Jackson Free Press

In an occasional blog series I'm inaugurating here, I'd like to pull forward some debate that's happening in the comments and examine a variety of the myths and legends that surround the South's participation in the civil war.

From the comments section came this one from Claude Shannon:

The war was fought over money and power. In 1860, 80% of all federal taxes were paid for by the south. 95% of that money was spent on improving the north.

Now I'm not a history scholar, but I do get curious when things just kinda sound wrong.

First... even if we assume that's true (which, as you'll see later, I can't) I think the construct is disingenuous, as it suggests that "the South" had very little say in the matter and no recourse but secession given the rapacious chokehold that the North apparently had on the South in terms of political power and usurious taxation.

It's a dramatic picture, but there are a few caveats:

1.) Democrats (the party that included most all Southern politicians) controlled Congress leading up to the Civil War (they lost the House in 1859) and had a Democratic president in the "doughface" Buchanan. (The term being one that suggests a Northern with Southern sympathies.)

2.) The Tariff of 1857 was authored and supported by Southern legislators (the primary author was Virginia Senator Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter, who would later be pictured on the Confederate $10 bill) and it lowered tariffs to a level they hadn't hit in 50 years.

http://jacksonfreepress.com/users/photos/2015/jul/10/22076/

Remember that through most of 1800-1860 there was no income tax on individuals and businesses or other taxes (sales, property) as we define them today -- Federal taxes were almost exclusively tariffs on imports. (The Nullification Crisis had come when tariffs were considerably higher in order to pay down debts from the War of 1812.)

So, "taxes" were considerably lower leading up to the war.

But then... if there's evidence that "The South" paid "80 percent" of those tariffs they'd managed to lower, I can't find it.

As noted here, about 63% of Federal revenue was collected as tariffs on shipments that went through just the Port of New York alone. And those tariffs were collected from the merchants who imported them.

Aside from New York, there were certainly other ports in the North; so an argument that "The South" paid 80% of tariffs -- e.g. that 80% of imported and taxed goods went through Southern ports where the taxes were paid by Southern importers -- isn't correct.

(The tariffs were also protectionist in nature, and likely benefitted both the North and South as they made locally produced goods more attractive.)

If there's a more esoteric argument that says somehow the South ultimately bought 80% of those goods and therefore experienced the markup that came from them being taxes, I haven't seen it, but it would be interesting to read and parse.

One other point to make on tariffs -- the Southern states …

This is one of my favorite weeks in sports with the NCAA Men’s and Women’s Final Four and WrestleMania held on the same weekend. Looking at the card for WrestleMania 33, it could be a dud, but the in-ring action may surpass expectations, depending on the angles that the company wants to go with post-show.

If you checked out The Slate in the Jackson Free Press this week, there is a tease about a future president taking part in a past WrestleMania. No, not The Rock, although he might one day run for the office, and he has the charisma and charm to win.

WrestleMania 23 took place at Ford Field in Detroit on April 1, 2007, and while it wasn’t the greatest “showcase of the immortals,” it wasn’t horrible and does have an interesting place the event’s history.

In the run-up to the event, WWE owner Vince McMahon entered into a feud with longtime friend Donald Trump. This feud started when Trump interrupted McMahon on “Monday Night Raw,” stealing the WWE chairman’s spotlight and laying the groundwork for their future match.

This wasn’t the first time Trump ended up as part of McMahon’s traveling show. Trump signed a deal to have Trump Plaza sponsor WrestleMania IV and WrestleMania V, even though the events took place at Atlantic City Convention Hall, now known as Boardwalk Hall.

In WrestleMania history, this is still the only time that the event took place in the same location in back-to-back years. Trump was in the crowd as a fan at WrestleMania VII and WrestleMania XX, making him a fixture at the event four times before the 23rd “show of shows.”

At WrestleMania 23, the Trump-McMahon match was billed as the “Battle of the Billionaires.” So what would these so-called billionaires battle over but hair-vs.-hair, with the loser having his head shaved? What else would the two battle over if not their locks?

Instead of fighting each other, the two men chose proxies to fight in their place, with Trump picking ECW champion Bobby Lashley and McMahon going with Intercontinental champion Umaga. “Stone Cold” Steve Austin came in as a special guest referee for the match to add more sizzle.

Interesting fact: McMahon wanted Hulk Hogan to be Trump’s pick for the match as a callback to WrestleMania III, but money issues between the two kept the Hulkster from taking part in the event.

As for the match, it isn’t a classic for its in-ring work, but Stone Cold handed out his signature move, the “stunner,” to McMahon’s son, Shane, after he entered the match when Umaga had “knocked out” Austin. That set the IC champ up for the finish with a stunner from Austin and a pin by Lashley.

After the match, Trump, Lashley and Austin helped shaved McMahon, and as it turned out, Vince, with no hair, has the tiniest head in the history of wrestling. Stone Cold did his normal post-match …