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.
No, most refs to barrow come from refernces come from the edu system, which require you to read ToTc and know whats wrong and right about it, understand gutmans objections and understand what he got wrong, and so on, finaly Engerman expalined in WCOC where gutman was wrong and ToTC was correct, only changing teh degree of profitability etc.
No, most refs to barrow come from refernces come from the edu system, which require you to read ToTc and know whats wrong and right about it, understand gutmans objections and understand what he got wrong, and so on, finaly Engerman expalined in WCOC where gutman was wrong and ToTC was correct, only changing teh degree of profitability etc.
No, Hanny. This is just you trying to muddy the waters -- and the link you just gave has no relevance to the question we are discussing. Please be more honest in what you choose to post.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
No, Hanny. This is just you trying to muddy the waters -- and the link you just gave has no relevance to the question we are discussing. Please be more honest in what you choose to post.
Tim
No that was me correcting you, most people get to know of of Barrow by reading the edu source material, which has a direct question specificly on the subject at hand in the link.
__________________ "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
No that was me correcting you, most people get to know of of Barrow by reading the edu source material, which has a direct question specificly on the subject at hand in the link.
More nitpicking. You posted a link to a series of study questions on slavery for one course at a small college in Massachusetts, over in South Hadley, not far from where I went to school. One of the "Seven Sisters", at that. Looks like a decent and detailed course, but very few people take anything equivalent to that.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
If you study in the Uk at University, that is one of the online links to are directed too, or to be blunt everyone in the Uk learns about barrow from barrows diary and what the nobel prize winner for economic made of the numbers in it in his 2 works that are part of the sylabus, aparantly so do most Americans.
__________________ "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
Considered by many as a failed social and political experiment, the era changed the way many Americans view alcoholic beverages, enhancing the realization that federal government control does not replace personal responsibility for one's actions!
I understand your basic premise; but to be fair don't you think you should mention that for Prohibition to go through required an Amendment that needed ratification by the states....
There is a theory in England, believed perhaps by some, half believed by many more, which is only consistent with original ignorance, or complete subsequent forgetfulness, of all the antecedents of the contest. There are people who tell us that, on the side of the North, the question is not one of slavery at all. The North, it seems, have no more objection to slavery than the South have. Their leaders never say one word implying disapprobation of it. They are ready, on the contrary, to give it new guarantees; to renounce all that they have been contending for; to win back, if opportunity offers, the South to the Union by surrendering the whole point.
If this be the true state of the case, what are the Southern chiefs fighting about? Their apologists in England say that it is about tariffs, and similar trumpery. They say nothing of the kind. They tell the world, and they told their own citizens when they wanted their votes, that the object of the fight was slavery. Many years ago, when General Jackson was President, South Carolina did nearly rebel (she never was near separating) about a tariff; but no other State abetted her, and a strong adverse demonstration from Virginia brought the matter to a close. Yet the tariff of that day was rigidly protective. Compared with that, the one in force at the time of the secession was a free-trade tariff: This latter was the result of several successive modifications in the direction of freedom; and its principle was not protection for protection, but as much of it only as might incidentally result from duties imposed for revenue. Even the Morrill tariff (which never could have been passed but for the Southern secession) is stated by the high authority of Mr. H. C. Carey to be considerably more liberal than the reformed French tariff under Mr. Cobden's treaty; insomuch that he, a Protectionist, would be glad to exchange his own protective tariff for Louis Napoleon's free-trade one. But why discuss, on probable evidence, notorious facts? The world knows what the question between the North and South has been for many years, and still is. Slavery alone was thought of, alone talked of. Slavery was battled for and against, on the floor of Congress and in the plains of Kansas; on the slavery question exclusively was the party constituted which now rules the United States: on slavery Fremont was rejected, on slavery Lincoln was elected; the South separated on slavery, and proclaimed slavery as the one cause of separation.
The Contest in America by John Stuart Mill
Who am I to argue w/ the world's leading Economist of the day... and a contemporary of the War.
__________________ 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
"of all aristocracies upon earth, that of the slaveholder is the most meaningless, the most contemptible, and the most ****able."
"For more than a year we have engaged in this struggle, into which an arrogant and dictatorial slave-oligarchy has driven a free, happy, and peaceful people, fighting for the rights of all. With true bravery and invincible patience our citizen soldiers have stood on this ground to the present moment, against violators of the laws of war and humanity. Remaining true to their principles, they have said, by words and actions, to their fellow citizens in the South, We fight for common rights. If we win, you win. If the government is maintained, you will dwell under the protecting shadow as freely as we. And there we stand, and thus we sat, today.
But if the Confederates prevail, farewell peace and safety to us; farewell freedom, forever! Their principles and leaders are known to us. They cheated us, crying out, No coercian; holding out false hopes and deceitful assurances of friendly regard, while assassin like, they were preparing to destroy our Government and reduce us to anarchy or servitude. The past year's experiance renders it certain that if they triumph, blood and desolation, fire and sword, or arbitrary subjection to their will, awaits every white man who has manhood enough to dislike their system of slavery.
They will omit no means, honest or dishonest, to insure success. Misrepresenting, calumniating our motives, ridiculing our honest efforts to mitigate the horrors of war, and inflaming the passions of the populace by low epithets, are among the milder and more ordinary means resorted to by this psuedo 'chivalry,' the meanest aristocracy that ever stood at the head of a civilized society"
William S Rosecrans 20 July 1862
__________________ 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
Interesting, Mr. Steele. I note that secession happened, it was said, because Lincoln was elected President and I do not see anything which says "woe unto us, for there is a New President, and he shall increase the tariffs upon our land and we shall be destitute."
It is pretty clear they said, "Let us depart from this place, for the Union has a new leader who has condemned the evils of slavery and we fear that he will allow encroachments upon our particular institution."
If tariffs were the issue, why was the election of Lincoln the breaking point? Lincoln's great speeches were about the extension of slavery, not the extension of tariffs.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
Great post, timewalker. It might be said, just to keep a balance, that Lincoln (a Clay advocate) favored a bit of protection in the tariffs which funded the operation of government. Believe it was also in the Republican Platform.
Also, just for balance, George Washington hisself, promoted the idea that some protection for domestic industry was needed for the common welfare.
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
