  In 1860, neither section of the country understood the other. Most northerners didn't think that the southerners would fight a war to leave the Union. Most southerners didn't think that the northerners would fight a war to force them to remain.

  Obviously, both sides were profoundly wrong. Those who expected a war to result thought that it would be over quickly. Neither side could imagine that a four year war would take place and would claim over 600,000 American lives.

  From the southern point of view, they were losing on the issue of expanding slavery to the territories. As they saw it, this would lead to them being: "Surrounded" and outvoted by hostile northern and western politicians.

  Eventually, as they saw it, the dispute would move from the question of expanding slavery to one of abolishing it altogether. The south was clearly losing political power as time passed.

  Slavery was certainly the catalyst issue. But it was part of a larger issue of money and political power. (As most great conflicts have been throughout human history.) Southerners were providing most of the revenues of the Federal Government and, as they saw it ( rightly or wrongly), they had been mistreated for decades.

  In 1860 and 1861, southerners looking to the future could see little benefit in remaining part of the United States of America. As time passed, the two sections had grown more and more different. After the better part of a century of compromises, the majority of southerners finally decided, rightly or wrongly, that it was time to take control of their own destiny.

Very well put.



 Posted: Sun Sep 9th, 2012 12:51 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
30th Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I agree with almost everything you said. But I think the North viewed slavery as growing in its influence. The western territories fed into Northern fears of that influence. When it was down south they had a well...its their business. Then the Fugitive Slave Act...Court decisions favoring the slave owners gave rise to the Republican Party. By 1861 the North was fed up with Southern threats to leave....they viewed it as a cry wolf thing by that time. The North was required to give assistance to slave owners tracking down fugitive slaves in Northern territory. The Supreme Court had a southern majority. The South held powerful congressional positions. There was a lot of frustration in the North over the power of the slave owners and the South. But neither side had any idea of the brutality the coming war would produce. They both badly underestimated the other sides will to win.

Last edited on Sun Sep 9th, 2012 12:53 pm by BHR62



 Posted: Sun Sep 9th, 2012 04:09 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
31st Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

BHR62-

  As you say, we only disagree on one point. I do not believe that the institution of slavery was growing in its influence in the years just before the Civil War. I would contend that by the late 1850s, the southerners were clearly on the defensive.

  The main issue had always been the question of expanding slavery into the western territories. The southerners, of course, wished to expand slavery westward even though much of the land there wasn't really compatible with the plantation system. The purpose was to preserve as much political power as possible.

  It is true that the Fugitive Slave Act was passed in 1850, but it was usually resisted in the north. It did give slave hunters license (In their minds at least) to come north and kidnap former slaves (And in some cases, free blacks) and ship them south. But the effect of this was to rally the abolitionist movement which had been growing steadily in the 1830s and 1840s. It caused the abolitionists to seek to better organize themselves and increase their political power.

  The overall effect of the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, in conjunction with the Kansas-Nebraska Act was to strengthen the abolitionist movement. It also led directly to the establishment of the Republican Party (Which got 1/3 of the popular vote in a three man race in the presidential election of 1856).

  I would contend that all of this in the end worked against southern interests because it increased the power of the anti-slavery forces who were calling for the complete abolition of slavery. I believe that by 1860, most southerners thought that they were losing the political power game and could not see how their position could improve in the future. Since they could not win the game, more and more southerners became open to the idea of no longer playing it. By 1860, the majority of southerners were willing to consider the radical step of leaving the Union.



 Posted: Mon Sep 10th, 2012 10:05 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
32nd Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

TD...the Kansas-Nebraska Act had a big impact on the north's politics.  It set off alarm bells throughout the North.  The Abolitionist movement was on the fringe of Northern politics until that happened.  There was fear that pro-slavery forces would flood into a territory before the vote and overwhelm the anti-slavery population there.  Which woud tip the balance of power in congress.  Some in the North even feared it would allow slavery to spread into the North itself down the road.  You are right it fueled opposition to Southern interests.  

Last edited on Mon Sep 10th, 2012 10:05 am by BHR62



 Posted: Mon Sep 10th, 2012 10:20 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
33rd Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote: BHR62-

  In 1860, neither section of the country understood the other. Most northerners didn't think that the southerners would fight a war to leave the Union. Most southerners didn't think that the northerners would fight a war to force them to remain.

  Obviously, both sides were profoundly wrong. Those who expected a war to result thought that it would be over quickly. Neither side could imagine that a four year war would take place and would claim over 600,000 American lives.

  From the southern point of view, they were losing on the issue of expanding slavery to the territories. As they saw it, this would lead to them being: "Surrounded" and outvoted by hostile northern and western politicians.

  Eventually, as they saw it, the dispute would move from the question of expanding slavery to one of abolishing it altogether. The south was clearly losing political power as time passed.

  Slavery was certainly the catalyst issue. But it was part of a larger issue of money and political power. (As most great conflicts have been throughout human history.) Southerners were providing most of the revenues of the Federal Government and, as they saw it ( rightly or wrongly), they had been mistreated for decades.

  In 1860 and 1861, southerners looking to the future could see little benefit in remaining part of the United States of America. As time passed, the two sections had grown more and more different. After the better part of a century of compromises, the majority of southerners finally decided, rightly or wrongly, that it was time to take control of their own destiny.

Well said, I would take issue only w/ the statement that the South was providing most of the revenue.  I don't believe tax records bear out sucah a claim.



 Posted: Mon Sep 10th, 2012 11:04 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
34th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Johan Steele-

  Of course in the years leading up to the Civil War, there was no federal income tax. Federal Revenues came for the most part through indirect taxation.

  First, I'll cite a passage from the maligned Wikepedia source:

Tariffs in United States history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

  This gap was created by my ineptitude in replacing: "Excise Taxes in United States history" with: "Tariffs in United States History." The passage cited was identical in both.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



  In the paragraph titled: "Historical Background," there is this passage: "Customs duties as set by tariff rates up to 1860 were usually about 80-95% of all federal revenue."

  This is corroborated by this source:

economic factors

  In the second paragraph there is this: "For the 30 years from 1831 to 1860 the tariffs amounted to about 84% of federal revenues, but during the 1850s tariffs amounted to 90% of the federal revenue. As the ports in the south had the most traffic, they paid 75% of all tariffs in 1859."

  If these numbers are correct, then about 2/3 of federal revenues in the 1850s came from tariffs collected in southern ports. As the southern states had very limited manufacturing capacity, much more had to be imported by them than by the northern states.

Federal State Local Government Revenue in United States for 1860 - Charts Tabl

Last edited on Mon Sep 10th, 2012 11:39 pm by Texas Defender



 Posted: Mon Sep 10th, 2012 11:32 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
35th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I'm not a fan of Wiki for a variety of reasons. The busiest ports in the US were not in the South, New York Customs House collected between 60-70% of the annual tarriff revenues for the US. More revenue than Charleston, Savannah, Mobile,Wilmington & New Orleans combined. So the idea that the South created 75% of federal revenue is baseless.

The only way the South could have provided 2/3 of the revenues of the US is if the majority of products headed south after import. Which seems rather unlikely, though once again anything is possible. But it seems a stretch that the wealthy planters were subsidizing the US govt through a disproportional levy of taxes, the average non slave holding farmer certainly wasn't.

I'm running off memory so I may well be off but there are records showing what came into what port via the registar for the Sec of Treasury on an annual bassis.

Last edited on Mon Sep 10th, 2012 11:36 pm by Johan Steele



 Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2012 05:07 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
36th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

what unique imports went south to account for the southern tariff payment preponderence?

railroad iron was usually the most heavily tariffed import; it certainly was not heading south...



 Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2012 06:14 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
37th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Scanning the 3 links provided, provides food for thought:
1) The tariff raised did not decrease during the war. Did northerners start buying enough o offset the loss of southern consumers and their tariffs?
2) One link describes the busy-ness of New Orleans. Busy it may have been, but not by importing goods. All of the gulf coast ports imported $22M worth of goods out of total 1860 imports of some $340M (from ‘The Historical Statistics of the United States').
3) The 1860 tariff of $53.2M spread among 27M free persons amounts to almost $2 per head.


One link claims

“As the ports in the South had the most traffic, they paid seventy-five percent of all tariffs in 1859.”,

and cites:

"New Orleans was the largest city in the South and was the center of the cotton & sugar export. Trade products of the Mississippi River Valley were shipped for sale to New Orleans and almost 2,000 sea-going vessels and 3,500 river steamers with tonnage of 1,200,000 tons entered the port of New Orleans during the year before the war." (Confederate Finance and Supply, W. Power Clancy, Cincinnati Civil War Round Table.)",

which unluckily mentions *imports* not a bit…



 Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2012 09:04 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
38th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hank C-

  Tariffs, which had traditionally been the major source of revenues for the Federal Government, were in no way sufficient to fund the war effort. In addition to raising the tariffs, excise taxes were reintroduced. A new progressive federal income tax was  established.
Tax History Project: The Civil War (A detailed discussion of funding of the war).


  As for the tariffs themselves, they had been lowered in 1857. But when those pesky southerners left the Congress, proponents of the Morrill Tariff were able to get their bill adopted on March 2, 1861. This greatly increased tariff rates by about 70% initially. Instead of 17% overall and 21% on dutiable items only, the rates became 26% overall and 36% on dutiable items. By the end of the war, the numbers were 38% and 48%. The tariffs raised about $345 million total during the war, over $75 million annually. (Ad valorem tax revenues for the entire country in 1860 were $56 million).

  By comparison, something over $3 billion was raised during the war by bond sales and printing of greenbacks. (It cost the Federal Government over $3 billion to run the military alone during the war). The Federal Government spent about $66 million in 1861, but by 1865, it was spending at a rate of over $1 billion annually.

The United States Senate Committee on Finance: About - History (See Civil War Years).

Did tariffs really cause the Civil War? The Morrill Act at 150

  (An interesting article discussing slavery and tariff issues)

Last edited on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 11:30 pm by Texas Defender



 Posted: Fri Sep 14th, 2012 03:47 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
39th Post
JG6789
Member
 

Joined: Mon Apr 23rd, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

HankC wrote:
3) The 1860 tariff of $53.2M spread among 27M free persons amounts to almost $2 per head.

 

And if the CSA had been allowed to go in peace, all goods imported from the US would have been dutiable ($200M in 1860).  At the rates adopted by the CS tariff this would have been over $6 per person. 



 Current time is 03:40 amPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2   
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.5526 seconds (21% database + 79% PHP). 35 queries executed.