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.
So why wouldn't the North let the South go.Obviously because the North would have been worse off economically.Otherwise why didn't the powers that be leave the Confederacy alone.
I'll take a stab at a couple of reasons:
1) To accept secession is to legitimize it. A contract that can be unilaterally voided is not a contract, and a Union in which any State may unilaterally leave is not a Union at all, let alone a more perfect Union. To accept secession is to dissolve the very notion of Union. Stephen Douglas pondered that were secession legitimate and, had the US bought Cuba for $300 million, then the day after the purchase, Cuba could secede and return to Spain, to be sold the next day to the next bidder.
2) The nasty little bloody wars that chronically plagued Europe would have their rebirth in America.
3) As Minnesota noted in Resolution #7, the Union could never tolerate foreign control of any part of the Mississippi River for reason ranging from economic concerns to defense. Do you think the CSA would have ever waved good-bye and allowed Lousiana to secede and gain a monopoly of control of the Mississippi delta?
4) Secessionists made no bones about their intentions to attract the western states into the southern Confederacy. US territories in the Southwest would have been costly to keep. Americans outside the deep South fought for and paid for those lands too.
Quote:
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems clear that it would have damaged the North financially in 1861 and thus the North invaded.
Much is often made about the diversion of commerce and shipping to southern ports due to lower duties. While there would have undoubtedly been a short-lived loss of New England market share of the southern market due to bald hatred for Yankees, it was not necessary to secede to accomplish that. For imported goods destined for a northern market, I see no advantage at all to their shipping to a Southern port first. There certainly would have been a reduction in federal revenues due to the loss of duties collected on goods consumed in the southern market, but that comparatively small loss would have been offset by the reduction in federal expenditures in the South. I know there are a handful of editorials out there that cry that the sky will fall on the North if the South secedes, but I don't give them much weight. There's an editorial for every point of view out there, true or not.
Hey good post.I'm definitely on the Southern side of the argument but I firmly believe secession under the constitution was illegal.I don't subscribe to the belief as some Confederate lovers in what if thinking that the North would have been bankrupt and an impoverished country.I think for a few years yea the economy would be worse off but there was too many smart businessmen and brains in general for the North to not eventually make up the money elsewhere.I think for the remainder of the 19th century the South would have been wealthier and much better off without the North.And yea Cuba one way or another would be a part of the Confederacy.Once you get into the 20th century I think the power of the Confederacy would decline as would If the Confederacy wouldn't have somehow gotten the New Mexico and Arizona territories then you're right bleeding Kansas multiplied and more war.If they got those territories I don't think the North and South fight again.I read once where Lincoln was talking about the war and he expressed his view that this war would prevent future wars between the two sections of the country.I do totally see the point about if the South were allowed to secede then maybe other parts of the remaining Union may have done so in the future.I don't think that the Confederacy would have had a problem with secession I say the North invaded the South because they did andI really don't think they were worried about the South trying to invade New York if they let the Confederacy go.The South lost political power in my opinion and felt that the Northern states could simply outvote them and that to me was a critical issue.I do have this conspiracy theory that maybe wrong but I believe ardent secessionist purposely got Lincoln elected so the South would secede.I think it was a calculated move on their part.I don't like Lincoln at all but if his plan for Reconstruction had been carried out maybe I would have a different opinion of him.I do believe that in 1861 the North needed the South more than the South needed the North.The South didn't need Northern manufactures when they could get them cheaper from Europe.After war yea there would be a huge backlash against anything Northern.I think the Southern market would be totally lost in the aftermath of the war.I've never heard any knowledgable person claim that in 1861 the Confederacy wouldn't have been wealthier independent than they were as part of the Union.That's where I base my premise that the war from the Northern perspective was based on economic domination of the South.To me that's what it was mainly about.Thanks for the feedback.
The South didn't need Northern manufactures when they could get them cheaper from Europe.After war yea there would be a huge backlash against anything Northern.I think the Southern market would be totally lost in the aftermath of the war.I've never heard any knowledgable person claim that in 1861 the Confederacy wouldn't have been wealthier independent than they were as part of the Union.That's where I base my premise that the war from the Northern perspective was based on economic domination of the South.To me that's what it was mainly about.
-------------
I refer you back to my post #550 in this thread and this quotation:
"There were difficulties to be overcome before direct importations could be established other than deficiency of capital and credit, the long credit system, or the absence of a thoroughly Southern mercantile class. One lay in the comparatively small amounts of foreign goods consumed in the South. There is no way of calculating accurately the value of the foreign imports consumed in territory naturally tributary to Southern seaports; but the probabilities are that it did not so greatly exceed the direct importations as Southerners generally supposed. Some Southern writers made the palpably untenable assumption that the Southern population consumed foreign goods equal in value to their exports to foreign countries, that is about two-thirds or three-fourths of the nation's exports or imports. More reasonable was the assumption that the per capita consumption of imported goods in the South was equal to that of the North; but even that would seem to have been too liberal. A much higher percentage of the Northern population was urban; and the per capita consumption of articles of commerce by an urban population is greater than the per capita consumption by a rural population. Southern writers made much of the number of rich families in the South who bought articles of luxury imported from abroad; but there is no doubt that the number of families who lived in luxury was exaggerated. That the slaves consumed comparatively small quantities of foreign goods requires no demonstration. Their clothing and rough shoes were manufactured either in the North or at home. Their chief articles of food (corn and bacon) were produced at home or in the West. The large poor white element in the population consumed few articles of commerce, either domestic or foreign. The same is true of the rather large mountaineer element, because if for no other reason, they lived beyond the routes of trade. Olmstead had these classes in mind when he wrote: 'I have never seen reason to believe that with absolute free trade the cotton States would take a tenth part of the value of our present importations.' One of the fairest of the many English travelers wrote: 'But the truth is, there are few imports required, for every Southern town tells the same tale.' " [Robert R. Russel, Economic Aspects of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861, pp. 107-108]
The true fact of the matter is that southerners bought from the North because Northern goods were cheaper and because they didn't use foreign goods. The tariff in 1860 was at its lowest point in 50 years, so it was not the reason Northern goods were cheaper. Southerners didn't use many foreign goods. There had been at least two attempts at establishing direct imports into the south, the last in the 1850s. Those attempts were monumental failures because southerners just didn't use enough foreign goods to make it worthwhile. Anytime any economic analysis is made that goes to more depth than just scratching the surface, it's shown again and again that the so-called "economic domination of the south" had very little to nothing to do with the war. The only economics that mattered regarding this war was the economics of slavery.
It seems to me that we're talking at cross purposes because there are in fact different questions. For example
* What were the reasons for the growing tensions between the North and the South during the period 1820-1860?
* What were the reasons that southern states decided to secede in 1860-1861?
* What were the reasons that the North decided not to acquiesce in the decision(s) by southern states to secede?
It is not at all inconsistent to argue that the answers to nos. 1 and 2 are different from the answer to no. 3. The evidence appears overwhelming to me that the primary cause of tensions that intensified over the decades, culminating in secession, was slavery.
On the other hand, I don't think that, at the outset, the North decided not to let the southern states go because the North desired to eliminate slavery. Nor do I think that the primary motivation was some crass calculation of economic benefit. In my view, the primary motivation was far more primal. Andrew Jackson's response to the Nullification controversy demonstrates that almost 30 years before the War the notion was taking hold that the United States was [although Jackson would have said "were"] one country. In the following decades, that concept took deep roots. By 1861, large numbers of northerners simply found it unthinkable that the southern states would be allowed to destroy what they perceived to be the most perfect nation attainable in an imperfect world. Pure love of country can be a powerful thing.
No I totally think that without slavery there never is NO Civil War.I'm just not buying that the Northern politicians brought about this conflict to end slavery.Most of the Northern population was racist as he-- too.I mean the reason the North wouldn't let the South go to me was based on economics.
Cash my point is that northern goods were cheaper because of the tarrif. A foreign car today would be much cheaper to us without a tarrif.The money does come out of my pocket even if I buy an American vehicle(which I always do) because the foreign car is no longer the price it would have been.That's why a tarrif was protectionist in nature it made European goods more expensive to buy.I'm in agreement with you Northern goods were cheaper and that Southern states didn't buy that many European manufactures.I'm saying the tarrif had something to do with that.I have read different books with different coclusions on the tarrif issue.I think it's effect was exagerrated but I think it was an issue.Didn't southern newspapers have a long history of complaining about the tarrif.Those views were for sure slanted but without the TV or radio how much were they believed.I don't have any knowledge of the other information you're talking about.I trust you I just don't know enough about those specifics to have any opinion.Appreciate the feedback.
Elektratig I agree with you that slavery was the primary cause.I don't think the common Union soldier fought for economic domination of the South .Nor do I think the majority of Union soldiers fought for slavery.Ulysses S. Grant stated that if he thought this war was fought about the negroe he would hand in his sword and fight for the other side.That was a good point you made about keeping America together.I don't dispute that was a major reason many volunteered for the war.If either that alone or slavery later on had been that passionate of an issue why did the North have to have a draft.Wouldn't there have been enough volunteers.Why have black military units if most Union men were willing to fight for the Union.They should've had plenty of soldiers considering how many more poeple lived in the North.I realize you could ask me the same thing about the Confederate draft I just wanted you to think about it.Sorry for ADD but I meant the politicians and not every Northener.Obviously the North stood to lose by an independent Confederacy and not the other way around.The politicians of the North weren't all idiots and I'm sure economics factored into their thinking.I think the South would have been better off financially as an independent nation and the Union worse off at that time.I don't hear anybody disputing that so it stands to reason politicians at that time with much more insight than us felt that way as well.Lincoln did mention continuing to collect duties in Southern ports so it was obviously heavy on his mind at the beginning as well.From a Southern perspective the South didn't want to impose its will on the Northern states.The South wanted to not have the North dictate its will apon them.To me its a situation of might makes right.It is funny to me how the South lost the war and comes across looking more heroic than the North.I don't see that as being accurate but history did throw the confederacy that bone.In conclusion I don't think the normal foot soldier in the Confederacy fought for slavery and I don't think the Union footsoldier fought with economic domination of the South in mind.I do think politicians in the North had economics on their mind like Southern politicians had slavery and economics on theirs.Thanks for any input.
my point is that northern goods were cheaper because of the tarrif.That's why a tarrif was protectionist in nature it made European goods more expensive to buy.I'm in agreement with you Northern goods were cheaper and that Southern states didn't buy that many European manufactures.I'm saying the tarrif had something to do with that.
--------------------
Like I said, though, the tariff in place was the lowest it had been in 50 years. Northern goods weren't cheaper because of the tariff. They were cheaper to start with. The Walker Tariff was the tariff in place. It was a revenue tariff, not a protectionist tariff.
I have read different books with different coclusions on the tarrif issue.I think it's effect was exagerrated but I think it was an issue.
----------------------
Only for a small minority. The vast majority recognized, along with Congressman Keitt, that it was not an issue.
Didn't southern newspapers have a long history of complaining about the tarrif.
-----------------------
Some did, some didn't. But by 1860 the tariff that was in place was not a protectionist tariff, so most of them didn't complain about it. The Morrill Tariff was in Congress and was a protectionist tariff, but it could never pass the Senate unless it had southern support. It was only the secession of the cotton states that took most of the opposition away and allowed it to pass.
Nor do I think the majority of Union soldiers fought for slavery.
--------------
Not at first, but they changed their minds. In the last half of the war the majority of Union soldiers wanted to destroy slavery.
Ulysses S. Grant stated that if he thought this war was fought about the negroe he would hand in his sword and fight for the other side.
-----------------
No, he never, ever said that. The claim he did was a fabrication.
Grant saw from the beginning the war would end slavery. He even wrote to his father-in-law, "In all this I can but see the doom of Slavery."
Not only do we have the letter from Grant to Col. Dent, but we also have Grant's letter to his father in which he said, "Whatever may have been my political opinions before I have but one sentiment now. That is we have a Government, and laws and a flag and they must all be sustained. There are but two parties now, Traitors and Patriots and I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter, and I trust, the stronger party." [U.S. Grant to his father, Jesse Grant, 21 Apr 1861] In another letter to his father, Grant wrote, "My inclination is to whip the rebellion into submission, preserving all constitutional rights. If it cannot be whipped in any other way than through a war against slavery, let it come to that legitimately. If it is necessary that slavery should fall that the Republic may continue its existence, let slavery go. But that portion of the press that advocates the beginning of such a war now, are as great enemies to their country as if they were open and avowed secessionists." [U.S. Grant to his father, Jesse, 27 Nov 1861] Grant was certainly willing to wage a war against slavery if it came to that, even though in late 1861 he didn't believe the time had come for it. In this he was in complete accord with Lincoln. Later, after the Final Emancipation Proclamation was issued and the war transformed from a war for Union on the Federal side to a war for Union and against slavery, Grant not only did not offer his sword to the other side but he executed increased responsibility to successfully wage this war.
In August of 1863, Grant wrote to Elihu Washburne, "it became patent in my mind early in the rebellion that the North & South could never live at peace with each other except as one nation, and that without Slavery. As anxious as I am to see peace reestablished I would not therefore be willing to see any settlement until this question is forever settled." [U.S. Grant to Elihu Washburne, 30 Aug 1863]
The politicians of the North weren't all idiots and I'm sure economics factored into their thinking.
---------------------
You've been given direct evidence that it had little if any effect on their thinking.
I think the South would have been better off financially as an independent nation and the Union worse off at that time.I don't hear anybody disputing that so it stands to reason politicians at that time with much more insight than us felt that way as well.Lincoln did mention continuing to collect duties in Southern ports so it was obviously heavy on his mind at the beginning as well.
--------------------
That was his sworn duty as President of the United States, to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. Revenue laws were part of that. The amount of revenue collected at southern ports, though, was a mere pittance. The vast majority of the tariff revenue was collected in Northern ports.
From a Southern perspective the South didn't want to impose its will on the Northern states.
-----------------------
That's absolutely false. They sure did want to impose their will on the Northern states. They demanded that Northern states repeal their personal liberty laws. They demanded that every Northerner become a slave catcher. They demanded the right to travel in Northern states with their slaves, flaunting the free state laws against slavery. They demanded the right to kidnap any black citizen of any Northern state they wished and bring him south into slavery.
The South wanted to not have the North dictate its will apon them.To me its a situation of might makes right.
-------------------
Other way around. As Lincoln said, "Right makes might."
It is funny to me how the South lost the war and comes across looking more heroic than the North.
---------------------
The confederacy had some very heroic people. But I for one don't see them as more heroic than the Federals. I see the two as equally heroic when it comes to deeds done in battle.
I don't see that as being accurate but history did throw the confederacy that bone.In conclusion I don't think the normal foot soldier in the Confederacy fought for slavery
-------------------
About 20% of them specifically stated they were fighting for slavery. The rest of them had no problem with slavery and accepted the fact that slavery was one of the rights for which they were fighting. That doesn't mean it was their motivation.
and I don't think the Union footsoldier fought with economic domination of the South in mind.I do think politicians in the North had economics on their mind like Southern politicians had slavery and economics on theirs.
------------------
Can you support that? You've been shown specific examples where Northern politicians gave their reasons and they didn't have anything to do with economics.
Cash thanks.I wouldn't say you've given evidence that Northern politicians weren't concerned with economics.Quoting politicians proves things right.Okay Clinton didn't do anything with his intern and Bush went to war over weapons of mass destruction.I just proved it to you because I quoted them.Give me a break buddy.I can quote Southern politicians who claim slavery wasn't an issue but I'm not so narrow minded that I blindly believe them when common sense tells me better.You never disputed that Abe Lincoln talked about collecting duties in Southern ports.Wasn't he a politician?By your logic from the head Union man I just proved to you that economics were a factor.Are you now telling me that by quoting some politicians you can read there minds and know they didn't have economics on it.Please give me your opinion yes or no.Would the North have been weaker economically in 1861 without the Confederacy?That answer is obvious ,but you somehow think that in no way economics had anything to do with it.Are you afraid of feeling guilty that this was not a holy war.I feel guilty about slavery I just don't justify it.I think it is being real ridiculous to assume that economics had nothing to do with it.Also on the racial issue in how many Northern states were blacks allowed to vote in?I guess the blacks lynched in the New York riots were future soldiers showing how devoted they were to the blessed Northern cause.Please don't pretend that the North was the ambivalent friend of the negroe.I never said Grant fought for the Confederacy so it was silly to bring that up.I can't prove what men 100 years ago were thinking.Nor can you prove they didn't by quoting politicians. It's pretty sad when quoting a politician is proof.Are you telling me that you really believe economics weren't a factor at all.If so I've got a flooded house in Cypress Shores from Katrina that maybe you might want to buy.
Cash thanks.I wouldn't say you've given evidence that Northern politicians weren't concerned with economics.Quoting politicians proves things right.Okay Clinton didn't do anything with his intern and Bush went to war over weapons of mass destruction.I just proved it to you because I quoted them.Give me a break buddy.
----------------
I quoted the resolutions passed by the Legislatures before the war, not justifications used after-the-fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I can quote Southern politicians who claim slavery wasn't an issue but I'm not so narrow minded that I blindly believe them when common sense tells me better.
Like I said, there were a few for whom slavery was not an issue, and you can find quotes from them prior to the war. The vast majority, however, saw slavery as the issue, and you will not find the quotes from before the war that will dispute that. However, what I provided was not just politicians trying to make excuses for actions. What I quoted was resolutions by states giving their reasons for opposing secession. If you have anything substantive to impeach their credibility, I'd like to see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
You never disputed that Abe Lincoln talked about collecting duties in Southern ports.Wasn't he a politician?By your logic from the head Union man I just proved to you that economics were a factor.
Wrong again. I gave the reason why he said that, and that is taking one statement of his out of context. If you can provide statements from Northern politicians saying that economics was their driving concern, then please do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Are you now telling me that by quoting some politicians you can read there minds and know they didn't have economics on it.
Resolutions from State Legislatures are pretty authoritative as to the opinions of the legislatures and probably their constituents. I don't have to read their minds. They were very clear in what they said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Please give me your opinion yes or no.Would the North have been weaker economically in 1861 without the Confederacy?That answer is obvious ,but you somehow think that in no way economics had anything to do with it.Are you afraid of feeling guilty that this was not a holy war.I feel guilty about slavery I just don't justify it.
The nation as a whole would have been weaker in all ways, militarily, economically, and socially without 1/3 of the country. Claiming economics was their concern is no more valid than claiming they wanted to keep the Union together because they wanted to continue to have a diverse society or that they liked having people with southern accents in Congress, especially when the resolutions from the various states clearly show what their motivation was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I think it is being real ridiculous to assume that economics had nothing to do with it.
I think it is ridiculous to continue to make an unsupported claim that is nothing more than an assumption in the face of clear, hard evidence to the contrary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Also on the racial issue in how many Northern states were blacks allowed to vote in?
New England.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I guess the blacks lynched in the New York riots were future soldiers showing how devoted they were to the blessed Northern cause.Please don't pretend that the North was the ambivalent friend of the negroe.
What does this have to do with the discussion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I never said Grant fought for the Confederacy so it was silly to bring that up.
Please read what I posted again. You made the false claim that Grant had said if the war became a war against slavery he would offer his sword to the other side. That is a fabrication. So far I have been able to trace the fabrication to Margaret Rutherford, but it might have started before her. I showed where Grant said and did the exact opposite of that fabricated quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I can't prove what men 100 years ago were thinking.Nor can you prove they didn't by quoting politicians. It's pretty sad when quoting a politician is proof.Are you telling me that you really believe economics weren't a factor at all.If so I've got a flooded house in Cypress Shores from Katrina that maybe you might want to buy.
Since you've provided no evidence for your claims I'll simply ignore the hot air until you provide the evidence to back up your assumptions.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
