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.
Neil, my aging source of historical fact, I believe I used the adjective SOME.
You wrote:
" But not with false claims of two million Southern civilian dead and other such garbage that has no basis in historical fact nor the false idea that one is searching for some sort of "third line" while touting Celtic ancestory over the evil ancestory of the Northern tribes."
I can't and ain't arguing with that part. I have Celtic and Scottish ancestry, like most of us white folks, but don't see a strong connection of any of that to the conflict we refer to occasionally as the war of northern agression. Malcolm III may have imparted some stubborness and grit to the Confederate and Union soldier alike, but little more.
Larry,
(My dear and stubborn Southern friend)
I noted that you used the adjective SOME.
It was my contention that you were being far too generous when using it in connection with the above posters "merits".
LITTLE would have been the proper word, in my own opinion, but to each his own adjective of choice.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Took the following from a poster on another Civil War board, but it needs to be here on this thread at this time.
Fragment of a speech on Slavery, July 1, 1854:
"...The most dumb and stupid slave that ever toiled for a master, does constantly know that he is wronged. So plain that no one, high or low, ever does mistake it, except in a plainly selfish way; for although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it, by being a slave himself..."
Abraham Lincoln.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
No one has ever denied that there were those in the North who participated in, fostered, profitted by and otherwise aided and abetted slavery in the South. But to continue to argue that the South never really wanted slavery and that it was "forced" upon them by the evil British/Anglo-Saxons/Northerners is simply fantastical and ignores and distorts the historical record beyond all bounds. The Southern slaveholders wanted slavery extended to the territories in order to preserve their market for slaves and to keep their property - slaves - in demand and thus keep the prices high.
It is fantastic to me that someone can actually sit on their high horse and claim, with a strait face, that the Southern slave-holders were forced into having, keeping and utilizing slaves. Slavery was an evil with many, many fathers, but it is clear that the Southern aristocracy had a vested interest in maintaining their "particular institution." The gross wealth of the southern planters was tied up in their slaves and as long as they could keep the price of slaves high, they could prevent compensated emancipation in that the costs therefore would be prohibitively high.
The self-serving statements about how slavery was good for the negros and that they were "civilizing" and "Christianizing" the "savages" just does not hold water and is clearly an attempt to lay a noble patina over their own economic self-interest. I have studied the various theological arguments regarding slavery and it is clear to me that the preachers/priests/theologians of the time distorted fundamental Christian teaching in order to justify the subjugation of another race. It is a black mark against practically every organized religion except the Quakers, who at least stood by their convictions.
Slavery is a black mark against North and South alike. I am reminded of the song from "1776" - Molasses to Run to Slaves - "Hail Boston! Hail Charleston! Who stinkest the most?"
I guess I come back to: If the Southern Plantation owners were not buying the slaves, the Northern merchants would not have been transporting slaves across the Altantic. Without demand, supply dries up.
Finally, since I have rambled long enough, the arguments that the North's "wage slavery" was worse than the "benevolent" chattle slavery of the South is like saying "Well, yes, I'm a murderer, but he's a rapist, so I should be given a pass."
There is an old saying in law - if the law is against you, argue the facts; if the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law and the facts are against you, attack the other side. You arguments are simply that. Slavery is indefensible, so you attack the other side - the North - in order to deflect the blame for "your" side's conduct.
You know, I just figured something out... and it has truly taken me this long to do it!
Because anyone in the South could own a slave, ALL of the South are seen as slavers! Thus, all of the Confederacy was seen as slavers!
Because the South, and the newly-conceived Confederacy, itself, was obeying the Constitution of the Old United States government, and indeed, 'plagiarizing' the majority of it - for its own uses - (which to my mind, is a good thing), and thus protecting the property rights of all slave owning peoples (North and South! There were still slaves held in the North at this time, and the emancipation that did take place took QUITE SOME TIME (years?) to complete, after the war!).
NEW SLAVERY was abolished right quickly, from what I understand... it was the PRESENTLY NORTHERN ENSLAVED that I have some question... concerning... Places where the glorious 'Emancipation' (Insurrection) Proclamation did not affect...
(Anyone know when the last actual Northern slave actually walked out the door a free man, after the war to supposedly 'free' him??? Forget what the amendment said; when did the last one actually WALK? CASH? Any thoughts?
Is there a string of this somewhere I have yet to read?)
But anyway, to hold the MAJORITY of the non-slave holding SOUTH responsible for Slavery, (even though the word SLAVERY appears in their articles of Secession to excess!)
is as bad as NOT holding the Majority of the non-slave holding NORTH accountable for the same reasons!
It is simple discrimination because they LOST a war!
Because they dared to tell the Radical Republican Liberals NO!
It is the height of Hypocrisy to do as the Northern apologists do to this day, and behave as if SLAVERY was the ONLY reason there was a Confederacy!
Anyone with any ability to reason can see where this is not the case!
And the same people who are so VIOLENTLY OPPOSED to a Slave Owner are the first to say, hey, WAR IS HELL, and PEOPLE DIE, and other countries did worse, and just because we were invading the South doesn't mean that WE KILLED all those people! Not all of them died because of us, and our actions at the time... Just because our generals were under orders to completely annihilate everything doesn't mean that we are responsible for
all the deaths and suffering! We were just FOLLOWING ORDERS!
So, the self-righteousness comes blistering through like a
load of canister-shot I saw take out a pine tree at a live-firing last Summer!
On Judgement Day, I would much rather try to justify Slavery than War Crimes Murder.
All I am saying is this: There is a period in our nation's history when I am not certain about the actions of a certain American Flag. During this four years, I find it easier to look upon a series of other American flags, instead.
American Flags with Bars and Crosses on them, instead of Stripes and Eagles...
The latter represents a nation; the former represents family.
You know, I just figured something out... and it has truly taken me this long to do it!
No, what you are doing is deliberately avoiding answering the questions put to you by timewalker.
Because anyone in the South could own a slave, ALL of the South are seen as slavers! Thus, all of the Confederacy was seen as slavers!
How typical. Make up a charge that NO ONE on this board has made and then construct a defense. It's called a "strawman" argument, as if you didn't know.
Because the South, and the newly-conceived Confederacy, itself, was obeying the Constitution of the Old United States government, and indeed, 'plagiarizing' the majority of it - for its own uses - (which to my mind, is a good thing), and thus protecting the property rights of all slave owning peoples (North and South! There were still slaves held in the North at this time, and the emancipation that did take place took QUITE SOME TIME (years?) to complete, after the war!).
DEEP SIGH. You don't obey the Constitution of the United States by declaring yourself in rebellion against it. Also, those sections that say a state cannot "coin money, raise armies, make treaties, etc.," come to mind.
As for the idea the South was "thus protecting property rights" at least you got the primary cause of the war right for once. And again, it would be nice for you to clearly state that at no time were these "property rights" in danger where they already existed. It was just the idea of expanding those HUMAN property rights into the federal territories most folks had a problem with. That and the idea of a Federal Slave Code that would permit slaves into even FREE NONPROPERTY PROTECTION States of the North. (States Rights my butt.)
NEW SLAVERY was abolished right quickly, from what I understand... it was the PRESENTLY NORTHERN ENSLAVED that I have some question... concerning... Places where the glorious 'Emancipation' (Insurrection) Proclamation did not affect...
NEW SLAVERY was NOT abolished, simply the banning of the slave trade between the CSA and Africa. New slaves were being created everyday in the newly established slaveholding republic. The process was called BIRTH.
As for you having questions about the PRESENTLY NORTHERN ENSLAVED, I can barely contain my surprise. And of course you realize, that without an amendment to the US Constitution, ALL slaves, either in the North or in those areas of Union control, could not be freed without such. The EP was a military proclamation aimed at those states STILL in rebellion.
(Anyone know when the last actual Northern slave actually walked out the door a free man, after the war to supposedly 'free' him??? Forget what the amendment said; when did the last one actually WALK? CASH? Any thoughts?
Is there a string of this somewhere I have yet to read?)
Amaze us and present an actual, historical fact in this regard.
But anyway, to hold the MAJORITY of the non-slave holding SOUTH responsible for Slavery, (even though the word SLAVERY appears in their articles of Secession to excess!)
is as bad as NOT holding the Majority of the non-slave holding NORTH accountable for the same reasons!
Again, misdirection. Please show me where the majority of the nonslaveholding South wished to abolish or do away with the institution of slavery. Show me the letters and appeals to get rid of it. The simple fact of the matter is, and decades of segragation after the war in the South shows that racial control was as much a concern of nonslaveholding whites as those on the plantation who owned slaves.
It is simple discrimination because they LOST a war!
Because they dared to tell the Radical Republican Liberals NO!
I grow EXTREMELY weary of the use of the modern-day term Radical Republican "Liberals" as it simply has no meaning for this period of history. Trying to tack on such 21st century labels to 19th century politics is simply incredible and wholly inaccurate.
The simple fact of the matter is, as described by timewalker, matthew, cash, ole, etc., and others, is that the South left the Union over the issue of slavery. This is why you see all that mention of the institution in those secession documents you would like to desperately minimize. Too bad those men who wrote them can't hear you.
It is the height of Hypocrisy to do as the Northern apologists do to this day, and behave as if SLAVERY was the ONLY reason there was a Confederacy!
It is the greatest disservice to history and a far greater Hypocrisy to deny Slavery as the primary reason the South created a Confederacy. All one has to do is be honest with the historical record left by those who created it.
Anyone with any ability to reason can see where this is not the case!
One first has to have the ability to reason before he can even see the case.
And the same people who are so VIOLENTLY OPPOSED to a Slave Owner are the first to say, hey, WAR IS HELL, and PEOPLE DIE, and other countries did worse, and just because we were invading the South doesn't mean that WE KILLED all those people! Not all of them died because of us, and our actions at the time... Just because our generals were under orders to completely annihilate everything doesn't mean that we are responsible for
all the deaths and suffering! We were just FOLLOWING ORDERS!
Your personal opinion, lacking any evidence to support same, is noted.
So, the self-righteousness comes blistering through like a
load of canister-shot I saw take out a pine tree at a live-firing last Summer!
Descriptive, but not relevant to the conversation.
On Judgement Day, I would much rather try to justify Slavery than War Crimes Murder.
Then may God have mercy on your soul as you have been unable to prove the vast numbers you claim under your much touted source documents War Crimes Murder claims. Endlessly repeating such unsupported claims does not make them any more "truthful" and comes across as very dishonest. And we know what happens to dishonest folks on Judgement Day, don't we?
All I am saying is this: There is a period in our nation's history when I am not certain about the actions of a certain American Flag. During this four years, I find it easier to look upon a series of other American flags, instead.
Look away! Look away! Look away, Dixie Land! Now, where were we?
American Flags with Bars and Crosses on them, instead of Stripes and Eagles...
The latter represents a nation; the former represents family.
Never have members of such a family fought for a worse cause.
I'm with the family...
so many comebacks, so little time!
Beowulf
Again, I see that another tack must be taken IMMEDIATELY and timewalker's post left in a cloud of smoke and ash.
Get used to it, timewalker, it won't be the last time a direct question will be extinquised by hyperbole and misdirection.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
So you can't produce the legislation to back up your assertion.
Since everyone knows Brown was tried under insurection on VA statute, which you can find the exact wording yourself, at avalaon or a statutes at large, or even book on the subjet,you can find that yourself, im not here to do for you whatyou cannot do, educate yourself in your own country history. esp the basics such as this.
I pointed out that there was no federal punishment for insurection in 1860. Only state punishment for its own citizens who commit in that state and are punished for it under state legislation, in that state.
Quote:
Thank you for proving you have no integrity. The discussion is about the Confiscation Acts. I said they were not ex post facto because they punished treason, which was already against the law and actually lowered the penalty. Your response: "nope." Now you yourself prove you were doing nothing but trying to distract with an irrelevancy.
No one was convicted of treason in the entire war, but punished for it.
So nope, is correct to your claim, which is now not what you initialy posted at all, and the only perosn whithout intelectual honesty or personal intergrity can only be show by the content of what they post.
Yur a liar, and acuse others so readlily because you do it yourlself so readily and think others are the same as you.
Quote:
Wrong as usual. Check out the title of the Second Confiscation Act. It's an act to punish treason.
Nice, so your shifting posistion now is that its a punishment inflicted before the crime is brought to trial, and since no one was ever tried, convicted of the crie mof treason or insurection at all, but punished for it during the period the act was in force, and you want to post that im a lair and dont know what im talking about?.
cite where secesion is treason, Licolonm said he was putting down an insurection not a treason, you have to get your facts in order and stop shifting ground.
How often are people punished for a crime they are convicted of in your world?.
Quote:
Another irrelevancy. McIlvaine v. Coxe's Lessee [note the actual title] dealt with New Jersey prior to the Constitution's ratification. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Nope NJ was in the union in 1787 by its ratification , get your facts in order before telling others what they mean.
In 1860 there was not a single US citizen, only states with citizens in the Union.
How can showing that in declaration of secesion, acording the SC case of 1805 to show that in a declaraion of secesion and indepence, that the state has the alligence in law of its subjects, not be relavent to a crime involving treason and insurection?, which bothn require action taken by a suject to its sovriegn?, you will note that i did not go on to mention at that time but had already commmented, there was no such thing asa US citizen in 1860, the federal governemnt had no subjects, only states did, you can go check the law on that as well.
Quote:
Which explains why the Confiscation Acts had little to no impact.
Rubbish, i gave the $ value it generated, $55 million dollars of property realised by public sale of confiscated property that was worth far in excess of that, in the fiscal year 61 the entire fedral expenditure was only some $60 millions, since context is another thing you cant do.
Quote:
As the rest of your post is more of the same factually false rubbish ...
instead of ignoring things your unable to counter, you might want to consider asking yourself why your unable to counter them and find an argumnet to counter those issues instead of simply pretending thay dont exist.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
So you can't produce the legislation to back up your assertion.
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Virginia
Since everyone knows Brown was tried under insurection on VA statute, which you can find the exac wording yourself, at avalon or a statutes at large, you can find that yourself, im not here to do for you whatyou cannot do, educateyourself in your own country history.
the above is about as far as i need to demostatre my statement is based on fact.
I pointed out that there was no federal punishment for insurection in 1860. Only state punishment for its own citizens who commit in that state and are punished for it under state legislation
[/quote]
Thank you for proving you have no integrity. The discussion is about the Confiscation Acts. I said they were not ex post facto because they punished treason, which was already against the law and actually lowered the penalty. Your response: "nope." Now you yourself prove you were doing nothing but trying to distract with an irrelevancy.[/quote]
No one was convicted of treason in the entire war, untill you are convictd, you are imune from punishment under any law ive ever heard of.
jkust like the 6/7 finincial backers of J B raid, including F Douglas who were indited for treason, and fled the country to avoid arrest, only to return during the war. Dont post about things that open up akward arguments for you to ansewr sonny.
So nope correct to you claim, which is now not whta you initialy posted ay all, and the only perosn whithout intelectual honesty or personal intergrity can only be show by the content of waht they post.
Yur a liar, and acuse others so readlily because you do it yourlself so redily and think they are the same as you.
Quote:
Wrong as usual. Check out the title of the Second Confiscation Act. It's an act to punish treason.
Nice, so you shifting posistion now is that its a punishment inflicted before the crime is brought to trial, and since no one was ever tried, convicted of the crie mof treason at all, but punished for it during the period the act was in force, and you want to post that im a lair and dont know what im talking about?.
How often are people punished for a crime they are convicted of in your world?.
[/quote]
Another irrelevancy. McIlvaine v. Coxe's Lessee [note the actual title] dealt with New Jersey prior to the Constitution's ratification. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Lie, NJ ratification was Dec 1787, cant do US history at all, not at theoritical of factual level, back to the special needs class for you.
How can showing that in declaration of secesion, acording the SC case of 1805 to show that in a declaraion of secesion and indepence, that the state has the alligence in law of its subjects, not be relavent to a crime involving treason and insurection?, which bothn require action taken by a suject to its sovriegn?, you will note that i did not go on to mention at that time but had already commmented, there was no such thing asa US citizen in 1860, the federal governemnt had no subjects, only states did, you can go check the law on that as well.
point is that in your world the SC can make precedednt in 1805
Quote:
Which explains why the Confiscation Acts had little to no impact.
Rubbish, i gave the $ value it generated, $55 million dollars of property realised by public sale of confiscated property that was worth far in excess of that, in the fiscal year 61 the entire fedral expenditure was only some $60 millions, since context is another thing you cant do.
Quote:
As the rest of your post is more of the same factually false rubbish ...
instead of ignoring things your unable to counter, you might want to consider asking yourself why your unable to counter them and find an argumnet to counter those issues instead of simply pretending thay dont exist.
Since you are unable to demonstatre that to to be the case, its clear your using words you do not know how to use.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
STATES' RIGHTS: What does this mean? Simply that the states have a right of self-determination, which means
they do not have a Federal government which will try and rule over them.
So you would at least state that in the case of, say, a slaveowner from Alabama who cannot find protection for his slaves in a US territory, this does not constitute an injury to the state of Alabama? You would agree this is not an example of a "state right"? You would agree that John Brown's raid was not an example?
Quote:
The Right of a State to SECEDE is states' rights. The Federal government has no right to coerce a state!
Surely you don't suggest that the South was pushed to secede because their alleged right to secede was being violated? I ask for examples of federal coercion but none have been offered. You do agree that the federal government does have the power to enforce federal legislation, do you not?
Quote:
Lincoln denied this, first by being a party to oppressive Liberal policies which benefitted the North at the expense of the South, and then to try and subjugate the states
on the twin pretexts of 'defense' and then Union preservation, and finally, the annihilation of an entire nation.
None of this has to do with a cause of secession, which is what I am asking about, and which you claimed was STATES RIGHTS. I'm not trying to bait you. I'm simply trying to get specifics of what state right(s) was violated.
Quote:
States' rights is the right of a state not to be harrassed into policies detrimental to their natural course of development.
Please give a specific example of a violation by the federal government which you think pushed the South to secession.
Nope NJ was in the union in 1787 by its ratification , get your facts in order before telling others what they mean.
From Wikipedia here is when ratification of the Constitution took place.
"New Hampshire became that ninth state on June 21, 1788. Once the Congress of the Confederation received word of New Hampshire's ratification, it set a timetable for the start of operations under the Constitution, and on March 4, 1789, the government under the Constitution began operations."
States that ratified the Constitution prior to NH's ratification were not in any new union under the new Constitution until June 21, 1788. US Constitution Article VII. "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
Part One - AMERICA'S CAESAR Chapter 9 Economic Background of the War
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
Beowulf,
So you would at least state that in the case of, say, a slaveowner from Alabama who cannot find protection for his slaves in a US territory, this does not constitute an injury to the state of Alabama? You would agree this is not an example of a "state right"? You would agree that John Brown's raid was not an example? Surely you don't suggest that the South was pushed to secede because their alleged right to secede was being violated? I ask for examples of federal coercion but none have been offered. You do agree that the federal government does have the power to enforce federal legislation, do you not?
None of this has to do with a cause of secession, which is what I am asking about, and which you claimed was STATES RIGHTS. I'm not trying to bait you. I'm simply trying to get specifics of what state right(s) was violated.
Please give a specific example of a violation by the federal government which you think pushed the South to secession.
Cedarstripper
Before we proceed with the Fort Sumter narrative, the historical background requires explanation. As most wars have been throughout modern history, the War of 1861 was at bottom a financial conflict.(11) More precisely, it was, as Matthew Josephson noted, a "fatal clash of the two economic nations within the republic" which resulted from a gradual departure on the part of the North "from the old ways toward large-scale industry, toward giant capitalism, [and] toward a centralized, national economy...." and a firm resistance to such change on the part of the South.(12) In a speech delivered in the Virginia Convention of 1788, Patrick Henry had predicted that the South would eventually find itself economically subjugated to the North once the latter had secured to itself a majority in the new federal Government: "This government subjects every thing to the Northern majority. Is there not, then, a settled purpose to check the Southern interest?... How can the Southern members prevent the adoption of the most oppressive mode of taxation in the Southern States, as there is a majority in favor of the Northern States?"(13) Henry's prediction was not long in being realized. As early as 1789, the first impost bill was introduced in Congress which protected the New England fishing industry and its production of molasses, and exhibited, in the opinion of William Grayson, "a great disposition... for the advancement of commerce and manufactures in preference to agriculture." Thus, when the Union under the Constitution was but two months old, many Southerners felt that their States were already being obliged to serve the North as "the milch cow out of whom the substance would be extracted."(14) In a pamphlet published in 1850, Muscoe Russell Garnett of Virginia wrote:
The whole amount of duties collected from the year 1791, to June 30, 1845, after deducting the drawbacks on foreign merchandise exported, was $927,050,097. Of this sum the slaveholding States paid $711,200,000, and the free States only $215,850,097. Had the same amount been paid by the two sections in the constitutional ratio of their federal population, the South would have paid only $394,707,917, and the North $532,342,180. Therefore, the slaveholding States paid $316,492,083 more than their just share, and the free States as much less.(15)
From the days of the illustrious Henry onwards, the South had generally stood in the way of the Northern goal to make such an unjust system of taxation permanent.(16) According to John Taylor of Virginia, a high protective tariff system, like that which existed in Great Britain, was "undoubtedly the best which has ever appeared for extracting money from the people; and commercial restrictions, both upon foreign and domestick commerce, are its most effectual means for accomplishing this object. No equal mode of enriching the party of government, and impoverishing the party of people, has ever been discovered."(17) Nevertheless, the North clung tenaciously to its protectionist policy and managed to push through the tariff legislation of 1828 which provoked South Carolina to resistance to the general Government and nearly to secession from the Union during the Administration of Andrew Jackson.(18) It should be noted that, by 1828, the public debt was near to extinction and, at the current rate of taxation on imported goods, a twelve to thirteen million dollar annual surplus would have been created in the Treasury.(19) Thus, the excuse for a high tariff system as a source of Government revenue was a flimsy one at best; the so-called "Tariff of Abomination" really served no other purpose than to "rob and plunder nearly one half of the Union, for the benefit of the residue."(20) James Spence of London explained the effects of such a high tariff on the Southern economy:
This system of protecting Northern manufactures, has an injurious influence, beyond the effect immediately apparent. It is doubly injurious to the Southern States, in raising what they have to buy, and lowering what they have to sell. They are the exporters of the Union, and require that other countries shall take their productions. But other countries will have difficulty in taking them, unless permitted to pay for them in the commodities which are their only means of payment. They are willing to receive cotton, and to pay for it in iron, earthenware, woollens. But if by extravagant duties, these be prohibited from entering the Union, or greatly restricted, the effect must needs be, to restrict the power to buy the products of the South. Our imports of Southern productions, have nearly reached thirty millions sterling a year. Suppose the North to succeed in the object of its desire, and to exclude our manufactures altogether, with what are we to pay? It is plainly impossible for any country to export largely, unless it be willing also, to import largely. Should the Union be restored, and its commerce be conducted under the present tariff, the balance of trade against us must become so great, as either to derange our monetary system, or compel us to restrict our purchases from those, who practically exclude other payment than gold. With the rate of exchange constantly depressed, the South would receive an actual money payment, much below the current value of its products. We should be driven to other markets for our supplies, and thus the exclusion of our manufactures by the North, would result in a compulsory exclusion, on our part, of the products of the South.
This is a consideration of no importance to the Northern manufacturer, whose only thought is the immediate profit he may obtain, by shutting out competition. It may be, however, of very extreme importance to others — to those who have products they are anxious to sell to us, who are desirous to receive in payment, the very goods we wish to dispose of, and yet are debarred from this. Is there not something of the nature of commercial slavery, in the fetters of a system that prevents it? If we consider the terms of the compact, and the gigantic magnitude of Southern trade, it becomes amazing, that even the attempt should be made, to deal with it in such a manner as this.(21)
George McDuffie of South Carolina stated in the House of Representatives, "If the union of these states shall ever be severed, and their liberties subverted, historians who record these disasters will have to ascribe them to measures of this description. I do sincerely believe that neither this government, nor any free government, can exist for a quarter of a century under such a system of legislation."(22) While the Northern manufacturer enjoyed free trade with the South, the Southern planter was not allowed to enjoy free trade with those countries to which he could market his goods at the most benefit to himself. Furthermore, while the six cotton States — South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas — had less than one-eighth of the representation in Congress, they furnished two-thirds of the exports of the country, much of which was exchanged for imported necessities.(23) Thus, McDuffie noted that because the import tariff effectively hindered Southern commerce, the relation which the Cotton States bore to the protected manufacturing States of the North was now the same as that which the colonies had once borne to Great Britain; under the current system, they had merely changed masters.(24)
Such was the consistent argument of South Carolinian politicians and editorialists right up to the moment of secession in late 1860. Robert Barnwell Rhett, who served in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate, said in 1850: "The great object of free governments is liberty. The great test of liberty in modern times, is to be free in the imposition of taxes, and the expenditure of taxes.... For a people to be free in the imposition and payment of taxes, they must lay them through their representatives."(25) Consequently, because they were being taxed without corresponding representation, the Southern States had been reduced to the condition of colonies of the North and thus were no longer free. The solution was determined by John Cunningham to exist only in independence:
The legislation of this Union has impoverished them [the Southern States] by taxation and by a diversion of the proceeds of our labor and trade to enriching Northern Cities and States. These results are not only sufficient reasons why we would prosper better out of the union but are of themselves sufficient causes of our secession. Upon the mere score of commercial prosperity, we should insist upon disunion. Let Charleston be relieved from her present constrained vassalage in trade to the North, and be made a free port and my life on it, she will at once expand into a great and controlling city.(26)
In a letter to the Carolina Times in 1857, Representative Laurence Keitt wrote, "I believe that the safety of the South is only in herself."(27) James H. Hammond likewise stated in 1858, "I have no hesitation in saying that the Plantation States should discard any government that makes a protective tariff its policy."(28)
The Protectionist Roots of the Republican Party
When the tariff was temporarily lowered in 1833, Henry Clay, the Kentuckian Whig who "courted Northern popularity,"(29) vowed to "defy the South, the president, and the devil" in order to have it raised again.(30) With the demise of the old Whig party in 1856, "eastern manufacturing interests saw in the Republican party their only hope of capturing the Federal government for the cause of protection.... [P]owerful economic factors were working in the direction of an alliance between diverse partners: antislavery agitators and 'big business' in the North, though for very different purposes, were desiring the same things in terms of governmental control and party supremacy."(31) Supported by "business interests which were now weaning the Northwest away from its Southern alliance,"(32) former Whigs such as Abraham Lincoln held to the Hamiltonian principles of a strong centralized government and a corresponding weakening of the States, the desirability of a central banking system and a perpetual national debt, and taxpayer-funded internal improvements and Government subsidies which would mainly benefit corporations in the manufacturing North at the expense of the agricultural South. In particular, they supported the reinstitution of a high protective import tariff.
Just as John C. Calhoun had predicted in 1828, agitation of the slavery issue was thereafter seized upon by the Northern protectionists as a means to remove this persistent Southern obstacle.(33) Those of a more moderate stripe sought to accomplish this by excluding slavery from the Territories and thereby confining and minimizing the political influence of the South, while those who adopted a more radical approach sought to drive the Southern States from the Union entirely. That slavery was merely a pretext in this sectional struggle is beyond dispute. We have already seen how former big-government Whigs were naturally attracted to the new Republican party, which Wendell Phillips admitted was a purely sectional faction "organized against the South." According to the 3 November 1860 edition of the Charleston Mercury, "The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism."(34) According to Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri, "[T]he exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.... Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government." He stated that, as a result of unfair legislation, wealth flowed from the South to the North in "one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream."(35) This economic tug-of-war had been going on between the North and South for decades and finally the sectional party which had openly avowed hostility to the South had gained control of both Congress and the White House. It should be remembered that throughout his political career, Lincoln had always identified himself as a disciple of Henry Clay in fiscal matters, and the whole country knew that upon his nomination, he had committed himself to a high tariff policy if elected President. This state of affairs sheds valuable light on why the Gulf States reacted to Lincoln's victory as they did. The complaints of the South were sometimes couched in terms of slavery and other times in terms of finances, but it is clear that self-preservation alone drove the Southern States out of the Union. In a statement issued on 25 December 1860, the South Carolina Convention summarized the South's complaint against the North as follows:
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
