Tariffs

[Battalion]

Just "cherry-picking" a "few" editorials on tariffs and the related issues of trade, shipping, &etc-

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interest.... These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They [the North] are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are as mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it."

~New Orleans Daily Crescent, January 21, 1861


"The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole...we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty persent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually."

~Chicago Daily Times, December 10, 1860


"... the mask [of protecting slavery] has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports. The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston, and Savannah are possesed of the idea that New York, Boston, and Philadelphia may be shorn, in the future, of their mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging on free trade....The government would be false if this state of things were not provided against."

~Boston Transcript, March 18, 1861


"...That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop...."

~New York Evening Post, March 1861


"...The government...is bound to collect the revenue duties on every ship which enters a Southern port. Its revenue cutters can and will hover out of reach of the shore guns round the mouth of the ports, and compel the payment of the Federal tribute...."

~The Living Age, Boston, March 23, 1861.


"The predicament in which both the Government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood....If the manufacturer at Manchester [England] can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage....If the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own ports by the millions of tons, to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers....Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty free....

We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched..."

~New York Times, March 30, 1861


"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwide trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow"

~Chicago Daily Times, December 10, 1860


"The government cannot well avoid collecting the federal revenues at all Southern ports, even after the passage of secession ordinances; and if this duty is discharged, any State which assumes a rebellious attitude will still be obliged to contribute revenue to support the Federal Government or have her commerce entirely destroyed"

~Philadelphia Press, December 21, 1860


"It is the enforcement of the revenue laws, not the coercion of the State that is the question of the hour. If those laws cannot be enforced, the Union is clearly gone; if they can, it is safe"

~Philadelphia Press, January 15, 1861


"The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more ships than all other trade. It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No-we MUST NOT let the South go!"

~Union Democrat (Manchester, New Hampshire), February 19, 1861


"Blockade Southern Ports. With no protective tariff, European goods will under-price Northern goods in Southern markets. Cotton for Northern mills will be charged an export tax. This will cripple the clothing industries and make British mills prosper. Finally, the great inland waterways, the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio Rivers will be subject to Southern tolls"

~Philadelphia Press, March 18, 1861


"GOODS ENTERING FREE AT ST. LOUIS.
The St. Louis Republican, of the 23d says: "Every day our importers of foreign merchandise are receiving, by way of New Orleans, very considerable quantities of goods, duty free. The goods are landed at the port of New Orleans-no Custom-house notice is taken of them-no bonds are executed for the payment of duties on their arrival there; and on many articles the saving of one half the duty only, would afford a handsome profit. If this thing is to become permanent, there will be an entire revolution in the course of trade, and New York will suffer terribly. Our merchants have capital enough to justify them in making their purchases in Europe, and shipping to New Orleans, and in that city, because of the difference in the tariff, goods can be bought cheaper than in New York. With these advantages, we shall be able to sell cheaper than any other city in the Valley of the Mississippi."

~Harper's Weekly, April 6, 1861.


"....The regret of the English people at the rupture of the American Union was...genuine and universal, and yet the calamity to the Union...was evidently favorable to our own interests, both political and commercial....with the establishment of a Confederacy of purely agricultural States in the South, the restrictive tariff of the old Union and the still more restrictive one recently adopted, will no longer suffice to prevent the entry of our manufacturers into the American continent. Free-trade pure and simple--free-trade of the most absolute kind is opened to us by the new Confederacy....Even our shipping interest will benefit largely by this change in the political organization of North America...."

~The Press (England), April 6, 1861 (as reprinted in The Living Age, Boston)



.......I have more.....

...and the sources to find more.........

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by unionblue

...it requires real effort to subvert one's mind and it's ability to reason and come to correct and honest conclusions to suppose this war was fought over something as minor as a tariff that had hardly any impact on the nation's citizens. [Northern citizens that is]

The greater impact, the debate, the passion and feelings of the time, the one issue that confronted and tore a nation apart was not tariffs collected in any port, but the desire to keep human beings in bondage for profit. Let the men who advocated secession speak for themselves, without filters, without excuses, as they felt they needed no excuse for the course of action they took to defend that institution. I take them for honest men, wrong in their convictions, but honest in their desire to proclaim their actions to the world. They have spoken.

We should listen.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Then listen up -

"...The taxing power of the Government, and its duty growing out of the exercise of that power, in view of the constitutional grant, present questions which, in my judgement, are not surpassed in importance by any ever agitated in an American Congress. I at once acknowledge the vast magnitude and importance of the questions growing out of African slavery as it exists in some of the States of our Union. I am satisfied that upon its adjustment and final settlement the fate of the Government depends, and properly depends. Yet no question connected with the Government can be of more interest or importance than those growing out of the bill under consideration [Morrill Tariff]..."

Speech of Rep. G.S. Houston of Alabama, in the House of Representatives, May 8, 1860

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage....db&recNum=948


"...If you...design levying additional taxes on the people, and that solely for the benefit of the manufacturers, do it in an open and manly manner. But do not resort to this insidious plan, in order to disguise from them the amount of taxes which they pay. Practice no such fraud upon them, if you desire to preserve their attachment to the Government....

....Mr. Chairman, the honorable gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. Morrill,] and all who have thus spoken in favor of this bill, openly advocate protection for the sake of protection...I can only account for it from the fact, admitted by the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Florence] the other day, that the tariff question was no longer a financial, but a sectional question. The gentleman well knows that while the chief burdens will fall on the South, his constituents will be benefitted by a high protective tariff...

...Go on, then, gentlemen; pass this odious protective tariff bill; legalize the robbery of the South. We are in a small minority here, and therefore powerless to protect our constituents. What they may do hereafter I know not...."

Speech of Rep. Sydenham Moore of Alabama, in the House of Representatives, April 30, 1860

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage....db&recNum=771

[unionblue]

Battalion,

Then please address just one quote for me, just one.

"The South went to war on account of slavery, South Carolina went to war as she said in her secession proclamation, because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln, don't you think South Carolina ought to know why it went to war?"

Colonel John Singleton Mosby.

Will you explain to me why one of the bravest, most able leaders of the Southern forces makes such a statement?

And if the tariff was such a source of consternation amongst the leadership of the South, why is there not one, recorded instance of a charge being led with the cry, 'For the Tariff, men!' or 'Down with the unfair tariff!' Because it was not the issue you want it to be, it was not the issue that would cause brother to kill brother or father to kill son or cause a nation to almost destroy itself. It would be a marvolus thing if it was and would generate a huge sigh of collective relief, but eventually, one must face the fact that a darker, deeper reason was needed to generate so much blood.

And it was not the tariff, no matter how many editorials one can dig up, the paper trail, left by the South itself and no matter how studiously and idustrially ignored by present-day wistful thinkers, can be ignored or left out of history.

Unionblue

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[marcferguson]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Battalion,

Then please address just one quote for me, just one.

"The South went to war on account of slavery, South Carolina went to war as she said in her secession proclamation, because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln, don't you think South Carolina ought to know why it went to war?"

Colonel John Singleton Mosby.

Will you explain to me why one of the bravest, most able leaders of the Southern forces makes such a statement?

And if the tariff was such a source of consternation amongst the leadership of the South, why is there not one, recorded instance of a charge being led with the cry, 'For the Tariff, men!' or 'Down with the unfair tariff!' Because it was not the issue you want it to be, it was not the issue that would cause brother to kill brother or father to kill son or cause a nation to almost destroy itself. It would be a marvolus thing if it was and would generate a huge sigh of collective relief, but eventually, one must face the fact that a darker, deeper reason was needed to generate so much blood.

And it was not the tariff, no matter how many editorials one can dig up, the paper trail, left by the South itself and no matter how studiously and idustrially ignored by present-day wistful thinkers, can be ignored or left out of history.

Unionblue

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Unionblue,
Amen!

best,
marc

[Wild_Rose]

Neil, my apologies for not responding sooner to this message. I wrote a lengthy reply yesterday, but I was having some problems with my computer and it lost the message while I was trying to post it. I didn't have time to rewrite it.

Originally Posted by unionblue

Miss Rose,

I take it then that you will accept the statements made by the Southern press in their editorials that they spoke for the entire South? Editorials that claimed secession was simply enacted to protect the institution of slavery?

If you need any such Southern editorials, I will be glad to provide them to you.

The True Issue, Richmond Enquirer, March 23, 1861.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/richmond.html

"Negro slavery is the South and the South is Negro slavery." Georgia editorial.

"...our ideal is a proslavery republic." Augusta Daily Constitution editorial.

Touche. Point well taken, but I have never claimed that the South didn't care about slavery or that Southerners were entertaining the idea of giving it up any time soon. Simply because the South identified herself with slavery doesn't mean she had no other concerns.

Originally Posted by unionblue

I have always found it strange that President Lincoln makes one mention of the tariff and it's collection in his first inaugural speech, and the rest of his speech is ignored. As it must be by those who insist that the war was brought on for any other reason than slavery and the South's desire to spread and protect that instition at all costs. It is strange to me how so much evidence can be willfully ignored to present such a case, not based on historical fact or documents or the numerous facts and figures presented from historical collections that prove the tariff had no impact on the war's cause..

With all due respect, Neil, a person would have to ignore a lot of historical documents and facts in order not to see that the tariff was, indeed, a part of the secession causes.

I don't agree that the rest of the document is ignored. However, can you not agree that the word "invasion" is something of a "show stopper"? That was clearly a threat and the states being threatened couldn't take it lightly.

Originally Posted by unionblue

All it takes is the empassioned, sincere belief in a dead cause that brought forth such death and destruction for such a shameful and evil purpose. I suppose it could be a sincere desire to protect one's ancestors or to bring peace of mind to their present-day decendents.

That doesn't explain it. The reason being, if only about 5% of Southerners or 25% (roughly) of Southern families owned slaves, why would so many Southerners today deny the cause was slavery? Why did so many Southerners in the nineteenth century deny it? The reason is because it wasn't to protect slavery that the South seceded.

Originally Posted by unionblue

But it requires real effort to subvert one's mind and it's ability to reason and come to correct and honest conclusions to suppose this war was fought over something as minor as a tariff that had hardly any impact on the nation's citizens.

The greater impact, the debate, the passion and feelings of the time, the one issue that confronted and tore a nation apart was not tariffs collected in any port, but the desire to keep human beings in bondage for profit. Let the men who advocated secession speak for themselves, without filters, without excuses, as they felt they needed no excuse for the course of action they took to defend that institution. I take them for honest men, wrong in their convictions, but honest in their desire to proclaim their actions to the world. They have spoken.

We should listen..

We should listen, but we should listen very carefully to what they were saying, not just pick up on the word, "slavery". The "one issue that confronted and tore a nation apart was not tariffs". I agree that it wasn't tariffs, but neither was it slavery. It was the outrage Southerners felt at having the state sovereignty they cherished, breeched by outside agitators. Of course, you say that it was because of slavery. Yes, that was the agitators target, but what does that matter? The cause was the interference. Sovereignty was believed to be a right that the Revolutionary Americans fought for. Southerners were not willing to let it slip away. Yes, they were outraged that Northern states would target slavery, which was protected under the Constitution and under the sovereignty of the state. But they were far more concerned that the states, in Union they once believed in, would even consider meddling in a state's business where they had no right to, legal or otherwise. Southerners felt they could not live in that kind of Union. It wasn't what they bargained for nor agreed to.

Sept. 21, 1860 - Washington, D.C. speech of William Lowndes Yancy, "Equal Rights in a Common Government." The fiery Yancy said, "Revenues have been raised at the rate of two or three dollars in the South to one from any other section for the support of this great Government, but the South makes no complaint of mere dollars and cents. Touch not the honor of my section of the country, and she will not complain of almost anything else you may do; but touch her honor and equality and she will stand up in their defence, if necessary in arms. . . . No matter who may be elected, no matter what may be done, still they (the North) will stand to the Union as the great cause of their prosperity. . . ."

October 19, 1860 - Rep. John H. Reagan publishes excellent letter pointing out, among other things, the Northern desire to "strike down the sovereignty and equality of the States," taking of private property in slaves with no compensation, promotion of Helper's book which recommends "treason, blood, and carnage as a proper campaign document" for the Republicans, etc.

December 17, 1860 - South Carolina Secession Convention (Convention of the People of South Carolina) opens at the Baptist Church in Columbia, but due to the presence of smallpox in Columbia, decides to reconvene the next day in Charleston. The Convention did vote on a resolution in favor of seceding, and it passed 159 - 0. David F. Jamison opened the convention and his speech included: "I trust that the door is now forever closed to all further connection with our Northern confederates; for what guarantees can they offer us, more strictly guarded, or under higher sanctions, than the present written compact between us? And did that sacred instrument protect us from the jealousy and aggressions of the North, commenced forty years ago, which resulted in the Missouri Compromise? Did the Constitution protect us from the cupidity of the Northern people, who, for thirty-five years, have imposed the burden of supporting the General Government chiefly on the industry of the South?"
(emphasis mine)
http://www.bonniebluepublishing.com/...Chronology.htm

Excerpt from "Reminiscences Of The Civil War", (Chapter I)
By John B. Gordon, Maj. Gen. CSA
"Slavery was undoubtedly the immediate fomenting cause of the woeful American conflict. It was the great political factor around which the passions of the sections had long been gathered--the tallest pine in the political forest around whose top the fiercest lightnings were to blaze and whose trunk was destined to be shivered in the earthquake shocks of war. But slavery was far from being the sole cause of the prolonged conflict. Neither its destruction on the one hand, nor its defence on the other, was the energizing force that held the contending armies to four years of bloody work. I apprehend that if all living Union soldiers were summoned to the witness stand, every one of them would testify that it was the preservation of the American Union and not the destruction of Southern slavery that induced him to volunteer at the call of his country. As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.
We must, therefore, look beyond the institution of slavery for the fundamental issues which dominated and inspired all classes of the contending sections. It is not difficult to find them...." (emphasis mine) http://www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm


Regards,
Rose

[cedarstripper]

Originally Posted by Battalion

Just "cherry-picking" a "few" editorials on tariffs and the related issues of trade, shipping, &etc

Yes, you have. Whether you have five or fifteen, you are using some of the classic cherry-picked editorials out of thousands of opinions written during the day. These op-eds are certainly worthy as a source, but their value to support "what alarmed Lincoln" or "what Northerners feared" are almost useless in my opinion. Choose any newsworthy subject you like and a browsing of newspapers of the day will award you with a bounty of op-eds of any side to that issue. To advance a claim and then use selected op-eds to support it is cherry-picking and spin.

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interest.... These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They [the North] are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are as mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it."

~New Orleans Daily Crescent, January 21, 1861

The Daily Crescent was unionist (as was New Orleans) until it became obvious secession was inevitable. The bracketed words have been added in by someone trying to alter the meaning of the editorial. The first "they" did not refer to "the South", but to all Americans, as is evidenced by the fact that $52.7 million was collected in duties nationwide in 1860. The second "they" did not refer to "the North" but to industries, etc. that benefitted from protected markets. Odd that they were forced to ignore protections such as tobacco, hemp, rice, and their very own sugar industry. Just the same, it makes one wonder why a fattened group would become mad as hornets for the leaving of the South, when it is this same group who are charged with bringing to office the president and party and the hostility to slavery that drove their feast away.

"The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole...we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty persent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually."

~Chicago Daily Times, December 10, 1860

The tariff that they had in Dec 1860 was the 1857 tariff. Its highest rate was 30%, charged to articles on schedule A (brandy, spirits) and B (dates, figs, cigars, manufactures of tobacco, canned meats). Not much protection for manufactures I can see, and not any at 50%. I guess op-ed writes have to fill their partisan pages with something alarming, and it must be hard when your Democrat readers don't have slaves to worry about losing.

While the editorials you have pasted show a sample of one facet of what people would have read when they opened their newspapers, what they lack are the powerful words of the men in the middle of the secession movement saying "This is why we are leaving." As proof of what motivated Lincoln to want to keep the Uion intact, what they lack are accuracy (as virtually all of their predictions were false) and a corresponding sentiment from Lincoln himself.

You had earlier made a claim that the South paid most of the duties from imports. I would hope you would support that claim, starting with some simple math, by explaining which of the dutiable articles were used by the South in quantities large enough to give the small southern population a majority consumption of imports. Was it iron? Was it sugar? Wool manufactures? Unless we can determine that the South's contribution to the Treasury far outweighed her expense, then there is little attraction to the idea that Lincoln needed her to "pay for his government."

As for some of the other commercial fears for the northern editorialists, the South always had the ability to carry on her export and import commerce with Europe without engaging the Northeast and there was nothing Lincoln could do about it. They didn't need to secede to accomplish this and could have done it at any time had they not been so focused at chasing the growing profits of cotton to pay their debts. They chose to jump in bed with the northern bankers and brokers and shippers, who had the gall to be 40% partners in the raw cotton industry yet look down their noses at the sinful and immoral institution used to grow it. Had they chosen to put their profits and energies into developing the means to handle their own industry past the gin, they indeed had the power to move much more wealth southward.

Ideas that lower tariffs through New Orleans would make it the new supplier of the westen US are false. Had the borders of the US moved northward, so would the US Custom-houses. As long as St Louis was a US city, US Custom laws were in effect. If natural, commercial driven import traffic landed goods destined for a CSA state in a US port first, that traffic would not have been driven away by the US tariff rate, as they wouldn't have paid it anyway. Only goods clearing through Customs into the market pay the tariff, and they pay it regardless of where the ship might have docked along the way.

Reports of goods entering the US market duty-free from the rebellious South only show the chaos that would be quite normal under the conditions. Those goods are smuggled goods nevertheless, and the situation is no different than any other border and smuggling. The problem would have been temporary.

Cedarstripper

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Battalion,

Then please address just one quote for me, just one.

"The South went to war on account of slavery, South Carolina went to war as she said in her secession proclamation, because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln, don't you think South Carolina ought to know why it went to war?"

Colonel John Singleton Mosby.

Will you explain to me why one of the bravest, most able leaders of the Southern forces makes such a statement?

There are many quotes. Here's another by a Northern abolitionist-

"...The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor"....

Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people....

All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats - so transparent that they ought to deceive no one - when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has suceeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want...."

Lysander Spooner, 1870

....explain that one.

Originally Posted by unionblue

And if the tariff was such a source of consternation amongst the leadership of the South, why is there not one, recorded instance of a charge being led with the cry, 'For the Tariff, men!' or 'Down with the unfair tariff!'

...and I don't recall any charges made with a shout of "All for slavery" either.

Originally Posted by unionblue

Because it was not the issue you want it to be, it was not the issue that would cause brother to kill brother or father to kill son or cause a nation to almost destroy itself. It would be a marvolus thing if it was and would generate a huge sigh of collective relief, but eventually, one must face the fact that a darker, deeper reason was needed to generate so much blood.

It most definitely WAS an issue...and even more so the related items of trade, shipping, &c.

What was the major export of the United States?-

Cotton, produced exclusively in the South, was over 1/2 the total.

In whose ships were they exported?

*

The North sold a large amount of manufactured goods to the South due to the protectionist tariff.
How much of that market would they lose without the tariff?

*

Without the tariff the South buys more foreign goods...brought in by foreign ships...those same foreign ships reload with cotton, tobacco, rice, etc., for export...

...no need for a Northern ship.

(Over 1/2 of the North's shipping is involved with exporting Southern goods. They lose that business with an independent South.)

Originally Posted by unionblue

And it was not the tariff, no matter how many editorials one can dig up, the paper trail, left by the South itself and no matter how studiously and idustrially ignored by present-day wistful thinkers, can be ignored or left out of history.

...and why are we to ignore the "paper-trail" of the North?

[cash]

Originally Posted by Battalion

There are many quotes. Here's another by a Northern abolitionist-
[snip for brevity]
Lysander Spooner, 1870

....explain that one.

What's to explain? Spooner was a crackpot much like Noam Chomsky of today. I wouldn't put any trust in Noam Chomsky's explanations of national policy any more than anyone seriously puts any trust in Lysander Spooner's explanation of national policy in the mid-19th Century.

Originally Posted by Battalion

...and I don't recall any charges made with a shout of "All for slavery" either.

You sure there weren't confederate commanders who exhorted their troops to give their all against the "abolition hordes?"

[begin quote]
Henry Scalf calls Jack May The Plumed Knight of the Southern Cause in the Big Sandy Valley. A fervent Democrat like his father, Jack supported the Confederacy from the start, and it was partly due to his influence that the region contributed heavily to its armies. On October 21st, 1861, he was elected Captain of Company A of the 5th Kentucky Infantry, C.S.A., a unit he personally recruited. According to the pro-Confederate Louisville Courier, the 5th was composed of "hardy, raw-boned, brave mountaineers" who were "burning with desire to drive out the Abolition hordes of King Lincoln, who have dared to invade the sacred soil of Kentucky."
[end quote]
http://www.geocities.com/rlperry.geo/oldhouse5.html

"Although I am willing to acknowledge that South Carolina has acted hastily and it may be to some extent wrong; yet I have too much southern blood in my veins to sit quietly down and see her contending with the abolition hordes of the North and not wish her God-speed."
http://www.cals.lib.ar.us/butlercent...ts/antiwar.htm

"But two main factors prevented Davis from carrying out such a strategy except in a limited, sporadic fashion. Both factors stemmed from political as well as military realities. The first was a demand by governors, congressmen, and the public for troops to defend every portion of the Confederacy from penetration by 'Lincolns abolition hordes.' Thus in 1861, small armies were dispersed around the Confederate perimeter along the Arkansas-Missouri border, at several points on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, along the Tennessee-Kentucky border, and in the Shenandoah Valley and western Virginia as well as at Manassas."
http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederatestrategy.htm

"We lay before our readers in this issue an account of Lee's brilliant and successful onslaught upon the abolition hordes, and show, e'en from their own record, how our gallant boys of the cavalry have flashed their swords to the hilt with their vaunting foes, and how cool musket of our infantry has told its fatal, leaden tale."
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~holler/citizen2.htm

"The great battle of Murfreesboro is over adding another brilliant victory to the Confederate arms & through the Infinite Mercy of God George and I came out unharmed—The Abolitionists began their advance upon Nolansville on Christmas day and met with a spirited resistance from our Brigade but being as numerous as the Egyptian Locusts we were driven back from day to day till Monday 29th ult when they had advanced to within 8 miles of Murfreesboro—here we had sharp skirmishing with their Cavalry & Infantry till nightfall resulting in considerable advantage to our Brigade. ... Soon the charge was ordered & it would have made a heart of stone leap with enthusiasm to see the gallant boys double quicking with shining bayonets while the "bonnie blue flag" proudly fluttered in the breeze & a long simultaneous yell reverberated along the lines—As the ripened grain bends before the driving blast or mower's sickle so the Abolition hordes fell before the charge—in 20 minutes we had captured several fine batteries & had the enemy's right wing turned & in full flight."
http://www.terrystexasrangers.org/le...1863_01_10.htm

Some of the soldiers said slavery was their motivator:

"The vandals of the North . . . are determined to destroy slavery . . . We must all fight, and I choose to fight for southern rights and southern liberty." [Lunsford Yandell, Jr. to Sally Yandell, April 22, 1861 in James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, p. 20]

"A stand must be made for African slavery or it is forever lost." [William Grimball to Elizabeth Grimball, Nov. 20, 1860, Ibid.]

"This country without slave labor would be completely worthless. We can only live & exist by that species of labor; and hence I am willing to fight for the last." [William Nugent to Eleanor Nugent, Sept 7, 1863, Ibid., p. 107]

"Better, far better! endure all the horrors of civil war than to see the dusky sons of Ham leading the fair daughters of the South to the altar." [William M. Thomson to Warner A. Thomson, Feb. 2, 1861, Ibid., p. 19]

"A captain in the 8th Alabama also vowed 'to fight forever, rather than submit to freeing negroes among us. . . . [We are fighting for] rights and property bequeathed to us by our ancestors.' " [Elias Davis to Mrs. R. L. Lathan, Dec. 10, 1863 Ibid., p. 107]

"Even though he was tired of the war, wrote a Louisiana artilleryman in 1862, ' I never want to see the day when a negro is put on an equality with a white person. There is too many free [n-word]s. . . now to suit me, let alone having four millions.' " [George Hamill Diary, March, 1862, Ibid., p. 109]

"A private in the 38th North Carolina, a yeoman farmer, vowed to show the Yankees ' that a white man is better than a [n-word].' " [Jonas Bradshaw to Nancy Bradshaw, April 29, 1862 Ibid.]

"A farmer from the Shenandoah Valley informed his fiancée that he fought to assure 'a free white man's government instead of living under a black republican government.' " [John G. Keyton to Mary Hilbert, Nov. 30, 1861, Ibid.]

"The son of another North Carolina dirt farmer said he would never stop fighting the Yankees, who were 'trying to force us to live as the colored race.' " [Samuel Walsh to Louisa Proffitt, April 11, 1864, Ibid.]

"Some of the boys asked them what they were fighting for, and they answered, 'You Yanks want us to marry our daughters to the [n-word]s.' " [Chauncey Cook to parents, May 10, 1864, Ibid.]

"An Arkansas captain was enraged by the idea that if the Yankees won, his 'sister, wife, and mother are to be given up to the embraces of their present dusky male servitors.' " [Thomas Key, diary entry April 10, 1864, Ibid.]

"Another Arkansas soldier, a planter, wrote his wife that Lincoln not only wanted to free the slaves but also 'declares them entitled to all the rights and privileges as American citizens. So imagine your sweet little girls in the school room with a black wooly headed negro and have to treat them as their equal.' " [William Wakefield Garner to Henrietta Garner, Jan 2, 1864, Ibid.]

"[If Atlanta and Richmond fell] we are irrevocably lost and not only will the negroes be free but . . . we will all be on a common level. . . . The negro who now waits on you will then be as free as you are & as insolent as she is ignorant.' " [Allen D. Cndler to wife, July 7, 1864, Ibid.]

Originally Posted by Battalion

It most definitely WAS an issue...and even more so the related items of trade, shipping, &c.

Funny they didn't seem to treat it as an issue in their secession documents.

Originally Posted by Battalion

Without the tariff the South buys more foreign goods...brought in by foreign ships...those same foreign ships reload with cotton, tobacco, rice, etc., for export...

...no need for a Northern ship.

Except that southern ports didn't have the capacity, and southern markets didn't have the demand for foreign goods the way the rest of the country did.

Originally Posted by Battalion

(Over 1/2 of the North's shipping is involved with exporting Southern goods. They lose that business with an independent South.)

So the south builds a shipping industry overnight? They build up port facilities and warehouse facilities overnight that they haven't been able to build in over a decade of trying?

Regards,
Cash

[johan_steele]

Battalion, kindly address the question you were asked; did Mosby have any idea what he was talking about or not? Or are you putting forth the idea that Mosby was a Northern propogandist?

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by cash

Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion-
"It most definitely WAS an issue...and even more so the related items of trade, shipping, &c."

*************************************

Funny they didn't seem to treat it as an issue in their secession documents.

This doesn't concern secession documents.

The focus is on the North- their reaction to secession and motivations for war.