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.
And yet there were other attempts to compensate slaveowners, prior to the war and at the beginning of the war. The biggest objection I have heard is that there wasn't enough money offered for the slaves.
Unionblue
I'm not familiar with those attempts at compensation, however, slavery was such a large part of Southern economy that losing slaves would have been economic ruin for most, if not compensated. For instance, the small farmer that owned 1 to 3 slaves and their value was more than the farm he owned. It truly was a case of having the wolf by the ears.
__________________ "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
If politics in the North were dominated by industrial protectionists, who wouldn't have given one whit about surpluses, then they would have continued to oppose a reduction in any tariff that reduced their protection. Instead, the 1857 act pretty well gave a 20% across the board cut in rates.
I doubt the manufacturers did care about surpluses, but they were enjoying an economic high point and many had came to the realization that protection wasn't all that necessary to their welfare, since tariff rates had been at a low point for several years without the predicted disaster striking. However, that isn't to say they didn't oppose a reduction in protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
If the tariff debate were truly only a "cotton grower/exporter vs industrialist" struggle, then that would make the votes of Whigs like Toombs and Stephens pro-industrialist and anti-cotton grower/exporter. That seems a rather odd way to be elected to represent Georgia in the US Congress.
If the tariff debate over the reductions contained in the 1846 act was duked out by southern cotton growers vs northern industrialists, then why were 43% of the yea votes in the Senate cast by northern senators? Why were the 51 yea votes cast in the House by northern congressmen and 21 nea votes cast by southern congressmen? Doesn't this indicate that there were other political constituencies in the North besides industrialists and in the South besides cotton growers?
Cedarstripper
Well, first of all, I didn't make such an absolute statement as you indicate. I didn't say it was "only" a struggle between planters and industrialists. Although, they were the two main players. But, there was a third and that included the mid-West and the West. Their sentiments lay more in keeping with the cotton growers since they were mainly agriculturists, but historically they had tended to trade votes with the Northern states for high tariffs and infrastructure that would aid the West in getting their product to the East for marketing.
My information doesn't indicate that 43% of the "Yea" votes were cast by Northern senators. Reading from the U.S. Senate website, the vote was tied, 27-27 and Vice President Dallas, was forced to reluctantly cast the deciding "Yea" vote. Concerned about his family, he sent a message to his wife, ""If there be the slightest indication of a disposition to riot in the city of Philadelphia, owing to the passage of the Tariff Bill, pack up and bring the whole brood to Washington."
His vote effectively destroyed his political career in his home state.
Regards,
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
I've never read anywhere that claimed the Confederates said, "We are seceding because of slavery." I have read where many people "interpret" the words of the seceding states to mean that, but it only comes down to personal opinion and conjecture.
Regards,
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
An interesting look at the reasoning about secession is "Apostles of Disunion" a study of the efforts to convince the upper South to join to secession movement. The protection of slavery was the main, and often only argument used.
My information doesn't indicate that 43% of the "Yea" votes were cast by Northern senators. Reading from the U.S. Senate website, the vote was tied, 27-27 and Vice President Dallas, was forced to reluctantly cast the deciding "Yea" vote. Concerned about his family, he sent a message to his wife, ""If there be the slightest indication of a disposition to riot in the city of Philadelphia, owing to the passage of the Tariff Bill, pack up and bring the whole brood to Washington."
His vote effectively destroyed his political career in his home state.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but here is the vote from the Senate Journal.
Journal of the Senate, Tuesday, July 28, 1846
On the question, Shall the amendment be engrossed, and the bill read a third time?"
It was determined in the affirmative,
Yeas, ... 27
Nays, ... 27
On motion,
The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present, Those who voted in the affirmative are, Messrs. Allen, Ashley, Atchison, Atherton, Bagby, Benton, Breese, Bright, Calhoun, Cass, Chalmers, Colquitt, Dickinson, Dix, Fairfield, Hannegan, Houston, Lewis, McDuffie, Pennybacker, Rusk, Semple, Sevier, Speight, Turney, Westcott, Yulee.
Those who voted in the negative are, Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Berrien, Cameron, Cilley, Thomas Clayton, John M. Clayton, Corwin, Crittenden, Davis, Dayton, Evans, Greene, Huntington, Johnson, of Maryland, Johnson, of Louisiana, Mangum, Miller, Morehead, Niles, Pearce, Phelps, Simmons, Sturgeon, Upham, Webster, Woodbridge.
The Senate being equally divided, the Vice President decided the question in the affirmative.
So it was Ordered, That The amendment be engrossed, and the bill read a third time.
On the question, "Shall this bill pass?"
It was determined in the affirmative,
Yeas, ... 28
Nays, ... 27
On motion by Mr. Huntington, The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present,
Those who voted in the affirmative are, Messrs. Allen, Ashley, Atchison, Atherton, Bagby, Benton, Breese, Bright, Calhoun, Cass, Chalmers, Colquitt, Dickinson, Dix, Fairfield, Hannegan, Houston, Jarnagin, Lewis, McDuffie, Pennybacker, Rusk, Semple, Sevier, Speight, Turney, Westcott, Yulee.
Those who voted in the negative are, Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Berrien, Cameron, Cilley, Thomas Clayton, John M. Clayton, Corwin, Crittenden, Davis, Dayton, Evans, Greene, Huntington, Johnson, of Maryland, Johnson, of Louisiana, Mangum, Miller, Morehead, Niles, Pearce, Phelps, Simmons, Sturgeon, Upham, Webster, Woodbridge.
So it was Resolved, That this bill pass, with an amendment. Ordered, That the Secretary request the concurrence of the House of Representatives in the amendment.
On motion by Mr. Speight, The Senate adjourned.
It is no surprise that both senators from Massachusetts voted against the bill, but so did both senators from Maryland, Ketucky and Lousiana, as well as one each from Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. Its not surprising that both senators from Alabama voted for the bill, but so did both senators from New York, Illinois, and Indiana, as well as one each from Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Ohio.
"I'd rather every one of my children should be laid out on the cooling board, than to have the Yankees get my slaves."
Georgia mother of four, as recounted by "Miss Abby," an Atlanta schoolteacher, May 30, 1864.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
"The South went to war on account of slavery,...South Carolina went to war as she said in her secession proclamation, because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln,...don't you think South Carolina ought to know why it went to war?"
John Singleton Mosby, leader of Mosby's Rangers.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
"The South went to war on account of slavery,...South Carolina went to war as she said in her secession proclamation, because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln,...don't you think South Carolina ought to know why it went to war?"
John Singleton Mosby, leader of Mosby's Rangers.
It’s odd how different people can read the same thing and get different conclusions. When I read South Carolina’s Secession doc, first, I see several paragraphs establishing reasons why they believe they have the right to secede.
Next, they get to the part about the Constitution. They talk about how the Northern states are hostile to the Southern institutions of slavery and how they feel the Northern states disregard the Constitution in order to achieve their political agenda. They cite instances in which some Northern state’s laws defeat the higher order of the Constitution.
Then they point out that the Northern states have elected a President who is hostile to slavery and claims it must be ended in the nation. Now, I ask myself, why would they be afraid slavery would be ended by a president sworn to protect the Constitution? The answer is obvious. If the state of SC weren’t dubious of the Union and the president upholding the Constitution they wouldn’t be questioning this point.
As I read this, what I’m hearing is a state complaining of Constitutional violations. They aren’t saying that if the Constitution were being violated for any reason other than slavery that they would be ok with that. They are simply claiming the North is putting the Constitution second to their own political wants.
They fear that with the beginning of the Lincoln admin, “The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist…”. And while the guarantee in question is slavery this time, I’m sure SC doesn’t see any reason to compromise on Constitutional issues at all, for any reason. Any state should be alarmed at the prospect of the Constitution being violated by the president of the country or by other states in the Union with the Federal government turning a blind eye to it. The next time it could be something other than slavery and so on until eventually the Constitution was no more than just another piece of paper.
We would have to have a pretty low opinion of South Carolina and her citizens to believe they would accept compromises of the Constitution on any issue except for slavery and yet, in order to believe slavery is the reason for secession that is exactly what you have to believe.
__________________ "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
Perhaps I'm wrong, but here is the vote from the Senate Journal.
Journal of the Senate, Tuesday, July 28, 1846
On the question, Shall the amendment be engrossed, and the bill read a third time?"
It was determined in the affirmative,
Yeas, ... 27
Nays, ... 27
So you are claiming that 43% of the 27 Yea votes were made by Northern Senators? I really havent researched that point, but from what I've been reading it is generally claimed that the Northern states were heavily against and the Southern states heavily for this bill.
Regards,
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
It’s odd how different people can read the same thing and get different conclusions. When I read South Carolina’s Secession doc, first, I see several paragraphs establishing reasons why they believe they have the right to secede.
Next, they get to the part about the Constitution. They talk about how the Northern states are hostile to the Southern institutions of slavery and how they feel the Northern states disregard the Constitution in order to achieve their political agenda. They cite instances in which some Northern state’s laws defeat the higher order of the Constitution.
Then they point out that the Northern states have elected a President who is hostile to slavery and claims it must be ended in the nation. Now, I ask myself, why would they be afraid slavery would be ended by a president sworn to protect the Constitution? The answer is obvious. If the state of SC weren’t dubious of the Union and the president upholding the Constitution they wouldn’t be questioning this point.
As I read this, what I’m hearing is a state complaining of Constitutional violations. They aren’t saying that if the Constitution were being violated for any reason other than slavery that they would be OK with that. They are simply claiming the North is putting the Constitution second to their own political wants.
They fear that with the beginning of the Lincoln admin, “The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist…”. And while the guarantee in question is slavery this time, I’m sure SC doesn’t see any reason to compromise on Constitutional issues at all, for any reason. Any state should be alarmed at the prospect of the Constitution being violated by the president of the country or by other states in the Union with the Federal government turning a blind eye to it. The next time it could be something other than slavery and so on until eventually the Constitution was no more than just another piece of paper.
We would have to have a pretty low opinion of South Carolina and her citizens to believe they would accept compromises of the Constitution on any issue except for slavery and yet, in order to believe slavery is the reason for secession that is exactly what you have to believe.
(I highlighted your text (will it show?) so as to emphasize.)
They felt something that they feared, were afraid and were dubious and alarmed!
Seems to me that this is all based on a supposition that Mr. L. would deny their rights, before the fact, and they didn't care to wait to find out.
The S.C. govn't did all this before Mr. L. took office, so clearly they had an agenda which was predetermined.
__________________ -
"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
