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.
Why is that assumed? We will never know (thankfully) that slave labor would not have been profitable in wheat farming, ranching, logging, mining, construction, or any of the many other occupations that required labor. We don't know that a negro wouldn't have made just as good a servant in Arizona as in Alabama.
Slave labor would not have simply expired, but the need for 4mm of them would have ceased to exist. Where a slave's labor was most profitable was in year-round occupations. Mining would be a good example. Wheat farming is not -- 4 to 5 months of labor, 12 months of upkeep. A servant is also year-round, but a servant contributes nothing to the bottom line. Without the wealthy planters, slave labor would lose its staunchest supporters. A few mine- and factory-owners would not have the political clout of wealthy planters.
The only interests that the agricultural slave states of the South did not share with the agricultural free states-to-be of the West was slavery, and that was the only influence they stood to lose in Congress - their slave clout.
And I maintain that there was not, nor could there be, slave clout in the territories. How long would Kansas remain a slave state? Would Nebraska or Colorado ever become a slave state? Arizona? New Mexico? Washington? So we don't really disagree; we just fondle different parts of the elephant.
Citizens of the South did have equal access to the territories. A citizen formerly of Illinois had no more right to own slaves in the territories than did a citizen formerly of Georgia. Both were on equal terms in access to and use of federal territories. Absolutely equal.
That's not the way they saw it. A citizen formerly of Illinois would likely not care about the slavery restriction. A citizen of Georgia would likely resent having that restriction whether he intended to own slaves or not -- or so it appears to me. The restriction was an anathema only to the politically oriented planter "aristocracy" which saw maintaining the status quo as available only through independence, nevermind the majority peasantry.
Cedarstripper
Looking back over this, it sounds a bit disputatious. Ignore that. I'm simply trying to look at another's description of his or her part of the elephant.
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
And I maintain that there was not, nor could there be, slave clout in the territories. How long would Kansas remain a slave state? Would Nebraska or Colorado ever become a slave state? Arizona? New Mexico? Washington? So we don't really disagree; we just fondle different parts of the elephant.
Fondle the elephant? Okay, I'll be the rest of the day getting that image out of my head.
I agree with you that slavery would likely not have taken hold in the West like it did in the South. But the point I'd like to make is, since politics are so often simplified by some in these discussions down to "the industrial North" vs "the agricultural South," the addition of new western states into the Union actually meant that the South generally stood to gain political allies (not much industry in the West).......unless of course the South's politics were centered around slavery......in which it then becomes a free state vs slave state contest in Congress. If one wants to paddle the "South had to secede because it would soon be outnumbered in Congress' boat, then they should concede that only the preservation of slavery made disunion seem necessary in the secessionist rhetoric. Otherwise, the West was "good neighbors."
Quote:
That's not the way they saw it. A citizen formerly of Illinois would likely not care about the slavery restriction.
Why not? Was he not as capable of using slaves to perform his labor as a man from Georgia, were he to set up operations (whatever they might be) in a territory open to slavery? Why do we suppose when considering the many loose claims of how people's constitutional rights were being trampled, that only a southern man's rights were violated if the federal government didn't protect his right to use slaves for his benefit? Again, the "didn't have access to the territories" argument cannot be separated from the slavery issue.
You are correct to refer to it as "slave clout." Take away slavery, and all these arguments evaporate. Take away slavery and there is no reason left to cause disunion. Take away slavery and the North, South and West all start to blur together.
Why not? Was he not as capable of using slaves to perform his labor as a man from Georgia, were he to set up operations (whatever they might be) in a territory open to slavery? Why do we suppose when considering the many loose claims of how people's constitutional rights were being trampled, that only a southern man's rights were violated if the federal government didn't protect his right to use slaves for his benefit? Again, the "didn't have access to the territories" argument cannot be separated from the slavery issue.
Point made and taken.
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
Over 1500 posts on this! I can hardly know what to say that hasn't been said in one of these 1500. Can anyone? Has anyone gone front to end on this thread and lived to tell about it?
I'd humbly suggest that the thread be retired in favor of a one or more similar, tho perhaps more focused on particular dimentions of this subject.
Then again, I don't know the record for most posts on one thread, and I'd hate to bust a winning streak.
__________________ -
"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
I've followed this thread from the initial post. It wanders over the same field again and again and again. Beginning with cannoneer's resurrecting post, there's been only a glimmer of something new.
One of these days someone will come up with a new angle. Meanwhile, demythologizing does require patience.
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
I haven't been viewing this thread since its beginning, but I've been listening in since July and it's simply gone around and around in the same circle only with more force, feeling and ascertiveness. I agree that it should be retired, but those odds are slim to none and Slim just left the building. Someone will find a way to say the same thing using different words. That will lead to similar agreement and disagreement using different words. And they'll tell two friends, and they'll tell two friends and so on and so on.
Bart
__________________ "Thank You....Noooo."
Major Charles Emerson Winchester III M.A.S.H. 4077th
Has anyone considered the CS War measures that virtually returned freemen to slavery in NC, GA & La to name just a few? 1 in 20 black men in the CS were free prior to the war... there were considerable efforts made to keep them subservient or to returnthm to slavery. Slavery on the way out? I don't see it. Better relations between black & white in the CS... again I see no evidence of it.
Travel papers, no papers... ahh back to slavery for you!
Prove you are loyal to the CS... not good enough back to slavery for you.
$25 war tax... what do you mean whites don't pay that tax? You're being uppity, back to slavery for you! etc etc.
__________________ 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
I just can't make sense of this. Can you please explain how the act of exporting a product can produce the effect of an export tariff?
Cedarstripper
Cedar, if I'm not mistaken, at your request, I've explained this to you on more than one occassion. I believe we have been discussing and disagreeing on this particular issue for a very long time, both on this board and others. Actually, I happen to know this is one of your favorite and very highly researched topics. But, if you insist....
The act of exporting does not produce the effect of an export tariff, except under the conditions of a high protective tariff.
"Importers pass on [most of] their costs to buyers, and industrial buyers pass those costs on in the form of higher prices. . . . Consumers, hit directly or indirectly, include the inflationary price increases in their wage and salary demands. Everybody tries to pass the tax to someone else. The only group that is powerless to pass the costs on further are the exporters, who have to sell at world prices, and swallow those costs. In essence, a tax on imports becomes a tax on exports. --Wilson Brown and Jan Hogendorn, International Economics, p. 119.
Southerners weren't the only people adversely effected by protectionist tariffs, but they were the largest group of people to be effected without much in the way of benefit from the federal revenue it produced.
Calhoun protested protection and high tariffs through out much of his career. He explained, "Almost every man to the North, let his employment be what it may, manufacturer, labourer, farmer, capitalist, land holder, &c. &C. hopes to receive more from the tariff by the increased price of his labour, or his property than what he pays in duties as a consumer. The very object is a protection to what is called the home industry. But what is our case. Our industry tho’ at home, by our own hands and on our own soil, is engaged in cultivating the great staples of the country for a foreign market, in a market where we can receive no protection, and where we cannot receive one cent more to indemnify us for the heavy duties we have to pay as consumers."
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
Why is that assumed? We will never know (thankfully) that slave labor would not have been profitable in wheat farming, ranching, logging, mining, construction, or any of the many other occupations that required labor. We don't know that a negro wouldn't have made just as good a servant in Arizona as in Alabama.
New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada would have little use for slave labor. The few states that would use slave labor were similar to the climate of the Northern states that was not suited well for slave labor. Cute about the quality of the servant in Arizona being as good as the one in Alabama, but I don't think there was a particularly high demand for house servants for many people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
The only interests that the agricultural slave states of the South did not share with the agricultural free states-to-be of the West was slavery, and that was the only influence they stood to lose in Congress - their slave clout.
The West had their own interests that they did not share with the Southern planter. Transportation. They even voted for higher tariffs off and on in order to gain the revenue for better transportation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
Citizens of the South did have equal access to the territories. A citizen formerly of Illinois had no more right to own slaves in the territories than did a citizen formerly of Georgia. Both were on equal terms in access to and use of federal territories. Absolutely equal.
Equal, if you believe making major changes in what seemed to be an insurmountable problem in order to please those in the North is considered "equal". And...don't forget, slavery was constitutionally legal.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
