Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Marc, this has been discussed to death and no one is going to change their mind, but I'd like to say one thing about slavery and secession.
Slavery was not an issue to the South until the North made it an issue. All the South wanted from the North was to be left alone and treated as an equal among states. Obviously, the North couldn't do that, so slavery was used to needle the South in every possible way. But, when the North voted to deny slave owners access to the territories, that was just too much for the Southern states to accept. They felt they had paid the same high price in money and blood for the territories as the non-slave holding states did and should have equal access.
The South seceded because the North couldn't stop slapping them in the face with slavery. We were no longer a nation of brothers. We had became a sectional nation of "them" vs "us". It was time to either split and go our seperate ways or for the South to accept subjugation by the North. For the South, there was no question, it came down to secession or dishonor.
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
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.
Rose,
Where is your evidence for this? Alexander Stephens himself said that the tariff laws were as the South had made them.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
Marc, this has been discussed to death and no one is going to change their mind, but I'd like to say one thing about slavery and secession.
Slavery was not an issue to the South until the North made it an issue. All the South wanted from the North was to be left alone and treated as an equal among states. Obviously, the North couldn't do that, so slavery was used to needle the South in every possible way. But, when the North voted to deny slave owners access to the territories, that was just too much for the Southern states to accept. They felt they had paid the same high price in money and blood for the territories as the non-slave holding states did and should have equal access.
The South seceded because the North couldn't stop slapping them in the face with slavery. We were no longer a nation of brothers. We had became a sectional nation of "them" vs "us". It was time to either split and go our seperate ways or for the South to accept subjugation by the North. For the South, there was no question, it came down to secession or dishonor.
Rose,
Thank you for this very clear statement affirming that slavery was indeed the cause of secession. I am both impressed, and somewhat astonished, that you write so directly and clearly in defense of southern slavery. I cannot see, however, what honor there can be in defending the rightness of slavery. If there was a "them" vs "us" mentality at work in the country, it was surely that of free white vs black slave. The efforts of abolitionists, who were overwhelmingly pacifists, to end slavery in America was surely one of the noble enterprises in human history, and in the slave states a virtually closed society had been created by southerners to barricade themselves against these humanitarian efforts.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
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.
It would be more accurate to write "buy domestic goods from the home market." As I wrote before, all dutiable goods that were also produced domestically were not from the North. Tariffs were more than about protectionism though. Their object also was to raise revenues.
Quote:
Foreign made goods were often received in the North by Northern merchants who sold to the Southern states.
In order for you to show that southern consumers bought more than their proportionate share of dutiable imports, you need to show more than 'often'. Since only 6.78% of US tariff receipts were collected in southern ports in 1859, we can assume that only 6.78% of dutiable imports entered Customs there. Since the South was indeed the origin of this massive amount of export shipping, and you claim that she was also the destiny of this great amount of foreign import shipping, then explain why less than 7% percent of foreign imports entered through her ports. Why did shiploads of goods headed for this hungry market in Georgia and Alabama enter through Customs in NY, Boston and Chicago instead of Savanah and Mobile?
Quote:
Where they entered the U.S. was of little indication of where it eventually ended up.
Sure it was. There's a reason that Japanese cars don't enter the US market through Customs in Anchorage, Alaska. You are trying to make an argument that, due to little manufacturing, the South bought most of her goods from foreign producers. There is no faster and more efficient way to accomplish the reciprocal shipping of cotton and imports than to ship directly to and from the southern cotton port. Nothing was to be gained by unnecessarily offloading in an icy northern port, clearing the cargo through Customs and paying the tariffs there, warehousing, reloading, and hoping the cargo that has now had about 24% of its value additionally paid in duties, yet is still a thousand miles from its customers, does not end up floating ashore on Nags Head.
Quote:
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.
If the South was the destination of a majority of foreign imports, then direct shipping was the most efficient and most profitiable, whether you were a northern shipper or a southern one. Decades of such a magnetic back and forth commerce out of the South could not have been maintained through unnecessary entries though northern ports hundreds of miles out of the way. Even northern shippers would have been forced to, and been quite happy to, sit back and smoke their cigars in Manhatten while the ships they owned docked and unloaded in Charleston and New Orleans.
We might imagine that an established shipping industry in the North dominated over American shipping, although there is no reason to believe that the South lacked capital or foresight to haul her own export crop and imports. But such is not the case with British shipping. This trans-Atlantic commerce was half hers to partake in and it seems inconceivable that she would sit on the sidelines while her arch competitors in NY and Boston monopolized the reciprocal trade between Europe and the South. Direct shipping not only was the only shipping available to the British, but it would have allowed her to prevail with faster schedules, cheaper freight, and no middleman charges for unloading/loading, drayage, and warehousing.
But it didn't happen. Why? Not because of any northern shipping monopoly. Not because it was cheaper or faster for importers to bring foreign goods to the South via the Port of Boston or NY. Not because the South lacked good ports, or rail shipping was cheaper, or Southerners wanted to support longshoremen in Philadelphia. Not because it was advantageous to offload and pay the tariff in a northern port. It did not happen because the great marketplace across the South, hungry for foreign imports did not exist.
As for the fact that tariffs could have the effect of burdening consumers with higher end costs, there is no argument from me. But in order to show a disproportionate burden to the South, you need to demonstrate that this somehow caused southern consumers to pay more for domestic goods than any other Americans did.
If tariffs were especially hurtful to the South, it would be interesting to hear why, in all the years of southern domination of Congress and the presidency, there was no initiative to repeal them and replace them with direct internal taxation as the means for raising federal revenue. It would be interesting to hear why the tariff act of 1846 was considered a fair and free trade tariff act which Southern politicians were happy with, yet it's ad valorem rates were in fact higher than the 1861 act.
Slavery was not an issue to the South until the North made it an issue. All the South wanted from the North was to be left alone and treated as an equal among states. Obviously, the North couldn't do that, so slavery was used to needle the South in every possible way.
What was it the South wanted to be left alone over if agitation over slavery was merely a northern concoction afterwards?
Quote:
But, when the North voted to deny slave owners access to the territories, that was just too much for the Southern states to accept. They felt they had paid the same high price in money and blood for the territories as the non-slave holding states did and should have equal access.
US citizens from the South had the same access to the territories as anyone else. Do you mean that they were angry because they could not start up slave labor enterprises in the territories? US citizens from other regions of the US were equally prohibited from doing that.
Quote:
The South seceded because the North couldn't stop slapping them in the face with slavery. We were no longer a nation of brothers. We had became a sectional nation of "them" vs "us". It was time to either split and go our seperate ways or for the South to accept subjugation by the North. For the South, there was no question, it came down to secession or dishonor.
I would say that statement is quite in tune with the secession documents of 1860-61.
Rose,
Where is your evidence for this? Alexander Stephens himself said that the tariff laws were as the South had made them.
best,
marc
Prior to the 1820’s, the Southern politician, Calhoun, supported protectionist tariffs. He (like many others) believed it was beneficial to young industry. By the late 1820’s, he began to realize his views were mistaken . He used the “Forty Bales” theory to explain how protectionist tariffs hurt Southern economy.
“The theory attempted to explained how tariffs on manufactured goods reduced demand for the South’s raw cotton: a 40 percent tariff on cotton finished goods led to 40 percent higher consumer prices, which translated to 40 percent fewer sales, since consumers had less money to spend following the Panic of 1819. And 40 percent fewer sales meant cotton manufacturers purchased 40 percent less cotton. Calhoun’s rise to prominence as a national figure led him to take up the fight against economic policies that hurt the South.”
Calhoun believed these tariffs redistributed the wealth by taking from the South and placing it in the hands of the manufacturers. In 1833 a compromise tariff was adopted which mollified the South by reducing tariffs gradually over several years.
There was another near crisis in 1842 in which the steadily lowering of tariffs (as per the 1833 Compromise) was disturbed as a means to bail the government out of a deficit.
By the time Zachery Taylor was elected president, the South was content with the present tariffs and the Northern manufacturers were enjoying an economic high, so that they weren’t pressing for the protection as strongly as they had in the past.
The Walker tariff of 1846 was supported by the South. It reduced tariffs below 30% on most of the controversial items such as clothing and iron.
In 1857 the tariffs were reduced even further falling below 20% by 1859. During the Nullification Crisis the South had wanted to see tariffs at 15%, but they were pleased with the 20%.
Abraham Lincoln was a member of the fairly new Republican party. He described himself as “an old Henry Clay Whig”. The Whig party and later the Republican party were strong supporters of protection for industry via tariffs. With Lincoln’s election the South saw themselves losing their majority in Congress and fully understood that the only thing standing in the way of high protection tariffs had been the Democratic majority in Congress.
It was and had been a volatile issue for many decades and it was about to explode, again, except that the Southern states seceded before that inevitability happened. And those that claim the Democrats could have prevented it by staying in Congress and not seceding are only partly right. The Democrats could have prevented it for a short time, but with the majority shifting, it would be only a short time before the tariffs shot up again under the Republican majority. To prove this point, the high tariffs brought about by the Republicans as a measure to “fund the war”, lasted way more than half a century.
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
Rose,
Thank you for this very clear statement affirming that slavery was indeed the cause of secession. I am both impressed, and somewhat astonished, that you write so directly and clearly in defense of southern slavery. I cannot see, however, what honor there can be in defending the rightness of slavery. If there was a "them" vs "us" mentality at work in the country, it was surely that of free white vs black slave. The efforts of abolitionists, who were overwhelmingly pacifists, to end slavery in America was surely one of the noble enterprises in human history, and in the slave states a virtually closed society had been created by southerners to barricade themselves against these humanitarian efforts.
best,
marc
Marc, I've found there is no point in discussing slavery or any other aspect of the WBTS, for that matter, with anyone that cannot calmly and rationally discuss slavery. I do not now, nor have I ever, defended slavery as being right and I do take offense to your implying that I do defend it. I can, however, discuss it without becoming hysterical over it. After all, no matter how unpleasant, it is history...it is in the past.
Abolitionism was, indeed, noble in theory. In practice, it wasn't always quite so noble (John Brown). It is a myth that the Northern people all were abolitionist minded. Slavery benefitted certain Northerners. Only a handful of the Northern population were anti-slavery while the majority had little thought one way or the other about it. Of course, this is prior to the war and Lincoln's crusade to make slavery the issue.
"Them vs us" wasn't only about slave owners and non-slave owners. It was industrialism vs agriculture. Protection tariffs vs free trade. State sovereignty vs strong centralized government. These are only the more major differences of the North and South and these differences caused a myraid of conflicts in sectional interests.
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
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.
They seem to have preferred Northern goods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Foreign made goods were often received in the North by Northern merchants who sold to the Southern states.
They were shipped primarily to Northern ports and from there transshipped to the rest of the country, not just to the south. In fact, southerners didn't use much in the way of imported goods, preferring Northern and Western products.
"There were difficulties to be overcome before direct importations could be established other than deficiency of capital and credit, the long credit system, or the absence of a thoroughly Southern mercantile class. One lay in the comparatively small amounts of foreign goods consumed in the South. There is no way of calculating accurately the value of the foreign imports consumed in territory naturally tributary to Southern seaports; but the probabilities are that it did not so greatly exceed the direct importations as Southerners generally supposed. Some Southern writers made the palpably untenable assumption that the Southern population consumed foreign goods equal in value to their exports to foreign countries, that is about two-thirds or three-fourths of the nation's exports or imports. More reasonable was the assumption that the per capita consumption of imported goods in the South was equal to that of the North; but even that would seem to have been too liberal. A much higher percentage of the Northern population was urban; and the per capita consumption of articles of commerce by an urban population is greater than the per capita consumption by a rural population. Southern writers made much of the number of rich families in the South who bought articles of luxury imported from abroad; but there is no doubt that the number of families who lived in luxury was exaggerated. That the slaves consumed comparatively small quantities of foreign goods requires no demonstration. Their clothing and rough shoes were manufactured either in the North or at home. Their chief articles of food (corn and bacon) were produced at home or in the West. The large poor white element in the population consumed few articles of commerce, either domestic or foreign. The same is true of the rather large mountaineer element, because if for no other reason, they lived beyond the routes of trade. Olmstead had these classes in mind when he wrote: 'I have never seen reason to believe that with absolute free trade the cotton States would take a tenth part of the value of our present importations.' One of the fairest of the many English travelers wrote: 'But the truth is, there are few imports required, for every Southern town tells the same tale.' " [Robert R. Russel, Economic Aspects of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861, pp. 107-108]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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
Southerners made up only 29% of the US population in 1860, and being primarily rural, they didn't use much in the way of foreign manufactured goods. Some people claim that the tariff allowed Northern industries to charge higher prices for their goods. This view is completely false and betrays ignorance of the state of the tariff at the time of secession. The tariff at the time of secession was at its lowest point in 50 years. Southerners consistently made comments about how cheap it was to buy goods produced in the North.
Henry Benning of Georgia, secession commissioner to Virginia, said very clearly to the Virginia Secession Convention, "What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery." [Henry Benning to Virginia Secession Convention, 18 Feb 1861]
Slavery was not an issue to the South until the North made it an issue. All the South wanted from the North was to be left alone and treated as an equal among states. Obviously, the North couldn't do that, so slavery was used to needle the South in every possible way.
Slavery was very obviously an issue to the south, otherwise they wouldn't have seceded to protect it. And the southern states threatened disunion over slavery ever since the debates over the Declaration of Independence. It was very obviously an issue for them from the beginning of the country onward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
But, when the North voted to deny slave owners access to the territories, that was just too much for the Southern states to accept.
Your timeline is a bit off. Congress [not "the North"] didn't vote to exclude slavery from the territories until 19 June 1862. Secession was in 1860 and 1861.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
The South seceded because the North couldn't stop slapping them in the face with slavery. We were no longer a nation of brothers. We had became a sectional nation of "them" vs "us". It was time to either split and go our seperate ways or for the South to accept subjugation by the North. For the South, there was no question, it came down to secession or dishonor.
At least you're no longer claiming it was tariffs. That's progress.
Abolitionism was, indeed, noble in theory. In practice, it wasn't always quite so noble (John Brown).
Interesting that John Brown, who only used the tactics of southerners against them, is brought up as ignoble, yet the southerners who first used those tactics are thought of as noble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
It is a myth that the Northern people all were abolitionist minded. Slavery benefitted certain Northerners.
That is a strawman, since nobody is claiming the "Northern people" were all abolitionist minded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Only a handful of the Northern population were anti-slavery while the majority had little thought one way or the other about it. Of course, this is prior to the war and Lincoln's crusade to make slavery the issue.
If it was only Lincoln's crusade to make slavery the issue, then why did the seceding states very clearly state they were seceding to protect slavery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
"Them vs us" wasn't only about slave owners and non-slave owners.
In fact, it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
It was industrialism vs agriculture. Protection tariffs vs free trade. State sovereignty vs strong centralized government.
Postwar justifications fabricated after the destruction of slavery.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
