60% of those younger than 30 say the main cause of the ACW was States Rights

[Admiral Yi]

And the mills in the UK ran on Southern cotton.

Right.  And sugar and tobacco were both huge export crops.  Whereas i don't think northern wheat was economical to export at the time and meat certainly wasn't before the advent of refrigerated shipping.

[Valmy]

And the mills in the UK ran on Southern cotton.

Right.  And sugar and tobacco were both huge export crops.  Whereas i don't think northern wheat was economical to export at the time and meat certainly wasn't before the advent of refrigerated shipping.

Well right there has to be some meat to the whole 'Federal Tax' conspiracy theory.  Of course the North was massively richer than the South and I am  pretty sure they could have found the pennies in the couch cushions to fund the Federal Government.  Hell just think of all the new tariffs and taxes they could have raised from the fact a new foreign country, that is going to be key trading partner, was just created just to the South of them.

Indeed the fact nobody in the government seemed particularly worried about this makes it fall kind of flat to me.

[Admiral Yi]

Well right there has to be some meat to the whole 'Federal Tax' conspiracy theory.  Of course the North was massively richer than the South and I am  pretty sure they could have found the pennies in the couch cushions to fund the Federal Government.

Which they did quite easily by floating debt during the war.

Not sure about that massively richer thing though.  My understanding is that per capita was higher in the south.

[Siege]

Are you saying the ACW was not about states rights?

[grumbler]

Are you saying the ACW was not about states rights?

he's saying that states have powers, not rights.

[Valmy]

Which they did quite easily by floating debt during the war.

Not sure about that massively richer thing though.  My understanding is that per capita was higher in the south.

The overwhelming majority of people in the south were small farmers or slaves so I find that unlikely.

[Valmy]

Are you saying the ACW was not about states rights?

States have no rights.  Human beings have rights.  States are arbitrary lines one draws in the dirt.

[grumbler]

Well right there has to be some meat to the whole 'Federal Tax' conspiracy theory.  Of course the North was massively richer than the South and I am  pretty sure they could have found the pennies in the couch cushions to fund the Federal Government.

Which they did quite easily by floating debt during the war.

Not sure about that massively richer thing though.  My understanding is that per capita was higher in the south.

The South's per capita income was 73% that of the North in 1860.  Bateman and Weiss, A Deplorable Scarcity: The Failure of Industrialization in the Slave Economy p. 42  It was higher than the industrial Northeast, if you exclude slaves. If you treat slaves as intermediate capital goods, per capita income in the South exceeds that of the North, but that seems as  artificial as treating them as normal consumers.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The overwhelming majority of people in the south were small farmers or slaves so I find that unlikely.

Would depend on how you define "per capita" as per Grumbler. I don't know what the right answer is but it would seem weird to me to consider per capita income with chattel as part of the divisor, do we divide total GDP by the number of humans + sheep + cattle + all other livestock to get our per capita GDP? Economically I think slaves were probably more comparable to livestock in terms of wage, than to full economic participants.

I don't know that, I'm not sure antebellum slave economics is easily understood or that society easily compared to the north using economic measures we mostly use when talking about our present day and more recent historical society.

But your point about small farms is stupid. Yeoman farmers have almost never been all that badly off, and they would certainly be better off than industrial wage earners in the 19th century who have no accumulated capital or real property. One of the big reasons everyone but the wealthiest in society were far richer in the colonies than in the British Isles is because tenant farmers were essentially nigh-unknown in the colonies while they were the norm back home. Tenant farmers and unskilled labor are almost never going to be wealthier than a property owning farmer when speaking in aggregate terms.

That's even looking to be true today, most small farmers that are still around now are pretty prosperous. The ones that weren't are long gone. I would assume back in the 50s/60s when unskilled labor was at its peak in terms of compensation maybe this wasn't the case. But I'll also note most poor farmers I've known were actually not land owners themselves. Lots of dirt poor farmers are actually leasers.

[OttoVonBismarck]

States have no rights.  Human beings have rights.  States are arbitrary lines one draws in the dirt.

Rights are a term of art more or less and just defined by law, so of course any legal entity can have rights. I guess you could argue they have "powers" which is a distinction without a difference. Most people way say States in the EU have specific rights in regard to their interactions with the greater Union, same as in the United States each State is entitled to two Senators to represent them for example.

[Razgovory]

But your point about small farms is stupid. Yeoman farmers have almost never been all that badly off, and they would certainly be better off than industrial wage earners in the 19th century who have no accumulated capital or real property. One of the big reasons everyone but the wealthiest in society were far richer in the colonies than in the British Isles is because tenant farmers were essentially nigh-unknown in the colonies while they were the norm back home. Tenant farmers and unskilled labor are almost never going to be wealthier than a property owning farmer when speaking in aggregate terms.

I seriously question this.  There were more small land owners here then in Europe, and they were certainly better off then their old world brethren, but it was still a rough job with irregular income.  Factory work in the US often gave decent pay that was delivered on time for easier and less dangerous work.  We often forget that before tractors were common farm labor was really hard work not to mention dangerous.  I had a great aunt who was widowed 8 times due to farm accidents.

[Razgovory]

States have no rights.  Human beings have rights.  States are arbitrary lines one draws in the dirt.

Rights are a term of art more or less and just defined by law, so of course any legal entity can have rights. I guess you could argue they have "powers" which is a distinction without a difference. Most people way say States in the EU have specific rights in regard to their interactions with the greater Union, same as in the United States each State is entitled to two Senators to represent them for example.

Don't want to pick on you, but there is a difference.  Powers can be removed without due process.  Rights can not. 

[MadImmortalMan]

I was taught the difference between rights and powers was that powers are delegated and rights are inherent. Powers would then be delegated rights.

[Neil]

Are you saying the ACW was not about states rights?

States have no rights.  Human beings have rights.  States are arbitrary lines one draws in the dirt.

Rights are arbitrary too, so there's no reason a state couldn't have rights just as much as a person could.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I seriously question this.  There were more small land owners here then in Europe, and they were certainly better off then their old world brethren, but it was still a rough job with irregular income.  Factory work in the US often gave decent pay that was delivered on time for easier and less dangerous work.  We often forget that before tractors were common farm labor was really hard work not to mention dangerous.  I had a great aunt who was widowed 8 times due to farm accidents.

I'm not convinced a 19th century farm is more dangerous than a 19th century factory.

Don't want to pick on you, but there is a difference.  Powers can be removed without due process.  Rights can not.

Says who?

I was taught the difference between rights and powers was that powers are delegated and rights are inherent. Powers would then be delegated rights.

No legal constructs like "rights" or "powers" are inherent.