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 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.....
......I just maintain that the tarrif hurt the South and benefited the North.again Cedarstripper nor Cash ever said that.
First off, I personally am not of the school of thought that the 1828 tariff had anything genuine to do with sectionalism in 1860. For someone trying to build an argument for long term agitation of the tariff, I suppose the 1828 tariff, complete with it's wonderful name, is irresistable to use as a foundation for the alleged southern discord.
Second, in my experience with those (not here) who have insisted that secession was really (someone has let them in on the secret) caused by tariffs, the 1828 tariff is typically maligned as an oppressive tariff foisted on the country by powerful industrialists from the Northeast, against a helpless South like a bloodsucker dines on a host fish, just because in the first instance it is South Carolina doing the griping, and in the second, it is the entire deep South, led by South Carolina doing the griping. These accusations are generally accompanied with the garden variety neo-confederate claims of the South paying 80% of federal revenues, the North receiving 75% of federal expenditures spent on sibsidizing northern industry.
If one were to believe all of this, he would also walk away thinking that tariffs were only laid on manufactures; that the North was primarily industrial; that Whigs and Republicans had controlled the tariff legislation since the 1820s; that the South had been in constant agitation over tariffs; that the South had little choice but to consume dutiable European imports while the North consumed their own, duty free; and that Fort Sumter was a "tariff collection point." More than a few would have even been taught by their professors that there was a tariff on cotton exports and therefore, the planters of the cotton belt were picking up the tab for the nation....and it was all designed that way by evil industrialists from the Northeast. Add to that claims of the Morrill Tariff tripling rates and the South seeing the handwriting on the wall, yada, yada, yada.......and pretty soon its time to call up Mother Goose Publishing and work out a deal. (Is that how DiLorenzo did it?)
I think if you want to overgeneralize about a tariff helping the North and hurting the South, then you are setting yourself up for overgeneralized conclusions based on overgeneralized inaccuracies. That is why, for instance, it is such a shock to discover that Calhoun and his political cronies actually authored the tariff act, and the political scheme gone wrong that resulted in the Tariff of Abominations, all to ruin Adams and posture Jackson. What a twist that Calhoun would use this botched sheme for political gain, and Jackson would threaten to hang him for it.
Morning Cedarstripper,
You make some very valid points .Yes there are writings out there that the
South paid 80 percent of the tarrif and that claim 75 percent of federal expenditures were in the North.I don't put any stock into those claims but I do firmly believe the tarrif as a whole benefited the North more.There were many poeple alive in 1860 that lived through the controversy so I doubt they totally wiped it from their mind.Plus you know father passes his ideas down to son and so on.I don't particularly like or dislike Calhoun but it took the vote of all the South Carolina delegates to make secession happen.Without the 1828 tarrif I don't think the secession convention is called in 1832.You're correct about John Adams poor guy got screwed in the whole deal.He knew what it would do for his political career so why the heck did he sign it?I could be guilty of overgeneralization but everything credible I've read leads me to the conclusion held by educators that the tarrif helped the North as a whole more than the South.Do I think it helped every Northern citizen, of course not.I don't always agree with the majority ,but I've never seen evidence that the tarrif didn't help the North more.By 1860 I agree that for the most part the tarrif wasn't the critical issue.But again it was mentioned in newspapers of the time so the issue wasn't totally dead.I remember reading in archives of several newspapers claiming Abe Lincoln said he was going to raise the tarrif.Whether this was just propaganda or not I don't know I'll have to check on it.You know some poeple believed it regardless
I do firmly believe the tarrif as a whole benefited the North more.
And yet it was the South Carolinians who crafted it, and it had specific measures designed to hurt New England. "The following year the friends of protection introduced a general tariff measure into Congress. The opposition, remembering that they had accomplished nothing by arguments in 1820, 1824, and 1827, now adopted a set of tactics which they may have learned from the history of the Woolens Bill. They offered amendments that were deliberately designed to make the bill highly objectionable. New England, whose opinion on previous tariffs had been divided, was the point of attack. Higher duties were placed on molasses, thereby injuring New England rum makers and those who imported molasses from the West Indies. Likewise, New England shippers, who preferred to outfit their vessels with Russian rather than with Kentucky hemp, were harmed by an increase in the duties on hemp. While piling these and other injuries upon New England, the relief asked by its woolen manufacturers was withheld." [Charles S. Sydnor, The Development of Southern Sectionalism, 1819-1848, pp. 186-187]
As Prof. Freehling tells us, "By keeping duties on raw wool at high levels, for example, southerners hoped to make the tariff obnoxious to woolen manufacturers. By maintaining high rates on foreign molasses, Carolinians hoped to force New England rum distillers to oppose the bill. Thus the South would vote with protection-minded producers of raw materials to keep high rates on nonindustrial products. Southerners would then vote with New England manufacturers to defeat the entire Bill of Abominations." [William W. Freehling, Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836, p. 137]
The South Carolinians planned to keep the rates high and they defeated most amendments that sought to lower the rates.
"Again and again, southern representatives voted against amendments to lower rates on raw materials. But enough northern Jacksonians, including such Van Burenites as Silas Wright, voted to lower enough of the duties so that industrialists managed to swallow the entire unseemly concoction. The tariff of 1828 was the law of the land, and South Carolinians were the authors of its worst abominations." [Ibid.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Without the 1828 tarrif I don't think the secession convention is called in 1832.
---------------
It was a nullification convention, not a secession convention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
You're correct about John Adams poor guy got screwed in the whole deal.He knew what it would do for his political career so why the heck did he sign it?
John Adams was dead. John Quincy Adams was the President. The Tariff of 1828 probably didn't hurt him all that much, especially since it was popular in the Middle States and the West. The charges of corruption made by the Jacksonians, stemming from the disputed 1824 election and Clay's subsequent appointment as Secretary of State, were more of a factor in his defeat than anything else.
Yes there are writings out there that the
South paid 80 percent of the tarrif and that claim 75 percent of federal expenditures were in the North.I don't put any stock into those claims but I do firmly believe the tarrif [sic] as a whole benefited the North more.
The tariff benefitted some in the North, some in the South, and some in the West. Lets keep in mind that it did NOT just provide protectionism to manufactures and iron, but also many a raw material and agricultural product. Given the 300% greater population of the free states and slave states that did not secede, I think it is safe to say that as many folks outside the South were every bit as burdened (and probably more) by the tariff as those who seceded were.
Captain Obvious says that US politicians had many sessions in Congress to replace the external taxes with internal taxes, yet I find no movement, campaign, nor initiative of any kind to do such a thing. James DeBow complained of the expense of collecting tariffs and preferred raising revenues to maintain US ports by charging the shipping companies for those expenses. But this would have placed the same burden on imports with the extra charge assessed and would have burdened the market place the same. In fact, if charges would have been placed on export shipping by tonnage also, the cotton industry, being the largest exporter would have been socked once again with the cost of maintaining US ports. There is probably a good reason that, aside from all politics, tariffs remained the primary source of federal revenue......they were preferred over direct taxes, even in the South.
Quote:
I remember reading in archives of several newspapers claiming Abe Lincoln said he was going to raise the tarrif [sic]. Whether this was just propaganda or not I don't know I'll have to check on it.You know some poeple believed it regardless.
Captain Obvious says the president doesn't raise the tariff. Bills to raise revenues must originate in the House of Representatives.
If perchance you come to this thread, I wish to make a couple of things clear, as I do not wish to involve your Irrelevance of Sumter and Slavery thread with these observations concerning secession and slavery. I thought this thread would be more suited for what I wish to say.
It is my own humble opinion, reached by myself after years of research, reading and debate, that slavery, and slavery alone, was the major factor that pushed the South towards secession.
On your new thread, you stated you felt that secession had to be examined without the cause of slavery as a factor, that it should be examined on its own merits, if I understood you correctly.
Bill, you are truly one of the most innovatice and original thinkers here on CivilWarTalk. You are truly one of the most original in how you present your views, ask questions and examine old questions and issues from fresh and new points of view. I consider it a true honor when I debate with you as during the entire course of give and take, I feel that I take much more than I give in the way of learning. Thank you for that.
But it is my own, humble opinion, that to examine secession without the underlying reason for its cause is the same as trying to understand what a stranger is truly like when you find him on the road with his heart ripped out. There is no way I can voice an opinion on this person's motives, likes and dislikes, personality or what was important to him, based on a lifeless hulk.
When human beings are examined, as a race, we are fairly unremarkable. Two arms, two legs, a head, hands, feet, eyes, nose, ears, a**holes, pretty much standard equipment throughout the whole race.
But the options, Bill, the options! That is where we get to make our mark! Our individual experiences, our knowledge and life experience, our mistakes (the one thing Billy Joel said we could truly call our own), our hates and loves, our prejudices, our flaws and hopes, that's what makes us so unique and so different. It is when we view the whole person as it were and observe his personality, we determine if we like him and that he is worth knowing or we find him wanting and try to avoid him at all costs. How different is a true friend we view in a casket in a funeral home and our memories of him when he was alive! How hard it is to tell those who did not know the deceased what kind of a person he was! Could there be any more of a drastic comparison?
The institution is so entertwined with the cause of Southern secession as to make the two almost one creature. The South seceded because of slavery, slavery was the cause of secession. It is hard for me to tell the difference and it is impossible for me to see how others can shunt it to one side as a minor or unimportant factor in the South's rebellion.
I also find myself more of late, harkening back to the period writtings of the time to help me justify why I feel this is so. Because I find it was so to the men of the time. Herein is just one example of what I have found from some of those men:
"Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored--contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man--such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care--such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance--such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.
Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT."
I feel the above was written in response to those who at that place and time, considered slavery a side issue, one that could be ignored or held from what the 'real' issue were, when in effect, it was THE issue.
Again, just one man's own opinion.
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
But it is my own, humble opinion, that to examine secession without the underlying reason for its cause is the same as trying to understand what a stranger is truly like when you find him on the road with his heart ripped out. There is no way I can voice an opinion on this person's motives, likes and dislikes, personality or what was important to him, based on a lifeless hulk.
I agree with you absolutely. One cannot understand secession if one disregards slavery. But, at the risk of inducing ennui in everyone who reads this, I have to repeat that the right to secession (if it exists) has absolutely nothing to do with the motives behind secession. It simply isn't a practical proposition to say that a country has the right to exist only if it wants to exist for "good" reasons. Who gets to sit in judgement on this subjective concept? Were the motives of the founders of your own nation entirely pure and disinterested?
I would go further. I adamantly believe that Southerners were entitled to defend slavery from the malign attention and intentions of abolitionists. That is not, of course, to say that slavery was a justifiable institution in itself. Plainly it wasn't. But nobody who was alive in 1861 had any personal responsibility for the existence of slavery in America. Southerners of that generation had inherited it through no fault of their own and had an absolute right to deal with it in the way which seemed to them to be the most responsible. Taking it beyond the reach of Garrison and his like by forming a new nation was the right thing to do.
Why do I say this? Because abolitionists of the Garrisonian type were the equivalents of the modern anti-abortionists who blow up clinics or murder doctors; or the animal rights activists who set fire to laboratories. In other words, their commitment to an abstract principle which many find admirable was distorted by fanaticism into something wholly destructive. My honest opinion is that Garrison is the greatest criminal in American history. He has more blood on his hands than any other American who has ever lived.
Just my point of view.
Bill
Last edited by bill_torrens; 10-05-2005 at 08:32 AM.
Neil & Bill:
Excellent replies respectively. I tip my derby!
While Garrison was indeed a most calculative and vile man upon his stance via his press, and of his radical and provacative set of chosen friends, he wasn't alone.
Harriet B. Stowe and that little piece of literature, Uncle Tom's Cabin, should be added to the many causations of a bloody war. The lady caused a few deaths of her own. This possibly explains why 'we' southern folk having warranted disdain for many 'Northern' writers'/punblishers' perspective and possible hidden agenda. The pen, in this case, was much mightier than the sword. The media, albeit a 'free' press, held great bias and have the blood of many upon each and every page they wrote in hate. Gen. Sherman hated Newspapermen and yes, those of the North too. Much of what Southern peoples learned, was through the weekly trip to stores/post offices where discussion of Newspapers were done. What they read, were Southern Newspapers reacting to those 'scoundrel uppity Yankees' like Garrison & company. Tension grew.
The Northern media along with Abolishionist approval placed its messages of hate toward all the South. The hatred felt by my people from Yankee press and propaganda just prompted the girding of the loin, as the sword had already been polished. Hate perptuated hate.
Some Northern radical's kept mentioning that pesky little word, slavery. My ancestors felt per their letters, like the North were hypocrites and were 'talking down' to their section. Even if these Southerners didn't own one slave, they would not sit idle and take this BLANKETED accusation of authority by the North radicals.
The Press, as I said before, raised more Southern Infantry and caused more harm to any peaceful solution than anything else. This is proven to this day. Ever see how fast our President reacts to anything "press related" with haste. Do I make sense on why non-slaveholders faced the superior Union numbers & odds? Secession, legal or not, was THE answer to avoid war.
Bill opined:
"Why do I say this? Because abolitionists of the Garrisonian type were the equivalents of the modern anti-abortionists who blow up clinics or murder doctors; or the animal rights activists who set fire to laboratories. In other words, their commitment to an abstract principle which many find admirable was distorted by fanaticism into something wholly destructive. My honest opinion is that Garrison is the greatest criminal in American history. He has more blood on his hands than any other American who has ever lived."
Garrison, in his later years, was no where near the equivalent of activists who blow up clinics, murder doctors, or set fire to labs. Their equivalent lies in the John Browns and Bill Quantrills.
Freedom of speech and of the press was in the 1860 constitution as well.
'Bama:
Speech alone does not bear responsibility for violent action. That simply doesn't fly -- logically. Certainly, it made people angry -- in the north as well as the south. It's been a while since I've read the Conferate States Constitution, so I can't state that free press and speech were or were not similarly protected. Someone will fill in that blank, or given time, I will.
Incredible, isn't it, my old friend, the number of posts generated on this thread? Did you, like me, ever expect this thread to last this long and generate this much sustained debate? I thank you for starting it with me and contributing to the knowledge I have gained by taking part in its posted views and opinions.
It's my own humble opinion that the number of posts and the longevity of this thread should ease your own fears of inducing ennui in everyone who should visit and read our long-running debate here.
Bill, it is my opinion from your statement above, 'the right to secession (if it exists) has absolutely nothing to do with the motives behind secession.' Bill, I too will repeat here what I have stated on The Irrevelance of Sumter and Slavery thread just last night.
I am in total agreement with Lincoln, when he stated as a Congressman the following: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better."
But I also believe, as Lincoln did, in his following statements to the above: "Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement."
So, yes, Bill, I agree the right to revolution (and this is what I equate secession as, as did General Lee, whom I regard as an authority on the subject) exists and can be exercised under the parameters given above. It appears to me by reading your posts here and at the Irrevelance of Sumter and Slavery thread, we are in agreement.
But now, I am afraid, we come to more 'clear water'.
It is my opinion, that unconsciously, you are beginning to employ one of those 'sophistical contrivances' Lincoln warned against when the issue of slavery was claimed not to be the issue of discontent and the real cause of threatened secession.
From what I understand, you are saying the act of secession is like a force of nature, like an earthquake, flood, or tornado. These forces have nothing to do with right or wrong, evil or good, they just are and we must accept there is nothing we can do in our acts or conversations that will impact on them, making these forces less or more of an impact when they occur. 'That the right to secession has absolutely nothing to do with the motives behind secession.' Ah, friend Bill, here is that 'clear water' that increases to the size of a small ocean between us.
In my understanding, revolution is a right, that the people have and retain and can exercise if they are so inclined.
Secession, the entire concept of the word, is one of those 'sophistical contrivances' Lincoln spoke of. Secession was, and remains, a smoke screen of supposed and imagined legality, contrived and preached on, by those who knew they could not justify a revolution. It had been long pondered, considered and advanced, by those who feared the institution of slavery, the basis of their wealth and power, would be restricted. It is a concieved contrivance, with slavery at its base and not the right of 'the people' of which we speak when concerning a true act of revolution.
One cannot, in my own opinion, separate slavery from secession, as its entire existence and doctrine is contrived and put forward with the sole purpose of protecting and extending slavery. It was used as a threat when the South could not have its way in government on every major event concerning the institution (the Wilmont Priviso, Fugitive Slave Acts, Missouri Compromise, the Gag Rule in Congress, denying freedom of speech and free flow of the mails, etc., & etc.) Secession in no way lives up to what I consider the right of revolution to be to a people exercising that right.
You further state that it isn't practical to say that a country has the right to exist only if it wants to exist for "good" reasons. Who gets to sit in judgement on this subjective concept, you ask?
Why, I do, Bill, along with my fellow countrymen and elected representatives. People of all nations have done this all through history, judged other nations or other rebellious elements within their own nations and have passed judgement upon them. Sometimes for good reasons, sometime for bad ones, but it is a fact of history and continues to be one even in our present-day conflicts. But it boils down to the fact that I and my fellow countrymen must be convinced that the reason for such actions must be justifiable and for good cause before we committ our young men into harm's way.
As to the motives of the founders of my own nation, I suspect as you do, they were not entirely pure and disinterested. But I do believe that in the main, they made a "good" choice.
As to your observations of the intentions of abolitionists, I have to go with Ole and his observations concerning John Brown and company. It was only in the face of represive, liberty-restricting and violations of constitutional rights did one begin to see a rising advocacy of force againt the Southern slaveholders. And then it expressed itself mainly in the form of the Underground Railroad. There were isolated incidents of hostility against slave catchers and the like, but I firmly hold the belief, as you have heard from me before, abolitionists, in the main, advocated peaceful means as to the absolution of slavery within the country and the South. And they held little, if any real political power and were considered mainly a fringe element with in the political sphere of the times. Now, as to Republican influence, here you had a real threat to the spead of slavery, and its concern to slaveholders, this I will allow.
I do agree with you that Southerners of that generation had inherited the institution through no fault of their own and that the majority of the people of the South owned no slaves. But the point I have made, again and again, that, although they had a right to deal with it in their own way, they did NOT have the right to force its spread to the territories or the rest of the Free States, which is in fact what they tried to do. But in trying to take the region and form a new nation with a contrivance like secession instead of plainly advocating rebellion, as was their right, they advanced a theory of secession for the purpose of illegally pushing their own, narrow, morally wrong agenda.
But to compare period abolitionists to present-day anti-abortionists, who blow up clinics or muder doctors, is to paint them all with a pretty broad historical brush. By-the-way, my sister and her pastor husband are members of 'Operation Rescue' and have many a time protested or picketed outside abortion clinics, but at no time have they advocated the bombing of clincs or muder of doctors. Just like the vast majority of church groups and organizations that they are typical of in the protest and debate against abortion. They and these organizations, decry the extremists who do.
One must not concentrate on the extreme actions of a few to condem the good intentions of the whole, don't you agree?
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
Yes, this thread has come a long way. It's quite gratifying.
Quote:
Secession, the entire concept of the word, is one of those 'sophistical contrivances' Lincoln spoke of. Secession was, and remains, a smoke screen of supposed and imagined legality, contrived and preached on, by those who knew they could not justify a revolution. It had been long pondered, considered and advanced, by those who feared the institution of slavery, the basis of their wealth and power, would be restricted. It is a concieved contrivance, with slavery at its base and not the right of 'the people' of which we speak when concerning a true act of revolution.
This is interesting. You draw a distinction between “revolution” and “secession” and treat them as quite different actions. I, on the other hand, regard them as synonyms and use them interchangeably.
I do this because I have no personal interest in the legality or otherwise of secession under American law. I leap straight to the argument that there exists an extra-legal right to depart from any political union, and I assure you there is absolutely no significance attached to whether I happen to use the word “secession” or “revolution”.
I think people have attached a weight and significance to the word “secession” which isn’t really there. It’s just a way of describing the act of leaving something. No more, no less.
Quote:
You further state that it isn't practical to say that a country has the right to exist only if it wants to exist for "good" reasons. Who gets to sit in judgement on this subjective concept, you ask?
Why, I do, Bill, along with my fellow countrymen and elected representatives. People of all nations have done this all through history, judged other nations or other rebellious elements within their own nations and have passed judgement upon them. Sometimes for good reasons, sometime for bad ones, but it is a fact of history and continues to be one even in our present-day conflicts. But it boils down to the fact that I and my fellow countrymen must be convinced that the reason for such actions must be justifiable and for good cause before we committ our young men into harm's way.
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that the people of the North were entitled to sit in judgement on the question of whether the South should be allowed to leave the Union. I presume that you would justify this on the basis that the Northern population outnumbered that of the South.
This goes to the heart of the paradox of democracy. At what point does the notion that the will of the majority should always prevail turn into one region bullying another just because it possesses more votes?
The most fundamental body of water between us relates to the concept of consent. After two years on these boards I have yet to read a Unionist’s clear explanation of why it was right to force several million people to be part of a country against their will. For me democracy and consent are inextricably connected. Consider the pride you feel in being a citizen of the United States. And then just try to imagine what it must feel like to know that you are a citizen of a country you don’t want to be a part of, and you are a citizen simply because someone will kill you if you try to assert your own nationality. You don’t want their flag or their anthem, but you have to spend the rest of your life living a lie because you have been conquered. It’s a horrible prospect, don’t you agree? All I ask is for a simple, straightforward explanation of why non-consensual nationhood is any better than non-consensual sex.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
