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.
I wouldn't say you've given evidence that Northern politicians weren't concerned with economics.
We carelessly mix two different statements together in these discussions - what was the primary reason for the deep South's secession, and what was the primary reason for the Union to not capitulate.
Noting that you still have the feeling that tariffs must have been a substantial cause for southern discord, in addition to what has already been offered to you, I'd ask you to consider that no southern political campaign made a repeal of tariffs its goal, no platform of any southern convention made a repeal of tariffs one of it's planks, tariffs were not the subject of any of the Lincoln - Douglas debates, and tariffs were not an ingredient in any of the social uproars tearing at the seems of the US. Consider that secession as the remedy to hostility over slavery would have been exercised in 1856 had Fremont won the election, and there was no agitation over tariffs then. If tariffs were truly a cause for disunion, then it was the best kept secret in 1860.
If you think Billy Bob would be better off economically in the CSA, then I'd be interested exactly why you think that would be. Remembering that he bought most of his items from domestic sources in the North, and remembering that the CSA instituted a tariff systems quite similar to the US, with ad valorem rates a bit lower that the US, Billy Bob's purchases of goods made in the US which were previously free of duty would now have a CSA duty attached. How does that help Billy Bob economically?
If you want to argue that Billy Bob could now buy his goods cheaper from Europe, explain how, since the tariff still was in place on European goods. (and note that by the 1850s, domestic production as a whole was not inferior to European)
If you want to argue that prices on US goods would not rise, because in order to compete with European and CSA goods, US producers would have been forced to lower their prices to compete in the CSA market duty-added, then you have to concede that European producers had had to do the same to sell in the US market all along.
If you want to argue that due to the tariffs placed on US goods, southern industry would rise to supply the market, then you have to concede that the South was applying protectionism, which has been accused all along of being harmful to consumers. So....how is it that Billy Bob is better off?
To the latter question of the federal government's determination to preserve the Union, several here have demonstrated that with commonness, secession was considered a treasonous rebellion to be thwarted, one that had been rumbled as a threat for years. The political notion that at any time, by the mere announcement of its independence, a state could exit the Union, received wholesale rejection outside the South. The breakup of the Union presented many potential harms to the health and prosperity of the future US. You repeat over and over that economics had to have been a factor. I'd agree that in the big picture, economics as a component of the overall prosperity of the US were a consideration of maintaining the Union. But as a specific and immediate fear, especially as a loss of tariff revenue, they had to have been almost non-existent compared to the cost and disruption of production and commerce that would surely be the result of having to endure civil war.
Undoubtedly there were concerns for the disruption in trade and shipping that might occur, although I'd argue that the editorials you might read grossly exaggerated the situation (geez, it's not like a newspaper man to do that!). If you think the North would be hurt economically by the breakup of the Union, then I'd be interested on exactly how they would have suffered enough to want to preserve the Union at the cost of war.
If the market for foreign goods was relative to the size of the free marketplace, then the states outside what would become the CSA were the destination for about 70% of imports. Contrary to what many claim, these goods could not enter the US market and avoid a US tariff by shipping to Charleston, Mobile, or New Orleans first. They still would then meet a US Custom-house up-river at the new border to the US, where they would be assessed with a US tariff. So its easy to see that the majority of transAtlantic shipping destined for northern markets would continue to dock in NYC and Boston.
Imported goods destined for southern consumers would still have docked in these northern ports, where they would have been trans-shipped with cargoes of US made goods. These shipments would then head for a southern ports where the entire shipment would be assessed appropriately with a CSA tariff before entering the CSA market. Aside from a slight lowering of tariffs on little bought European goods, and the addition of new tariffs on commonly used US goods, little has changed, except that Billy Bob now can't seem to buy much of anything that hasn't been taxed.
So where is the huge disruption in shipping? Where is the huge loss of market for northern manufacturers? I just don't see it. Stability is what the home market wanted, and war does not bring stability.
Thanks for the response Cash it has been educational.You do a nice job of sighting sources it's just that there are sources for every side of the Civil War argument.I didn't dispute that Grant actually said that because I don't know.I believe you're right about that quote being traced to Margaret Rutherford but as to whether she's a liar or not I don't know.I don't condemn you for believing she is.Abe Lincoln talked about collecting duties in the South so how did I take that out of context.I'm not claiming that was all he said but that would seem to indicate he was aware of the revenue that would be lost.As I've said before there were some astute minds North of Dixie so I believe it played a role.Do you really think the Northern legislatures would go on the record and say that that the South was being invaded for the purpose of subjugation.That's not realistic. Thanks for ignoring my hot air as you say.If I was offensive I apologize.That wasn't my intent.Like I said no I can't prove that economics were a factor , neither can you by quoting some politicians prove that economics played no role.I don't see how you can't consider the possibility that economic considerations played any part in the war.Respectfully we'll have to agree to disagree.In my college courses my teacher's would never accept quotes as proof.Like they always said it's not like human beings are 100% honest all the time.We were taught to question everything to the 9th degree.Not saying my teacher's were perfect ,but I would have gotten thrown out of class for proposing what you have shown is proof. Thanks again for the feedback.
Thanks for the response Cash it has been educational.You do a nice job of sighting sources it's just that there are sources for every side of the Civil War argument.
Some of them have value, some don't. I think citing the person's own words, which can be verified through his papers in the case of Grant, has value. The fact that he actually said and did things that were directly opposite to what was claimed and the fact that the quotation attributed to him appears nowhere in any collection of his writings and speeches, and we can find no witnesses at all to attest to him having spoken those words means they were fabricated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I didn't dispute that Grant actually said that because I don't know.I believe you're right about that quote being traced to Margaret Rutherford but as to whether she's a liar or not I don't know.I don't condemn you for believing she is.
I don't know that she is. I've only been able to trace the fabrication to her so far. She may have gotten it from someone else. I'm trying to get my hands on her book so I can try to trace it from there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Abe Lincoln talked about collecting duties in the South so how did I take that out of context.I'm not claiming that was all he said but that would seem to indicate he was aware of the revenue that would be lost.
He talked about collecting duties in his First Inaugural. He also talked about holding the forts and other government property, yet you ignore that and claim it was the revenue. And the revenue lost from southern ports was miniscule anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
As I've said before there were some astute minds North of Dixie so I believe it played a role.Do you really think the Northern legislatures would go on the record and say that that the South was being invaded for the purpose of subjugation.That's not realistic.
If they had economic reasons for opposing secession they could have spelled them out in terms that would not equal subjugation.
In any event, the burden of proof is on those who make the positive assertion. You've asserted they opposed secession so they could subjugate the south. The burden is on you to provide evidence to support your contention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Like I said no I can't prove that economics were a factor , neither can you by quoting some politicians prove that economics played no role.
The resolutions of the state legislatures, which were signed by the governors of those states, are more than quoting some politicians. They are authoritative statements of the positions of those states and were backed up after Fort Sumter by the hundreds of thousands who enlisted to fight for the Union. Show me a letter by a soldier who said he was fighting to ensure the economic subjugation of the south, then. You can't.
Did you notice what Grant said to his father? "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]
Nothing about economic subjugation of the south there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I don't see how you can't consider the possibility that economic considerations played any part in the war.
As it's nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion it deserves far less consideration than I've given it. Give me some evidence and I will consider the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
In my college courses my teacher's would never accept quotes as proof.Like they always said it's not like human beings are 100% honest all the time.We were taught to question everything to the 9th degree.Not saying my teacher's were perfect ,but I would have gotten thrown out of class for proposing what you have shown is proof. Thanks again for the feedback.
I submit you misunderstand what they were getting at. A person's statements are evidence of what he believes. In order to impeach that evidence you have to have evidence to the contrary, which you have failed to provide.
Hey Cedar Stripper,
I don't believe that economics was the only factor in why the North invaded the South.I do believe that they did play a role.For most Union troops I really don't think it was much of a factor.I meant some Northern politicians.
This is what I thought was an interesting tidbit..I read letters from my friend's family who lived at the time of the Civil War.In the letter he complains of exactly that the tarrif.He doesn't call it a tarrif.He does talk about thanks to the Yankee bastards in Congress the prices for his farm tools are higher.He makes reference to the fact that he could buy them cheaper from Britain.He was from Frisco City,Alabama.I'm not arguing about whether his perception was based on reality.If he felt that way then obviously , it contributed in his case to a willingness to secede.I'm not saying it was the only factor either.How many others felt that way I don't know.I have never claimed that due to tarrifs the South seceded.I would say slavery and states rights were far bigger issues.If you could please post what the actual tarrifs were for the Confederacy in 1861 and the Union in 1861 I'd appreciate it.Newspapers did bring up the tarrif issue so it wasn't something nobody ever discussed.Considering the newspaper was the major way some rural communities got news from the outside world , of course those articles had an impact on some of its readers.Showing all the tables and everything in the world doesn't tell me how Southerners felt about the tarrif issue.I can post several quotes from some Confederate politicians on the issue if you would like . South Carolina did threaten secession over the issue 30 years earlier so the idea isn't without merit that it was a factor.I'm not saying you're wrong ,but there are oodles of sources from a different perspective.Do you personally think cedarstripper that to some Southerners it was an issue?I think it was an issue but not nearly as important as slavery.I'll appreciate your honest answer.
South Carolina did threaten secession over the issue 30 years earlier so the idea isn't without merit that it was a factor.
Not according to the architect of nullification, His Satanic Majesty, John C. Calhoun, himself:
"I consider the Tariff, but as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick [sic] institutions of the Southern States, and the consequent direction which that and her soil and climate have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriation in opposite relation to the majority of the Union; against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states, they must in the end be forced to rebel, or submit to have . . . their domestick [sic] institutions exhausted by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves & children reduced to wretchedness. Thus situated, the denial of the right of the state to interfere constitutionally in the last resort, more alarms the thinking than all other causes." [John C. Calhoun to Virgil Maxcy, 11 September 1830]
And in fact the so-called "Tariff of Abominations" was fashioned in part by none other than His Satanic Majesty, John C. Calhoun, and his henchmen, after which he cynically began to denounce his own creation. "The tariff of 1828 was the law of the land, and South Carolinians were the authors of its worst abominations." [William W. Freehling, Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836, p. 137]
The Nullification Controversy was more about protecting slavery than anything else:
"The same doctrines 'of the general welfare' which enable the general government to tax our industry for the benefit of the industries of other sections of this Union, and to appropriate the common treasure to make roads and canals for them, would authorize the federal government to erect the peaceful standard of servile revolt, by establishing colonization offices in our State, to give the bounties for emancipation here, and transportation to Liberia afterwards. The last question follows our giving up the battle on the other two, as inevitably as light flows from the sun." [James Hamilton to John Taylor, 14 Sep 1830]
Quote from Cash, post #573
"the burden is on you to provide evidence to support your contention." (a statement to Mobile Boy)
Quote from Cash, post #575
"Not according to the architect of nullification, His Satanic Majesty, John C. Calhoun, himself." (aother statement to Mobile Boy)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cash, I was unaware that John C. Calhoun was a member of Satan's Church or was a 'Satanic worshipper.' I did a quick google on the subject to hand and was unable to substantiate your statement. The burden is therefore on you to provide evidence to support you conention of John C. Calhoun being a "Satanic Majesty." Please provide the evidence.
Cash you're ignoring my point.It is a common known fact that South Carolina feared becoming poor due to the tarrif.Calhoun wasn't always a supporter of state's rights he changed his views as I'm well aware and most literate Southerners are.Why did Andrew Jackson lower the tarrif if he didn't want to give some relief to the Southern states.Let me guess the fact that the tarrif was reduced is irrelevant to you because in your mind it wasn't an issue. Clearly from your quote it was an issue.I never said it was the one and only issue.Yes with no tarrif issue I'm saying they don't secede.Were there other factors? Of course there were. Duh .I'm starting to fear that you just enjoy arguing no matter what is said.I do enjoy your replies though.How can you call John Calhoun the devil.I guess to you a politician representing the interest of the state he was elected from is satanic.When you vote do you not want your politician to represent your community's needs.How many South Carolinians voted for the tarrif of abominations.Please put that up.There's no way the majority of them casted a positive vote for it.That my friend is fact that they did not.Do you care to make a wager on that?Of course not because I am correct.If you want to bet I'll take it whenever you accept it.So to pretend that the tarrif had no impact on South Carolina's decision to secede is really not worth discussing further.I love how you quote saying South Carolinians were the authors of some of its worst abominations.What were they the authors of ?You leave that out.That quote is totally irrelevant because South Carolina didn't support the tarrif.That is fact noone can contradict.
Have a good one.
I love how you quote saying South Carolinians were the authors of some of its worst abominations.What were they the authors of ?You leave that out.That quote is totally irrelevant because South Carolina didn't support the tarrif.That is fact noone can contradict.
From Tariff History of the United States, Frank Taussig, p.88:
"But the policy of delay, if such in fact had been entertained by the opposition, was abandoned. On January 31st, the committee presented a report and a draft of a tariff bill, which showed that they had determined on a new plan, and an ingenious one. What that plan was, Calhoun explained very frankly nine years later, in a speech reviewing the events of 1828 and defending the course taken by himself and his Southern fellow-members.
A high-tariff bill was to be laid before the House. It was to contain not only a high general range of duties, but duties especially high on those raw materials on which New England wanted the duties to be low. It was to satisfy the protective demands of the Western and Middle States, and at the same time to be obnoxious to the New England members. The Jackson men of all shades, the protectionists from the North and the free-traders from (p.89) the South, were to unite in preventing any amendments; that bill, and no other, was to be voted on. When the final vote came, the Southern men were to turn around and vote against their own measure. The New England men, and the Adams men in general, would be unable to swallow it, and would also vote against it. Combined, they would prevent its passage, even though the Jackson men from the North voted for it. The result expected was that no tariff bill at all would be passed during the session, which was the object of the Southern wing of the opposition. On the other hand, the obloquy of defeating it would be cast on the Adams party, which was the object of the Jacksonians of the North. The tariff bill would be defeated, and yet the Jackson men would be able to parade as the true "friends of domestic industry."
The bill by which this ingenious solution of the difficulties of the opposition was to be reached, was reported to the House on January 31st by the committee on manufactures.79 To the surprise of its authors, it was eventually passed both by House and Senate, and became, with a few unessential changes, the tariff act of 1828."
Quote:
Why did Andrew Jackson lower the tarrif if he didn't want to give some relief to the Southern states.
Tariff rates are affixed by Congress, not by the President. The above account admitted by Calhoun was a political scheme which backfired. The abominable tariff rates that Taussig points out were especially burdensome on New England textiles and shipbuilding, not South Carolinians. South Carolina (Calhoun) just squawked the loudest. Because Calhoun threatened secession, it is assumed that the tariffs were especially harmful to S.C., but that's not necessarily true.
Quote:
It is a common known fact that South Carolina feared becoming poor due to the tarrif.
Please explain how the folks in South Carolina paid any higher prices for imported or domestic goods than anyone else. How were they affected differently than, say, the folks in Iowa or Ohio? Is it a common known fact that South Carolina rice growers enjoyed protectionism on their rice crop?
Quote from Cash, post #573
"the burden is on you to provide evidence to support your contention." (a statement to Mobile Boy)
Quote from Cash, post #575
"Not according to the architect of nullification, His Satanic Majesty, John C. Calhoun, himself." (aother statement to Mobile Boy)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cash, I was unaware that John C. Calhoun was a member of Satan's Church or was a 'Satanic worshipper.' I did a quick google on the subject to hand and was unable to substantiate your statement. The burden is therefore on you to provide evidence to support you conention of John C. Calhoun being a "Satanic Majesty." Please provide the evidence.
Regards,
Rob Adams
-----------
Rob,
I didn't say he was a Satan worshipper. I say that today he resides at Satan's right hand.
The evidence is his development of the extreme state rights philosophy that led to secession and a bloody war in order to protect the institution of slavery. As the quote I provided shows, his goal through all of this was the protection and perpetuation of slavery. A story is told of Andrew Jackson who was asked what his one regret in life was, and he is said to have replied that his one big regret was he didn't hang John C. Calhoun. Calhoun manufactured the nullification crisis just so he could give his extreme state rights theory a test run. Calhoun served an evil agenda and richly deserves the sobriquet "His Satanic Majesty."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
