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.
While reading from “A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union” to whichUnionblue provided the link http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html in another forum, I found (among a diverse list of allegations) the following: “It (i.e. the federal government) seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.”
A provocative declaration. And, sad to say, one with a significant amount of evidence to support it. It appears from their own testimony and correspondence, that only a minority of the soldiers fought for the end of slavery. Preserving the ideal of the Union itself appeared to be the primary motivating impulse for the majority of Yankee volunteers.
Fifth,
Here we are back into that important, and often ignored, distinction between causes of the war and motivations of individual soldiers. They are not the same thing.
The above quoted phrase from the Mississippi Declaration of Causes, the federal government attempting to "destroy" the "present condition" of the slaves without "providing a better" condition, is pure rhetorical nonsense and only demonstrates the centrality of slavery to secession. First, Lincoln had clearly declared his intention to leave slavery alone in the states; and second, slaves themselves had been voting with their feet for generations to "destroy" their "present condition" of slavery with no provision from the federal government, and considered freedom quite enough in itself as constituting a better condition than slavery.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
While reading from “A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union” to whichUnionblue provided the link http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html in another forum, I found (among a diverse list of allegations) the following: “It (i.e. the federal government) seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.”
A provocative declaration. And, sad to say, one with a significant amount of evidence to support it. It appears from their own testimony and correspondence, that only a minority of the soldiers fought for the end of slavery. Preserving the ideal of the Union itself appeared to be the primary motivating impulse for the majority of Yankee volunteers.
A few comments on this:
1. It confirms the reason for Mississippi's secession was the protection of slavery.
2. The individual motivations of soldiers for joining should never be confused with the reasons for the war. War is the continuation of politics by other means, and it is the politicians who bring on the wars, not the soldiers.
3. It depends on when in the war you look at their comments. Early in the war, I agree few Union soldiers fought to destroy slavery. But then, early in the war the Union objective was solely to preserve the Union. By 1864, the soldiers realized that in order to win the war they had to destroy slavery, so you'll find a very large number of soldiers in the last part of the war fighting to destroy slavery as well as to preserve the Union.
"No negro or Indian though baptized and enjoyned their own freedome shall be capable of any purchase of Christians but yet not debarred from buying any of their owne nation."
"Christians", in this case meant "white", which would lead us to believe blacks and native Americans did own white slaves since a law was passed to prohibit it.
Rose,
If "Christians" only meant "white", then what were the baptised negoes and Indians being referred to?
Rose,
If "Christians" only meant "white", then what were the baptised negoes and Indians being referred to?
Cedarstripper
Probably they were referred to as simply, Negroes and Indians. The article didn't elaborate on that point.
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
Probably they were referred to as simply, Negroes and Indians. The article didn't elaborate on that point.
Rose,
Perhaps I'm not understanding this correctly, but since it referred to baptised negroes and Indians not being allowed to purchase other Christians, it is referring to negroes and Indians who are Christians themselves, hence the reference to their having been baptised.
In regard to the tariff rates, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. You aren't saying the 1861 act sought to lower tax, but that it's ad valorem rates were lower. That is confusing and I believe it doesn't make any difference that some rates were lowered when the overall rates ended up being higher.
Rose,
The 1861 tariff act did not attempt to lower the tariff rate from what was in place at the time - the tariff act of 1857. Its ad valorem rates, however, were lower than the 1846 tariff act, which was referred to as a free trade tariff, and which rates were not disagreeable to any sections.
While you prefer to pit the cotton growers/exporters against the industrialists in this "hard won" tariff tug-of-war you describe, the 1846 tariff bill was passed with 28 yeas in the Senate - 12 of which came from northern states. In the House, the bill was passed with 114 yeas - 51 of which came from northern states. And out of 95 nays - 21 came from southern slave states. Congressmen like Alexander Stephens and Robert Toombs voted against the 1846 bill to lower tariffs, while Hannibal Hamlin and Andrew Johnson both voted for it.
The 1857 tariff bill passed with less opposition than the 1846 bill did.
Rose,
Perhaps I'm not understanding this correctly, but since it referred to baptised negroes and Indians not being allowed to purchase other Christians, it is referring to negroes and Indians who are Christians themselves, hence the reference to their having been baptised.
__________________ "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
While you prefer to pit the cotton growers/exporters against the industrialists in this "hard won" tariff tug-of-war you describe, the 1846 tariff bill was passed with 28 yeas in the Senate - 12 of which came from northern states. In the House, the bill was passed with 114 yeas - 51 of which came from northern states. And out of 95 nays - 21 came from southern slave states. Congressmen like Alexander Stephens and Robert Toombs voted against the 1846 bill to lower tariffs, while Hannibal Hamlin and Andrew Johnson both voted for it.
The 1857 tariff bill passed with less opposition than the 1846 bill did.
As I understand it, there was a surplus of revenue in 1857. I suppose that would naturally encourage votes for lower tariffs.
Toombs was a Whig in 1846 voting his party line. Once he became a Democrat he changed several of his tunes, including the one regarding tariffs.
As for Alexander Stephens, he was also against secession, initially. He attempted to minimize the effect of the tariff, which Georgian's didn't buy. He later made his Cornerstone speech praising the ban on protection policy of the Confederacy.
"We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This subject came well nigh causing a rupture of the old Union, under the lead of the gallant Palmetto State, which lies on our border, in 1833. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new." (emphasis mine)
There is much evidence that the tariff was very much a sorce of contention between the protectionists and the Southern planters (sugar growers excepted). I think "tug of war" describes perfectly what had taken place in the past.
__________________ "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,
Thanks for you eloquent defense of the Southern cause. I can no more understand the Northern point of view than they can understand mine. I have established my opinion from research, not citing someone else's notes. I can relate my research to my fifty years of living in the South.
In MS, early 1850s,(If my memory serves me right) the slave trade was banned in the state. Slave traders were not allowed in the state legally. Then came King Cotton. Slave trade was allowed to commence again. By 1860, cotton was king, the rich were intent on getting richer, and the poor with careful work could become reasonably well off. Incidentally, one of the richest planters in MS was the Choctaw Chief- one-half French, Greenwood LeFlore. The rich could afford to black market their cotton, but paying the high tariffs hurt the small guy. I think that is the main reason that the small southern farmer fought for succession. Then later against an invading army.
The rich could afford to black market their cotton, but paying the high tariffs hurt the small guy.
olereb, this confuses me. Tariffs were not paid on cotton. How do black-marketing and small guys figure in?
I can understand ('tho I don't entirely agree) the argument that import tariffs made exporting a bit tougher, but I don't understand the tie in. Please explain.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
