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.
You don't specify what time period you are referring to, but assuming you mean during the secession crisis, there was no need of any of those things prior to Lincoln, the protectionist president, being elected. The tariff was at a low during that time even though it didn't stand much chance of remaining low for long.
Rose,
It stood every chance, considering that southern senators could have easily blocked any attempt to raise the tariff had they remained in Washington and participated in the legitimate process of governing.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
I believe the sovereignty of each individual state should allow that state to have decided any and all (legal, not prohibited by the Constitution) domestic issues without interference. Regarding the territories, the same goes. Once they became a state they should have had the same rights under the constitution as any other state in the Union, no more, no less.
The Constitution shouldn't be one thing for one set of states and another for a different set of states and the Constitution supported slavery. That's too bad, but that's the way it was. It should have been left up to each state as to whether to allow legal slavery or not.
Rose
Rose,
And should it have been left up to each state to decide whether or not to participate in catching and reenslaving humans beings who had exercised their natural and inalienable right of revolution and escaped the oppression and tyranny of slavery?
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
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.
We have no records to verify that. Also, if it were true, the high cost of imports due to tariffs isn't the only argument the South had. Indeed, it wasn't even the main argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
The tariff simply wasn't an issue in secession.
It was an issue, not the only one and maybe not the most important one, but it was an issue, just not for the reasons you imply. The Southerners were more concerned with how it effected their cotton export based economy.
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
In fact, we do have evidence that it's true, and I previously posted it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Also, if it were true, the high cost of imports due to tariffs isn't the only argument the South had. Indeed, it wasn't even the main argument.
Their argument was about slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
It was an issue, not the only one and maybe not the most important one, but it was an issue, just not for the reasons you imply. The Southerners were more concerned with how it effected their cotton export based economy.
It was not an issue at all for secession.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." [Mississippi Declaration of Causes]
"Our people have come to this on the question of slavery." [Lawrence M. Keitt, South Carolina 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]
Rose,
It stood every chance, considering that southern senators could have easily blocked any attempt to raise the tariff had they remained in Washington and participated in the legitimate process of governing.
best,
marc
With the, IMO, illegal withholding the territories from the slaveowners, the South was about to experience a loss of power in Congress that would be so drastic that they would never again have enough political power to defend themselves on any issue, tariffs or anything else.
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
With the, IMO, illegal withholding the territories from the slaveowners, the South was about to experience a loss of power in Congress that would be so drastic that they would never again have enough political power to defend themselves on any issue, tariffs or anything else.
Rose
Rose,
That assumes that only slaveholding states might be interested in lower tariffs. Not only is that a very problematic assumption, but it is also a very poor basis on which to undo a democratically elected government. Sorry, but in a democracy, sometimes we lose.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
With 104 pages already posted in this ongoing dialogue, my own comments (as a new member) will be redundant. However, since I hold a couple of degrees in history (okay... they focus on the history of Imperial Rome and early Christianity) I thought I would pitch in my two cent piece...
I would agree with those who say secession was the actual primary cause of the war. Might proved right, in this case, and the true Constitutionality of the act was moot. I also agree with those who argue that slavery was the fundamental, non-negotiable issue that precipitated the departure of the southern states. Sadly, it was an obstacle that was only able to be removed through bloodshed.
I, for one, resent the simplistic presentation of slavery as the sole cause of the war between the states when I was growing up and receiving my public education. It was far more complex, of course, than that. I'm pleased now to be part of a community which has the courage, and the expertise, to address these issues in the thoughtful and multifaceted manner which they merit. Thanks, everyone.
__________________ Chaplain Rob Stroud, USAF (Retired) Son of SgtMaj Chuck Stroud, USMC Grandson of Corporal Charles Stroud, USA Great-Grandson of Corporal Chauncey Stroud, Fifth Iowa Volunteer Cavalry
Rose,
The secessionists themselves said that they seceded because of slavery. Why did they spend so much time talking about slavery, and so little time taking about tariffs? How often were tariffs mentioned in the Crittendon Compromise?
best,
marc
Marc, where is it written by any slave state official, "We are seceding because of slavery?" Slavery was mentioned time and again, because that is the avenue the Northern protectionists chose to get the South in the exact position they wanted them in. They were very sucessful. If you carefully read the Georgia Secession doc you will see this worded far more eloquently than I can express it is a small space. "Slavery"...it's just too simplified.
"But when these reasons [for protection] ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. 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. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice." http://www.civilwarinteractive.com/DocsSecessionGA.htm
On the surface it may appear that Georgia is claiming to secede because of slavery. Look closer. She is claiming that because of the loss of protection (tariffs) among the industrialists the North drew slavery out to be the issue upon which the protectionists would regain control of congress.
Politically speaking, the North wasn't so interested in keeping slavery out of the West as she was in gaining a sectional majority in congress. Since the North had been fairly passive about slavery up until this time it does seem that Georgia had a valid point. There were other perks for the North in keeping slavery out of the West. They wouldn't have to compete with slave labor. They wouldn't have many blacks living among them which was obviously an issue considering some of the Northern state's laws that restricted the rights of blacks or even prohibiting blacks from moving in all together.
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
With 104 pages already posted in this ongoing dialogue, my own comments (as a new member) will be redundant. However, since I hold a couple of degrees in history (okay... they focus on the history of Imperial Rome and early Christianity) I thought I would pitch in my two cent piece...
I would agree with those who say secession was the actual primary cause of the war. Might proved right, in this case, and the true Constitutionality of the act was moot. I also agree with those who argue that slavery was the fundamental, non-negotiable issue that precipitated the departure of the southern states. Sadly, it was an obstacle that was only able to be removed through bloodshed.
I, for one, resent the simplistic presentation of slavery as the sole cause of the war between the states when I was growing up and receiving my public education. It was far more complex, of course, than that. I'm pleased now to be part of a community which has the courage, and the expertise, to address these issues in the thoughtful and multifaceted manner which they merit. Thanks, everyone.
Rob,
Welcome to the discussion! You are right that secession, i.e. the attack on Fort Sumter, initiated the actual shooting war. However, as for the fundamental cause of secession, and therefore the war, slavery was the only real issue. There may have been bitterness resulting from other political disagreements and cultural differences, but the only question that did, and could, lead to secession was slavery. The secessionists said so themselves.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
With 104 pages already posted in this ongoing dialogue, my own comments (as a new member) will be redundant. However, since I hold a couple of degrees in history (okay... they focus on the history of Imperial Rome and early Christianity) I thought I would pitch in my two cent piece...
Welcome home Mr. Fifth, new views are always appreciated.
Maybe we should cut off threads at an arbitrary limit (like 100 pages? tho few get that big) at which point the topic maybe reintroduced, but newer views may perhaps start the topic in a different direction (and reduce redundancy?), at least at first. (and does anyone want (or have the time/patience) to wade back thru 104 pages to see the complete evolution of the thread?)
Oh well.
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
