Slavery; THE Cause?

[marcferguson]

Originally Posted by cash

Ah, I see, now, Marc. And he obviously tricked Stephen Hale and the rest of the secession commissioners into saying what they said, that secession was necessary to protect slavery, instead of what they really felt.

Regards,
Cash

Can you imagine how embarrassing that must have been?

best,
marc

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by marcferguson

Unionblue,
If it was the tariffs, I can imagine that they would have been embarrassed to say so, since, as Cash has pointed out, Southern ports paid only 10% of the tariffs in 1860. Now, where did you say that swampland was?

Southern ports didn't "pay" any duties. The ports "collected" duties. The consumers "paid" the duties in higher prices. The South was heavily dependent on imports since they had little manufacturing in the South.

Rose

[cedarstripper]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Southern ports didn't "pay" any duties. The ports "collected" duties. The consumers "paid" the duties in higher prices.

The percentage of duties that was reflected in the price of the product depended on many factors. Much of the burden was often borne by the foreign producer who had to compete in the US market duty included, much the same as having to bear the freight expense. All depends on demand.

The South was heavily dependent on imports since they had little manufacturing in the South.

Most of the imports the South bought were manufactured in the North. There is nothing to indicate that foreign dutiable imports were consumed any more in the South than in the North or West, and their entering through northern ports suggests just the opposite. Futhermore, it is inaccurate to assume that duties were just collected on manufactures. Sugar collected more duties than any other article.

Happy Holidays,

Cedarstripper

[marcferguson]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Southern ports didn't "pay" any duties. The ports "collected" duties. The consumers "paid" the duties in higher prices. The South was heavily dependent on imports since they had little manufacturing in the South.

Rose

Rose,
Yes, sorry for the misstatement. Only 10% of duties were paid at southern ports. This means that 90% of duties were paid in northern ports. Tariffs were not an issue... period!

Merry Christmas,
marc

[MobileBoy]

Rose,
You are correct in your premise.Some poeple just don't sem to be able to grasp that a tarrif raised the price of a foreign good forcing Southerners to buy Northern made goods.It's an elementary concept but most Northerners for some reason can't comprehend it.They also seem unable to realize that just because imports were unloaded in New York that doesn't mean the goods were sold in New York or used there.Apparently they think their was no method of transportation available to transport goods. They also somehow sternly deny the fact that tarrifs voted for by Northern Congressman and voted against by Southern Congressman to the detriment of Southern interest could in anyway possibly had a role in the decision of Southerners to leave the Union they had freely joined.I know very puzzling isn't it Rose.Anyway welcome aboard.

[johan_steele]

I would suggest anyone interested in the effect of or lack of the Tarriff had on the war take a look at the Tariff thread in its entirety.

http://civilwartalk.com/forums/showt...8&page=1&pp=10

[marcferguson]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Rose,
You are correct in your premise.Some poeple just don't sem to be able to grasp that a tarrif raised the price of a foreign good forcing Southerners to buy Northern made goods.It's an elementary concept but most Northerners for some reason can't comprehend it.They also seem unable to realize that just because imports were unloaded in New York that doesn't mean the goods were sold in New York or used there.Apparently they think their was no method of transportation available to transport goods. They also somehow sternly deny the fact that tarrifs voted for by Northern Congressman and voted against by Southern Congressman to the detriment of Southern interest could in anyway possibly had a role in the decision of Southerners to leave the Union they had freely joined.I know very puzzling isn't it Rose.Anyway welcome aboard.

Okay, let's talk about elementary concepts that for some reason people can't comprehend. If Tariffs loomed so large as the reason for secession, why is it that every effort to find a compromise to avoid secession, i.e. the Crittendon Compromise and the Corwin Amendment, had absolutely nothing, let me write that again, absolutely nothing to do with tariffs? Why is it that all four State Declarations of Causes of Secession (South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas) focused almost entirely on slavery?

From the South Carolina Declaration of Causes:
"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

"The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."





From the Georgia Declaration of Causes:


"The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

"With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization."





From the Mississippi Declaration of Causes:


"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."



From the Texas Declaration of Causes:


"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."



Read through each declaration in its entirety; there is barely a whisper concerning tariffs. Read the Ordinances of Secession as well; notice that they all refer to "slaveholding states," and not a one of them refers to "Tariff-opposing states."


Tariffs were not an issue, period! The battles over tariffs were decades in the past. As for goods unloaded in New York and where they might have been used, the North had a far greater population than the South, and consumed many more goods. Northerners paid the vast majority of the costs of tariffs. The whole tariff issue was resurrected after the war by Confederate apologists. Those who led secession were quite clear that their cause was slavery.


best,
marc

[cedarstripper]

Mobileboy,

You may have stumbled across an effective method of debate. I for one have no interest in replying to anymore of your posts, which are usually punctuated with ignorance and cowardly insults.

Cedarstripper

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by cedarstripper

The percentage of duties that was reflected in the price of the product depended on many factors. Much of the burden was often borne by the foreign producer who had to compete in the US market duty included, much the same as having to bear the freight expense. All depends on demand.

Yes, I understand the object of protection was to drive the foreign market out of the U.S. as much as possible. That left consumers forced to buy Northern produced goods or pay exorbitant prices for imports.

Originally Posted by cedarstripper

Most of the imports the South bought were manufactured in the North. There is nothing to indicate that foreign dutiable imports were consumed any more in the South than in the North or West, and their entering through northern ports suggests just the opposite. Futhermore, it is inaccurate to assume that duties were just collected on manufactures. Sugar collected more duties than any other article.

Foreign made goods were often received in the North by Northern merchants who sold to the Southern states. Where they entered the U.S. was of little indication of where it eventually ended up. The South did little manufacturing and very little shipping and was, therefore, forced to buy Northern made or Northern imported goods as a general rule.

Rose

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by marcferguson

Rose,
Tariffs were not an issue... period!

marc

Tariff policy was very much an issue. Even prior to 1832 and the Nullification Crisis it was an issue. Compromises were made and the issue went to the back burner but, it never cooled, it only simmered for decades. With the election of a protectionist president it became a new crisis for Southerners.