Could a competent administration conduct a war without tremendous national debt?

Question

In Lincoln's yearly address to Congress in Dec. 1862, at the height of the Civil War he reported that the Federal Government had spent $570,841,700.25, receipts for the fiscal year ended were $583,885,247.06 . A surplus $13,043,546.81 had been carried into FY1863.

This in spite of rampant military spending, profiteering and tax evasion. There were no personal income taxes at that time.

Source; Lincolns yearly message to Congress, December, 1862.

Answer 1

Probably not.

It's a curious thing that there were all sorts of weapons development projects going on, some of which changed the way wars were fought for a hundred years.

The iron-clad are the best known, there were a lot more of them than the Monitor and the Merrimack (aka Virginia), and the two most famous were not the first.

Profiteering was probably more blatant then than now, a famous episode involved shoes supplied (yes the North did supply most of the soldiers uniforms) which fell apart within less than a mile. The capitalist who supplied them explained that they were Cavalry shoes, not intended for walking, and got away with it.

Unlike these days, there was not a standing military at the start of hostilities, so millions of weapons had to be made, supplies and material of all sorts had to be obtained and transported. All in all, it was at least as expensive in 1860s dollars to wage field an army as it is today in 2006 dollars.

One of the main differences is the scale at which profiteers are robbing the treasury. And the refusal of the government, either party to do anything substantive about it. And we have to share the blame for allowing thieves to get away without sufficient restitution let alone damages for their treasonous crimes.

Chances are that if we did have a competent administration, the national debt would be lower, but would still be tremendous.

Answer 2

I see your point, but they did not have billion or trillion dollar airplanes, tanks, vehicles, etc. The weapons were very low tech and most wore their own clothing unlike today, where each man and woman is given a complete uniform, etc. Also, to be successful, a country has got to spend the money to keep their armed forces moving forward, not languishing or being pushed backward. It would just be nice if we could all live together without the need for war, and spend all of that money on countries that need it to feed, house and cloth their people. But that's not the real world that we live in today, unfortunately.

Answer 3

No matter how competent the administration, there are still factors that can cause an administration to have to increase spending during a war if any sort of upper hand is to be gained!!!!!

Answer 4

actual, the armed forces commercial complicated fuels the economic gadget. that's what Eisenhower got here upon frightening. He didnt p.c. us to maintain going to conflict only to gasoline our economic gadget. conflict is actual very stable for the economic gadget in maximum situations. conflict means extensive government spending. it particularly is actual a extensive stimulus plan.