1776 & 1861.

[milhistbuff1]

Bill,

Re: post # 5

Based on my own knowledge of early colonial/British history I would say they were and are two separate cultures. Ethnically there was relative homogenaity, generally coming from elsewhere in the British Empire or the Holy Roman Empire. It's my belief that the amount of difficulties encountered by England from 1635-1760 caused an unintentioned attitude of benign neglect. By the time Britain began to seriously enforce its laws e.g. the navigation acts, the colonies had already established their own traditions centered around religious freedom and which was slow to fully come to Britain. Although each individual colony may not have been tolerant, by signing the constitution, their reps bound themselves to it. Another aspect that split the cultures is the eventual heights gained in American society by the Irish and Scots-Irish, who although treated worse than trash when they arrived, were eventually respected in society. Whereas, Britain continued to repress the native Irish until the 1920's. Concerning the connection to today, it's almost as if the US is a much more powerful yet still loyal son, helping out his former benefactor in their times of need. eg WWI+WWII.
Respectfully,
Matt

[olerebel]

I think the bottom line is money. Mentioned in the secession articles is the government subsidy for the fishing industry, mail boats, etc. Surely there must have been some type of government subsidy for the southern planters who stood to lose crops due to weather conditions, market declines, etc. Surely the almost 30% excise tax placed predominately on the southern planters had representation. The plantation class farmer had means and contacts to be able to blackmarket ship much of his cotton and corn. It was the small farmer, the non-slave owner that bore the brunt of the taxes. Greenwood leflore, the Chief of the Choctaw Nation at the time, owned one of the largest plantations in MS at the time. He was OPPOSED to secession. The real advocates for secession were in fact the small farmers who had no option but to pay the 20-30% tariff.

[hawglips]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Friends,

A few here on this board have stated that the war of 1861 was simply a repeat of the one of 1776.

In your own view, what were the similarities and differences between the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War? Were they one and the same, a 'Second American Revolution' or entirely different?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

The inalienable right to self-government is unchanging. The only real difference is

1776 - colonies were owned by the political entity seceded from
1861 - states created the political entity they seceded from

Hal

[matthew mckeon]

Dear Bill,
There is an interesting book that perhaps you've read, "Albion's Seed" which specifically describes British cultural influence in the American colonies. David H. Fischer argues that mores of the specific areas in the British Isles that settlers came from influenced the culture they created in different areas in the New World.

[matthew mckeon]

Similarity
Both the colonies and the Confederacy's struggle was based on the natural right of revolution.

Difference
The American Revolution advanced the progress of human liberty, while the CSA retarded that progress.

[ole]

With respect, olereb, one set of articles brought up expenditures for harbors and such. All the rest started and ended with slavery.

Ole

[cedarstripper]

Hi, olereb,

Originally Posted by olerebel

The plantation class farmer had means and contacts to be able to blackmarket ship much of his cotton and corn. It was the small farmer, the non-slave owner that bore the brunt of the taxes.

Do I take it you are referring to being taxed on exporting their goods?

The Georgia Declaration of Causes refers to the 1846 tariff act as a free trade tariff and expressed satisfaction with the revenue issue. This act had similar levels of tariffs as the 1861 act. Do you contend that the Georgia document which lists economic grievances in an historical sense is complaining about the 1861 tariff bill before the Senate at the time?

Cedarstripper

[MobileBoy]

Matthew,
The CSA retarded human liberty?I can see that point but it seems a little off to mention that prominently when slavery was legal under the government the CSA left.Not to mention 94 percent of blacks in the North had no right to vote and were generally discriminated against.Throw in the fact we all know that abolition wasn't a Union aim to start the war, and you have the Union making war on poeple who elected peacefully to form their own government.In other words the Union fought to deny liberty.So your comment kind of seems like the pot calling the kettle black.

[MobileBoy]

Cedarstripper,
Why don't you post the rates of the 1846 and 1861 tarrifs?You may also want to look at the voting record from members of congress on the two tarrifs.Why would 39 out of 40 Southern Congressman vote against the Morril tarrif in 1860 when they supported the 1846 tarrif.If these tarrifs were so similar as you say then why the outrage and loud protest about the proposed Morrill tarrif and not the 1846 tarrif?How do you explain that?Something is just not adding up here?

[milhistbuff1]

Ashley,
In this i happen to agree with Mr. McKeon. Alexander Hamiliton was abolitionist from the begining. a letter to John Jay, referring to a proposal to be presented by John Laurens he said

“Except the few regular troops of South Carolina, we seem to be relying wholly on the militia of that and the two states But South Carolina being very weak in her population of whites may be excused from the draft on condition of furnishing black batalions. (John Jay letter)

from federalist #9
“firm union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the states as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection.”

source. Hamilton Alexander .Writings Libraries of America Series. New York:Literary Classics of the United States Inc. 1998
Respectfully,
Matt