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.
I am rambling off- thread but: Failure to educate people of color to their part in the WBTS has been a pet peeve of mine for sometime now.
If the North as a whole, was so interested in the black population, why did some Northern states refuse to allow blacks to enter the state?
The greatest injustice of the time, and for years afterward, was to the black race. There were few facilities for printing school books in the South, so most school books came from the North. The reconstruction ushered in the Jim Crow concept; which further alienated the races in the South. Nowhere in our history books are the monuments to slaves to be found. But they are here. Fort Mill, SC: "Dedicated to the faithful slaves who, loyal to a sacred trust, toiled for the support of the Army with matchless devotion. And with Sterling fidelity guarded our defenceless women and children during the struggle for the principles of our Confederate States of America. 1860-1865". Canton, MS. Madison, GA. In the Confederate Cemetery Newton, MS, there is one known black Confederate Soldier. Muster rolls of various States list many black Confederate soldiers. The trust that was placed in them is not recognized. Some people of color were slaves, but not all of them. The Northern concept is that all black people were in chains. That is comical, if a person has ever visualized a cotton plantation. If ten slaves were chained together, hoeing cotton, the nine rows of cotton between them would have been demolished by their chains!
Where did the freed slaves go after they were liberated, and the liberating armies had left them? Most went to their former masters for guidance. The whole truth is not easy to find, but it can be found, if one searches in musty old books and microfilm.
It may ease the concience to know that their ancestors fought to free slaves, freed them of the only life they had ever known. But who, pray tell, taught the newly freed slaves how to be productive members of society? The same principle as turning a zoo animal loose in the wild. There lies the shame.
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.
Rose,
If you are implying that I am becoming "hysterical" over the issue of slavery, then you have badly misread my post. I did not state that you defended slavery as being right. You did, however, defend southern slavery as a right that justified secession. While I certainly believe that you must personally abhor slavery, and that you could discuss slavery in a rational way, I would observe that you were not in fact discussing slavery, you were discussing the right of southern slaveholders to take their slaves into the territories and thereby perpetuate the institution of slavery. Slavery was unpleasant, it was a part of our country's history, it was the cause for which the southern slaveholding states attempted to secede, and while it is in our past, debate over the historical understanding of slavery as an institution is very much alive.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
Last edited by marcferguson; 12-28-2005 at 12:45 PM.
I am rambling off- thread but: Failure to educate people of color to their part in the WBTS has been a pet peeve of mine for sometime now.
If the North as a whole, was so interested in the black population, why did some Northern states refuse to allow blacks to enter the state?
olerebel,
None of this is relevant to the question of slavery being the cause of the Civil War, and none of us here need to be educated. Racism in the north is always raised as a distraction when this is being discussed. Round and round and round it goes, the same old cycle of debate.....
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
If the North as a whole, was so interested in the black population, why did some Northern states refuse to allow blacks to enter the state?
Another strawman, since nobody is claiming "the North" as a whole was interested in the black population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olerebel
The greatest injustice of the time, and for years afterward, was to the black race. There were few facilities for printing school books in the South, so most school books came from the North. The reconstruction ushered in the Jim Crow concept; which further alienated the races in the South.
Of course, the Jim Crow laws were passed by the so-called "redeemed" governments made up of white southerners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olerebel
Nowhere in our history books are the monuments to slaves to be found. But they are here. Fort Mill, SC: "Dedicated to the faithful slaves who, loyal to a sacred trust, toiled for the support of the Army with matchless devotion. And with Sterling fidelity guarded our defenceless women and children during the struggle for the principles of our Confederate States of America. 1860-1865". Canton, MS. Madison, GA.
Anybody with enough funding can put up a monument to anything they want. Doesn't have to be accurate, either. You can see James Loewen's book, Lies Across America for some examples in every state of monuments and markers that are filled with misinformation. My point here is that just because there's a monument that makes a claim doesn't mean that claim is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olerebel
In the Confederate Cemetery Newton, MS, there is one known black Confederate Soldier. Muster rolls of various States list many black Confederate soldiers.
Louisiana mustered in some free men of color, but there is precious little documentation of blacks mustered into units from other states. It was illegal in the confederacy to enlist blacks as soldiers until 1865. Civil War historian Art Bergeron has been able to document six black confederates from Louisiana. Louisiana, of course, had a very rich multicultural heritage stemming from its French and Spanish influences. There were some mulattoes who were passing as white who enlisted as white men in confederate units, but claims about large numbers of black confederates lack substantiation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olerebel
The Northern concept is that all black people were in chains. That is comical,
No, that is another strawman, as there is no such "Northern concept" that all black people were in chains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olerebel
Where did the freed slaves go after they were liberated, and the liberating armies had left them? Most went to their former masters for guidance.
Actually, most of them went to the only place they knew as home to try to earn a living by farming the land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olerebel
But who, pray tell, taught the newly freed slaves how to be productive members of society? The same principle as turning a zoo animal loose in the wild. There lies the shame.
Sorry, but this is an offensive statement. Blacks in no way resembled zoo animals. They already knew how to be productive members of society, since they had been doing the labor for white southerners already. They didn't need the "superior race" to teach them what they already knew.
Tariffs were more than about protectionism though. Their object also was to raise revenues.
The Southern states claimed these revenues, aside from being used for general government business, were used primarily to benefit the Northern states and industries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
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'.
That is not what I claimed. I claimed that Southerners were dependent on either Northern manufactured or imported goods since there was little manufacturing in the South. Am I wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
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.
I'm not sure the South claimed the burden was greater for them than others due to the high tariffs. I certainly didn't say that. They did believe it hurt their agriculture based economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
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.
Cedarstripper
Those are interesting questions. As to why the South didn't advocate for a personal income tax, I can only guess. I suppose no one wanted to open that can of worms believing the tariff system could handle the needed revenue without hurting anyone, if it could be regulated in a fair manner.
As to the South considering the tariff act of 1846 to be a fair and free trade act, I don't believe they did. They were content with it in so far as it was the best deal they believed they could get and it wasn't too far from where they wanted to it to be.
If you are saying the 1846 rates were higher than the 1861 rates, I'd have to doubt that. The Republicans raised tariffs, they didn't lower them so I don't understand where you are coming from there.
__________________ "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
What was it the South wanted to be left alone over if agitation over slavery was merely a northern concoction afterwards?
"Agitagion over slavery"? You seem to be creating your own statements to answer. I said nothing even remotely like that. And I didn't say it was a Northern concoction afterwards. This is what I said:
"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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
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.
I'm not going to argue the right and wrong of slavery. Slavery was wrong. Period. BUT, slavery was legal. That much was uncontested. Southerners could see no reason to be excluded from the territories while practicing the LEGAL institution of slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
I would say that statement is quite in tune with the secession documents of 1860-61.
That certainly was a large part of it.
__________________ "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
I'm not going to argue the right and wrong of slavery. Slavery was wrong. Period. BUT, slavery was legal. That much was uncontested. Southerners could see no reason to be excluded from the territories while practicing the LEGAL institution of slavery.
Rose,
So would southerners have been justified in insisting that they be allowed to settle in northern states and continue to practice the legal institution of slavery there? Are you really arguing that the whole nation could not make a democratic decision concerning slavery in territory owned by the whole nation? Did non-southerners even have a right to an opinion on the subject of slavery? If so, did they have a right to express that opinion? If so, did they have a right to take LEGAL political action to push for policies in line with their opinions?
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
The Southern states claimed these revenues, aside from being used for general government business, were used primarily to benefit the Northern states and industries.
"Southern states" didn't claim any such thing. Some various politicians and newspapers made such claims, and either you believe them or you don't. Federal expenditures were passed by Congress, so why would the South think they were not represented in Congress? If you think that federal expenditures primarily benefitted northern states and industries, I'd be grateful if you'd provide the evidence for it.
Quote:
That is not what I claimed. I claimed that Southerners were dependent on either Northern manufactured or imported goods since there was little manufacturing in the South. Am I wrong?
Actually Rose, your rebuttal that foreign imports 'often' entered through northern ports and then were sold South directly replied to a series of statements noting that [less than] 10% of tariffs were collected in the South which purpose was to suggest that the South was doing well to even consume dutiable articles in proportion to their population.
And no, you didn't say that southerners were dependent on either northern goods or imported goods.....you only wrote that they were "heavily dependent on imports" in a post discussing tariffs on imports.
Quote:
I'm not sure the South claimed the burden was greater for them than others due to the high tariffs. I certainly didn't say that. They did believe it hurt their agriculture based economy.
Taxes hurt everyone's economy. The issue is whether the southern states were disproportionately burdened. The slave states were not the only states with agrarian economies, yet only slave states moved to secede.
Quote:
As to why the South didn't advocate for a personal income tax, I can only guess.
DeBow claimed that people preferred revenues through tariffs as compared to a regular visit from the taxman. He claimed that they could easily avoid paying taxes merely by not buying dutiable imports.
Quote:
I suppose no one wanted to open that can of worms believing the tariff system could handle the needed revenue without hurting anyone, if it could be regulated in a fair manner.
The US Constitution required that tariffs be the same in every port. The tariff acts were set by committee, debated and amended in the House, debated and amended in the Senate, sent back to the House for concurrence, and sent to the President for signing. The South enjoyed a more than active role in this process for many years and enjoyed a representation greater than her population deserved. If they didn't like the 1861 act, they well knew the constitutional process for protesting against it.
Quote:
As to the South considering the tariff act of 1846 to be a fair and free trade act, I don't believe they did.
Declaration of Causes, Georgia: After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people.
Quote:
If you are saying the 1846 rates were higher than the 1861 rates, I'd have to doubt that. The Republicans raised tariffs, they didn't lower them so I don't understand where you are coming from there.
The 1857 tariff act lowered the ad valorem rates of the 1846 act 20%, i.e. Schedule C went from 30% down to 24%. The 1861 act's ad valorem rates went about half way back up, with Schedule C rising to 28%. Many rates were changed to specific rates, which makes them more difficult to compare, but I invite you to indicate which articles suffered dramatic raises in rates.
The ratio of duties collected to dutiable articles for FY ending June 30, 1861 actually fell from the previous year. There are a couple of tariff threads on this forum that might give you some information.
Rose,
Originally Posted by cedarstripper: "What was it the South wanted to be left alone over if agitation over slavery was merely a northern concoction afterwards?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
"Agitagion over slavery"? You seem to be creating your own statements to answer. I said nothing even remotely like that. And I didn't say it was a Northern concoction afterwards. This is what I said:
"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."
What I was replying to is what is enclosed in the "quote" box in blue just above my reply. What you wrote was: "Slavery was not an issue to the South until the North made it an issue." and you wrote that the North used slavery "to needle the South in every possible way." Does that not describe agitation? Now the question was, what was it the South wanted to be left alone over before the North made slavery an issue? Is that better?
If the North as a whole, was so interested in the black population, why did some Northern states refuse to allow blacks to enter the state?
Fugitive Slave Law.
Quote:
The greatest injustice of the time, and for years afterward, was to the black race. There were few facilities for printing school books in the South, so most school books came from the North. The reconstruction ushered in the Jim Crow concept; which further alienated the races in the South. Nowhere in our history books are the monuments to slaves to be found.
Neo-Confederate hyperbole.
The southern states instituted Jim Crow and de jure segregation to maintain their racial hierarchy dating back to slavery.
Quote:
But who, pray tell, taught the newly freed slaves how to be productive members of society?
Slaves had been farming for generations so I think they understood how to be productive.
Quote:
The same principle as turning a zoo animal loose in the wild.
Unlike animals humans have the ability to reason and communicate.
Your inference that freed blacks would create havoc in society because they were no more intelligent than zoo animals sounds like the old arguments in defense of slavery and segregation.
With an attitude like that is it any surprise that people continue to be offended by anything Confederate?
__________________
Last edited by Admiral_Porter; 12-29-2005 at 12:53 AM.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
