Was the civil war constitutional

[unionblue]

Mental Nomand, please check out the thread entitled, "OK-Tariff Act 1832-Constitutional or Not!" You will find some excellent arguments for each side there.

Also, I think you have read your article on Karl Marx a bit wrong. What Marx was saying was that this was what the English press was saying, that 'the war between North and South is a tariff war'. Read a bit further and Marx has this to say on the subject:

"The war between North and South--so runs the first excuse--is a mere tariff war, a war between a protectionist system and a free trade system, and Britain naturally stands on the side of free trade. Shall the slave-owner enjoy the fruits of slave labour in their entirety or shall he be cheated of a portion of these by the protectionists of the North? That is the question which is at issue in this war. It was reserved for THE TIMES to make this brilliant discovery. THE ECONOMIST, THE EXAMINER, THE SATURDAY REVIEW and tutti quantie expounded the theme further. It is characteristic of this discovery that it was made, not in Charleston, but in London. Naturally, in America everyone knew that from 1846 to 1861 a free trade system prevailed, and that Representative Morrill carried his protectionist tariff through Congress only in 1861, after the rebellion had already broken out. Secession, therefore, did not take place because the Morrill tariff had gone through Congress, but, at most, the Morrill tariff went through Congress because secession had taken place. When South Carolina had its first attack of secession in 1831, the protectionist tariff of f1828 served it, to be sure, as a pretext, but only as a pretext, as is known from a statement of General Jackson. This time, however, THE OLD PRETEXT HAS IN FACT NOT BEEN REPEATED. In the Secession Congress at Montgomery all reference to the tariff question was avoided, because the cultivation of sugar in Louisiana, one of the most influential Southern States, depends entirely on protection."

Seems like Karl ain't buying the tariff thing, not in 1828 or as a cause of the Civil War. A bit later on in this article (Die Presse No. 293, Oct. 25, 1861) Karl has this to say:

"It is above all to be remembered that the war did not originate with the North, but with the South. The North finds itself on the defensive. For months it had quietly looked on while the secessionists appropriated the Union's forts, arsenals, shipyards, customs houses, pay offices, ships and supplies of arms, insulted its flag and took prisoner bodies of its troops. Finally the secessionists resolved to force the Union government out of its passive attitude by a blatant act of war, and solely for this reason proceeded to the bombardment of Fort Sumter near Charleston. On April 11 (1861) their Gen. Beauregard had learnt in a meeting with Major Anderson, that the fort was only supplied with provisions for three days more and accordingly must be peacefully surrendered after this period. In order to forestall this peaceful surrender, the secessionists opened the bombardment early on the following morning (April 12), which brought about the fall of the fort in a few hours. News of this had hardly been telegraphed to Montgomery, the seat of the Secession Congress, when War Minister Walker publicly declared in the name of the new Confederacy: "No man can say where the war opened today will end." At the same time he prophesied that before the first of May the flag of the Southern Confederacy will wave from the dome of the old Capitol in Washington and within a short time perhaps also from the Faneuil Hall in Boston. Only now ensued the proclamation in which Lincoln called for 75,000 men to defend the Union. The bombardment of Ft. Sumter cut off the only possible constitutional way out, namely the convocation of a general convention of the American people, as Lincoln had proposed in his inaugural address. For Lincoln there now remained only the choice of fleeing from Washington, evacuating Maryland and Delaware and surrendering Kentucky, Missouri and Virginia, or of answering war with war."

Now, while not a big fan of old Karl Marx, I really like his theory on why Ft. Sumter was fired on, especially after listening to my southern-leaning friends insist it was a plot by Lincoln to get the South to start the war.

(Kinda like the movie "Conspiracy Theory". Who did it? EVERYBODY!)

Anyway, hope that clears things up a bit with Karl Marx and the tariff theory.

Until that time...

Neil...

Marx? The Communist Manifesto? Standing for the Union? It figures!

PGT Beauregard did not open fire on Ft. Sumter because he knew Anderson was going to surrender on that day. I don't care what Karl Marx writes. his point of view is very heavily skewed anyway.

Beauregard and Pickens implored Anderson to evacuate the fort. Had he done so, the fort as so many other Federal properties on Southern soil would have been confiscated. The opening fire then would have occurred in Florida when the Union soldiers landed in Pensacola bay to reinforce Fort Pickens.

But alas, we kind of have to go along with the Marxist theory here, because Marx said it was so, and that makes it right. Is that correct?

Marx...hummmph!

best regards
oldreb

Neil, on Marx, are you getting that from his days as a reporter or his later writings on the war? They are two different views if I recall correctly. Yet either way, it seems the whole world knew it was about money and subjugating the south. As Dicken's said, it was purely fiscal.

[unionblue]

Ron & MN, thank you for your replies and I will try to answer them both.

First, Ron, is there any messenger you won't shoot? And HIS writings are heavily skewed? And no, I did not say I agreed with old Karl and his conclusions on why Ft. Sumter was fired on. What I was trying to point out is that it seems there are a lot of THEORIES as to why Rebel forces fired first upon that Federal installation (A HISTORICAL FACT, NOT A THEORY).

MN, I was quoting from old Karl's days as a reporter and I am taking my information from an article printed in the Die Presse No. 293, October 25, 1861. So, no, they were not two different views, it was just Marx refuting the London Presses view that the war was about tariffs.

I might also give you one more bit of information on why the war was NOT about tariffs and money. Check out what the South Carolina secession debate (December 22, 1860, printed in the Charleston, South Carolina newspaper, COURIER).

During the debate on the S.C. Secession Declaration debate one Mr. Keitt stated, "But the Tariff is not the question which brought the people up to their present attitude. We are to give a summary of our causes to the world, but mainly to the other Southern States, WHOSE CO-ACTION WE WISH, and we must not make a fight on the Tariff question."

A bit later Mr. Keitt states, "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it."

And from what I have read at other threads, to include some excellent posts from blackirish, no state that seceded from the Union lists tariffs as the major reason for leaving the Union. Slavery is always the major theme.

Until the next time...
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Ron,

When did Karl Marx write the Communist Manifesto? Before, during or after the War of Rebellion?

Mental Nomad, where did you get your information about Charles Dickens saying the war was only about money and tariffs? I would like to read what he has to say. Really, no kidding around.

Thanks,
Unionblue

[tamaroa]

There are some interesting points in this thread. To these points I ask a question or two. Whether or not YOU all believe it or agree with it, do you think that the South used the 10th Amendment to bolster her attempt at secession? Secondly, had slavery been dealt with and abolished prior to 1828, would there still have been a war? Thirdly, If slavery had not been abolished, do you think that all the compromises which occurred between 1820 and 1850 exacerbated the situation or staved off war? I think all they did was aggravate the situation.

I think war was inevitable. I think the south felt it was the aggreived party and that they felt they had to do what they did to survive. As more and more logical arguments are presented on these pages, I must admit my take on secession is beginning to change. Where I used to think that the South had the right, now it is the South THOUGHT they had the right. As to the point earlier made that the Revolution and the Civil War were fought for the same reason. I subscribe partially to that theory. Both wars were illegal. Both were attempts to throw off the reigns of a government and both involved the possibility of economic gain for the South.

Charles and Mary Beard wrote a treatise on the causes of the american Revolution back in the early 1900's. They asserted that the Revolution was fought for economic reasons. In other words as I see it the rich southern planters did not want to see their profits go to the King and government of England who just happened to be their sovereign.

Their (Revolutionary Southern Planters) injustices were just as real or imagined as the southerners of the 1850's-60s. Possibly the New Englanders during the revolution had a slightly more pure motive to separate than did the southern planter. In either case you had revolt -- based on perceived issues the Revolution. While the southerners of the 1850's perceived that economic warfare was being waged against them as well.

You guys still have a long way to go though to convince me that Lincoln was a great president :-)

Bill

Neil,
the Manifesto of the Communist Party was co-authored by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in 1848.

Here is how the manifesto opens:
"The history of all hitherto existing society [2] is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master [3] and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. "

Interesting no?

your friend

Hmmmmm, I didn't know bringing Marx into this would get this reaction....but I shouldn't be surprised.

[blackirish]

Bill,

Whether or not YOU all believe it or agree with it, do you think that the South used the 10th Amendment to bolster her attempt at secession?

Yes, I believe this was the argument used by many in an attempt to justify secession as a LEGAL option. (Unfortunately, I have a very hard time ignoring the first part of this particular question as I find it particularly interesting. See "Bill of Rights" and "Tenth Amendment" above.)

Secondly, had slavery been dealt with and abolished prior to 1828, would there still have been a war?

No. Slavery was the issue that led to secession. Interestingly, slavery probably could have been abolished much easier at the outset of the United States government as we know it today than at any other time in our history. It was discussed at the Constitutional Convention and was even tacitly agreed to in allowing for the abolition of the African slave trade after 1808. Most of the members assumed that the institution of slavery would die out soon after the abolition of the African slave trade as this had been the model in most of the world. If the other representatives had of held strong in the face of South Carolina and Georgia who insisted upon the inclusion of the extension of the slave trade until this date, I doubt very seriously that either state would have or could have followed up their threat to refuse to join the Union. The other southern states at the time were somewhat less than enamoured with slavery as it had basically been an economic failure everywhere but on the rice and indigo plantations in South Carolina and Coastal Georgia. Until Cotton became a viable product in inland America with the invention of the cotton gin, there simply was no strong consensus anywhere but these two states to continue and propagate slavery. However, by 1828 the story was different.

Thirdly, If slavery had not been abolished, do you think that all the compromises which occurred between 1820 and 1850 exacerbated the situation or staved off war?

Hmmmmm.....I would have to say both. Without these compromises the split would undoubtedly come sooner. However, it was a combination of things unforeseen in the early 1800's that actually assured the split. Cotton became extremely profitable which made slavery profitable as well. Jefferson and Madison, just to give two examples, found themselves the owners of slaves in numbers that they could hardly afford to feed and clothe. They both assumed that this would be the case with slavery in most cases. When inland Cotton came along this forever changed the view of slavery in the south. Instead of a millstone around the neck of slaveowners that was a drain on their finances it became THE labor force upon which their wealth depended. Slaveowners had the BULK of thier material wealth invested in slaves. Property, tools, seeds, materials, all were a distant second to the amount of money invested in their slaves. After the war with Mexico and the vast amount of new territory added to the United States, southerners were now then being told that they could NOT carry the most valuable of their possessions into the new territories. Without these compromise measures, the split would only have come earlier. However, the discussion of these compromises and the turmoil that it precipiated in Congress from the Jackson years on definitely led to the rancor and bad feelings leading to the split by keeping this issue at the forefront. Many correctly saw this as a likelihood before the war with Mexico and for this reason were never exactly in favor of the whole "manifest destiny" argument.

blackirish