Slavery; THE Cause?

[MobileBoy]

Hey Ole,
I had three professors in undergraduate and three different professors in graduate school.They all had the same view of the tarrif as I did.Three of those professors were born in the North.I must say though that one of them really led me to appreciate and love the "iron brigade".Ole reguarding the tarrif of abominations the majority of the South didn't vote for it where I've yet to find one Northern state that didn't.Where do you get that the South held Congressional power?From this tarrif on the members of Congress of the Northern states always outnumbered the representatives of the Southern states.I haven't polled every college history student obviously , but I've never heard anyone assert that the tarrif was a blessing for the Southern states.Name one historian who believes the tarrif of abominations benefited the South.There's not one I've ever read out there and I read a lot. Sorry for sounding rude Ole but I've wasted enough of my time arguing what every knowledgable history student realizes is fact.Some things are debatable such as "What if Stonewall had lived?" but the tarrif of abominations isn't as to who voted for it and who benefited from it.That proof thing is also ridiculous.I guess all the books which mention the subject were written by mentally retarded individuals.If new evidence comes to light then question accounts of history,but there's no evidence that those historians were wrong.Ole prove to me you're not an alien who has taken over your body.You couldn't prove that but of course an alien is not living inside you.Am I wrong to respect the opinions and views of past historians from both the North and South?Call any university in America and find a professor who'll go on record and say the tarrif of abominations was voted for in the South,benefited the South, and wasn't pushed through by the North.You won't find one because history professors normally aren't total lunatics.If you find one I'll forward his information to the dean of the education department of my alma mater so he can contact his university.There's no way Ole someone would be allowed to teach such nonsense.Nor have I heard about someone teaching such nonsense have you?

Have a good one

[MobileBoy]

Hey guys,
I agree that slavery would have been long gone by now but I'm not sure when.I think the major problem in freeing the slaves is what do we do with them once they are free.Southerners then as now resent having issues concerning their personal life decided by the government.It's more than a little odd to look at the map before the war and to look at our political map now.I guess reconstruction didn't change our views the way it was intended too.

[FSPowers]

A few years back I read Burke Davis' Gray Fox and if I read it correctly, Robert E. Lee advocated schools for the freed slaves to teach them how to function in society. I don't know how true that is.

[cash]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

reguarding the tarrif of abominations the majority of the South didn't vote for it where I've yet to find one Northern state that didn't.

Then you haven't looked. Maine had 7 representatives. All 7 voted against it. Massachusetts had 13 representatives. 11 voted against it. Rhode Island was split, with one of its two representatives voting for it and one against it.

In the Senate, Maine's two senators both voted against it. New Hampshire had one senator vote against it and the other was not present for the vote. Massachusetts was split, one voting for it and one against it. Rhode Island split again, one senator for, one against.

In total, New England as a region voted against it, with 23 of 39 representatives voting against it. Sixteen southern representatives voted for it, as opposed to 65 who voted against it. The real support for the tariff was in the Middle States and in the West. Together they favored it by 73-6, with those 6 votes against coming from New York.

Regards,
Cash

[johan_steele]

Mr Powers, Lee did indeed support schools for the black man.

Slavery in the South increased considerably after the Cotton Gin. It would have taken a agricultural disaster of biblical proportions to usher slavery out of the South. Just note the violent reeption any kind of abolitionist thought received...

As to the current political map not falling far from the tree of 1860. I think the modern midwestern & western states fall far closer to the Union than the CS. The south has matured a lot as has the rest of the country. THe last vestiges of slavery are dieing. Everyone seems to forget that the Union encomposed far more than just the Northeast... Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota made their mark.

Mobile Boy... I have never run across an accreditated History Professor or History Teacher who credits the Tarriff issue as being the driving force behind the CW. It's nothing more than so much chaff and wishful thinking. THis thread has gone a long way to proving that the Tariff issue is little more than wind and smoke perpetrated by the Lost Cause. I suggest you also take a good hard look at the entire thread as well as the Tarriff thread.

[ole]

MobileBoy:
Too many questions, not enough answers. Well, let's get started. From your earlier post:

"I had three professors in undergraduate and three different professors in graduate school.They all had the same view of the tarrif as I did."

And that view was that tariffs, 'though not primary, were a significant cause for some states to secede. Am I correct.? So your history professors and you believe that tariffs had more significance than do I, those you are tilting with, and a rather larger number of published professors and historians believe. OK. Taking a poll would be something I'd certainly not to volunteer for, so we can at least agree that at least some secessionist resentment was based partially on a 30-year-old tariff.

"Where do you get that the South held Congressional power?"

From this very forum. You will find a wealth of information in posts not yet a year old.

"From this tarrif on the members of Congress of the Northern states always outnumbered the representatives of the Southern states. [space inserted]I haven't polled every college history student obviously , but I've never heard anyone assert that the tarrif was a blessing for the Southern states."

To my recollection, no one ever said it was a blessing, just that it wasn't a significant cause of secession until the "Lost Causers" tried to delete slavery from history.

"Sorry for sounding rude Ole but I've wasted enough of my time arguing what every knowledgable history student realizes is fact.Some things are debatable such as "What if Stonewall had lived?" but the tarrif of abominations isn't as to who voted for it and who benefited from it."

Every knowledgable history student. Does this include Davis, Freehling, Nevins, Foote, Gallagher, McPherson, Foner, McWhiney -- to name a very few? Or do you include the Kennedy brothers, DiLorenzo, Rutherford -- to name fewer? Or are you saying that the 1828 tariff by itself was an abomination and 30 years later became a cause for secessionists?

'Ole, [comma inserted] prove to me you're not an alien who has taken over your body.You couldn't prove that but of course an alien is not living inside you. [space inserted]Am I wrong to respect the opinions and views of past historians from both the North and South?

OK. I get it. You're being playful, aren't you? You seem fixated on the Tariff of Abominations and the idea that it was beneficial to the south. No one I know argues that the tariff was benign for ALL the south, or that it was malignant for ALL the south or that it BENEFITTED the south in any way. It was, referring the the American Dictionary of Captain Obvious, a misguided idea and was tempered by later tariffs.

You aren't arguing, are you, that tariffs of one sort or another weren't necessary to raise the revenue required to run a Federal Government? I didn't think so. So Congress fumbled around from time to time trying to raise revenue and not offend anyone. Occasionally, a protectionist clause was inserted. As I said, fumbling.

"Some things are debatable such as "What if Stonewall had lived?" but the tarrif of abominations isn't as to who voted for it and who benefited from it.That proof thing is also ridiculous.I guess all the books which mention the subject were written by mentally retarded individuals."

Sorry. This one is out of sequence. "What ifs" are not debatable. They are amusing speculations of occasional value. Books are not written by mentally retarded individuals (whoops, should say "mentally challenged"). They can however, be written by individuals who have a personal agenda to make history appear as they wish it to appear. Some of these actually get published, and some sell.

"Call any university in America and find a professor who'll go on record and say the tarrif of abominations was voted for in the South,benefited the South, and wasn't pushed through by the North."

Slow down. I don't recall anyone saying that that tariff benefitted the South -- or that the South voted for it -- or that the Northwest and West didn't push it through.
Windmills are starting to appear in you tilting yard.

In the end, we're using up all kinds of megs arguing about different things. The base: were tariffs or, more specifically, the Tariff of Abominations, an important cause of secession? I maintain that there was some residual resentment among the older secession-promoters, but most of the hoohah began among the post bellum "lost causers."

So. There we are. Anyone up for a shot and a beer?
Ole

[cedarstripper]

The items that tariffs were added to by the tariff act of May 19, 1828:
iron - in pigs, bars, bolts,....
iron/steel wire
axes, adzes, shovels spades, drawing knives, cutting knives, etc.
lead - in pigs, bars, pipes, sheets,....
wool - unmanufactured
manufactures of wool
carpets, floor cloths, oil cloth
hemp - unmanufactured
flax - unmanufactured
sail duck
molasses
distilled spirits
manufactures of silk
indigo
window glass
roofing slates
cotton cloths

I suspect the most infamous attribute of the "Tariff of Abominations" is the dramatic named given it from the soapbox by the dramatic Calhoun.

Some may see a duty on iron and say "Aha......New England plundering the South", yet iron consumtion was far higher outside the South, especially the deep South. So who was it that was mostly burdened by any increase in iron prices due to a tariff? Not Southerners.

They might see duties on cotton cloth or woolen manufactures and say "There's those northern industrialists keeping the South poor," yet there were far more citizens buying cotton cloth and woolen manufactures (both domestic and imported) outside the South who had no connection with New England textile mills. To boot, they choose to ignore the raw materials cost of the textile industry, remembering that duties on raw wool and a southern monopoly on cotton could only cause their costs to rise. And is it not conceded that American and British competition in the cotton textile industry could only support the raw cotton market? Maybe they wouldn't have felt left out if there had been a 1000% import duty on raw cotton - it wouldn't have made $1 of difference....there was none being imported. The South didn't have to worry about developing a strong home market for raw cotton - they had a natural monopoly.

They may see the duty on distilled spirits and conjur images of fat and happy Boston rum makers, but then deny the protectionism given sugar growers on the molasses used to make that rum. Are we to forget how absolutley filthy rich LA sugar growers were? (or SC rice growers)

They may note the burden placed on farmers and planters who are forced to pay more for a shovel or other farm implements, yet forget that the southern farmers only owned 1/3 the value of farm implements in the US. So why should we think a Georgia farmer was any more upset by this than an Iowa farmer?

I reject the idea that the 1828 tariff had anything at all to do with sectional animosity in 1860, other than provide a worn in (or worn out) excuse for South Carolinian windbags to use to divert attention from their real world problems.

[MobileBoy]

Hey Ole,
I agree with basically everything you said.My professors held as do I that slavery was the primary cause of secession.They also held your view and mine summed up in your final paragraph.I didn't realize anyone believed I felt differently.I do think the tarrif was an issue that contributed to sectionalism as I've stated.I never ranked its importance in leading to secession in 1861.I did say without the tarrif of 1828 South Carolina doesn't secede in in 1832 because Calhoun would have had no excuse to test his nullification theory.I never put extra emphasis on the importance of the tarrif , but I did recognize it as a sore spot with "some" Southerners.I felt like not you but others were bringing up issues in an attempt to mislead me and pretend the tarrif wasn't a bad thing for the South etch...Maybe I got that wrong though.I know I never heard Cash or Cedarstripper say that the tarrif of abominations was pushed through by Northerners to the detriment of the South.No they didn't say that.They lay blame of the tarrif on South Carolinians as authors and mention how it affected poor old New England etch.. . and provide other arguments off of my main point.There is a lot of "Lost Cause" stuff out there for sure but I take it with a grain of salt.I don't believe those authors you mentioned claimed that the 1828 tarrif was not for the benefit of the North,voted in by the North,and had more benefits to the North than the South.That is my position on the issue and the position of most educators(all educators I've heard of)If someone feels what I said in the previous sentence is incorrect then they and you(if you're saying that)are wrong.Yes Ole I recognize that the tarrif generated revenue for the governmentand was necessary to some degree.I said I never considered the politicians who passed the tarrif evil.I don't look down on them at all.I never made any critical remarks whatsoever about those members of Congress who voted in favor of the tarrif.I just maintain that the tarrif hurt the South and benefited the North.again Cedarstripper nor Cash ever said that.They just as I said "danced around the issue"as I've touched on earlier.I had close to 100 various books on the Civil War and never read one where my position on the tarrif was disagreed with.By the way Katrina wiped out my library with 5 feet of water and sewage so if anyone wants to donate old books I'd put them to good use.My position and your position are basically the same Ole.I'm not sure why you thought otherwise but maybe through my rambling I wasn't clear enough.I did keep specifically mentioning my basic premise on the tarrif issue.I don't believe those historians you mentioned disgree with my position on the tarrif issue and I know 2 of them don't.But like I said I don't think you understood my position clearly through my counter-arguments to the ideas put forth by my Northern friends.

Thanks Ole for your response.

[cedarstripper]

Mr. Powers:

If slavery was not THE CAUSE of the WBTS, then it was the leading candidate. It would have been followed (in my opinion) by Southern fears over the loss of political power in Washington as well as the Tariff question (asserted by Jeff Davis in his book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government).

Specifically, in what areas other than the maintenance or expansion of slavery do you think the South would have become a minority voice in? In spite of all the claims of cultural incompatibilities, etc., it seems to me that slavery was really the sole commonality that necessitated the solidarity of political will in the South. No other region of the US enjoyed this political bloc that the South had. When the issues of slavery and freesoilism are removed, didn't the Midwest and West still have more in common with the South than with the Northeast?

I have a theory that slavery would have started to finally die out in the 1870s without the intervention of the WBTS. I think most Southerners forsaw the end of slavery but wanted to be in control of it, not having it forced on them by the point of Northern bayonets.

I take it you do not theorize emancipation or any type of state mandated prohibition against human slavery, but instead just a gradual replacement of it, where advantageous, with wage labor. In this theory, what do you think then would have become the demise of the negro? Would he have become the non-citizen, naturally inferior resident laborer for the South, or would he have been pushed out of the South (except for wherever he was still being held in slavery)?

[cash]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

I never heard Cash or Cedarstripper say that the tarrif of abominations was pushed through by Northerners to the detriment of the South.No they didn't say that.They lay blame of the tarrif on South Carolinians as authors and mention how it affected poor old New England etch.. . and provide other arguments off of my main point.

------------------
The South Carolinians authored the worst parts of the 1828 tariff, as shown by the excerpt posted from Taussig's authoritative history of the tariff in the United States. During the congressional debate several amendments were proposed to reduce the effects of the tariff. The South Carolinians led the way each time to defeat all these amendments aimed at softening the tariff.

Let's revisit what Taussig told us:

"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 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 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.'" [F. W. Taussig, The Tariff History of the United States, pp. 88-89]

Taussig continues:

"The bill, in fact, was ingeniously framed with the intention of circumventing the Adams men, especially those from New England. The heavy duties on iron, hemp, flax and wool were bitter pills for them. The new dollar minimum took the life out of their scheme of duties on woollen goods. The molasses and sail-duck duties, and the refusal of drawbacks on rum and duck, were undisguised blows at New England. At the same time, some of these very features, especially the hemp, wool, and iron duties, served to make the bill popular in the Western and Middle States, and made opposition to it awkward for the Adams men. The whole scheme was a characteristic product of the politicians who were then becoming prominent as the leaders of the Democracy, men of a type very different from the statesmen of the preceding generation. Clay informs us that it was one of the many devices that had their origin in the fertile brain of Van Buren. Calhoun said in 1837 that the compact between the Southern members and the Jackson leaders had come about mainly through Silas Wright and Wright made no denial. The result of this curious complication of wishes and motives was seen when the tariff bill was finally taken up in the House in March. Mallary, as chairman of the committee on manufactures, introduced and explained the bill. Being an Adams man, he was of course opposed to it, and moved to amend by inserting the scheme of the Harrisburg convention. The amendment was rejected by decisive votes, 102 to 75 in committee of the whole, and 114 to 80 in the House. The majority which defeated the amendment was composed of all the Southern members, and of the Jackson members from the North, chiefly from New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky. The minority consisted almost exclusively of friends of the administration. Mallary then moved to substitute that part only of the Harrisburg convention scheme which fixed the duties on wool and woollens; that is, the original minimum scheme, with a uniform duty of forty per cent. on wool. This too was rejected, but by a narrow vote, 98 to 97. The Jackson men permitted only one change of any moment: they reduced the specific duty on raw wool from seven cents, the point fixed by the committee, to four cents, the ad valorem rate remaining at 40 per cent. The duty on molasses was retained, by the same combination that refused to accept the Harrisburg scheme. The Southern members openly said that they meant to make the tariff so bitter a pill that no New England member would be able to swallow it." [Ibid., pp. 95-97]

The South Carolinians wrote the worst parts of the bill, and they had planned to vote against it from the start. Your assertion that it was forced by "the North" fails unless you consider the West to be part of "the North." New England as a region voted against the measure.

What all this shows is that the entire crisis was manufactured, from start to finish, by His Satanic Majesty, John C. Calhoun. He provided the doctrine to be used by South Carolina against the measure, and he provided the tariff measure itself.

Regards,
Cash