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.
If I may ask for a bit more detail in your premise, is it your contention that the 1832 South Carolina ordinance is dealing strictly with the unfairness of the tariff? And that because of the tension generated by the passage of the tariff, this led to increased tension between the Northern and Southern sections of the United States, adding to other causes and differences which led to the Civil War in 1861?
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
"This will be like discussing obesity with a ban on the word 'eating'." [cedarstripper]
This one's my favorite one so far.....well, the sweet potato praline was pretty good too!
I was a little put off by this thread at first (no offense, Union), but...on reflection...it's actually not a bad idea because it's going to force everyone to put their thinking caps on (well, for those who want to participate), so it's not a bad exercise and, I believe, it could provoke a more comprehesive and encompassing thinking about the Civil War. I think all of it ultimately comes down to the 's' word in the same way that all rivers might travel towards the ocean; but I'm game for blathering my opinion on this without using the 's' word. And, moreover, I think I can actually not use the 's' word at all because, in my mind, the 's' word in simply a byproduct of an entire system (which I'll get to in just a minute). What I mean by that....and sort of taking cedarstripper's funny comment a little more seriously....obesity really has nothing to do with eating, in reality. Think about it. When people use food as a means to deal with their emotional and psychological problems, then we can safely assume that there are underlying emotional and psychological reasons for over-consuming food. In the end, it has nothing to do with the food itself or the act of eating (these are merely the tools involved); but it does have something to do with the person's inability to address their emotional and psychological problems in more creative and positive ways. That's what's 'really' go on there.
Okay....now that I've established my metaphorical angle....I'll give this a shot. All of this, of course, is just my opinion on how I see it. Also, I may have to use the 's' word just as a point of reference, so I believe I should be granted allowance for that (but I'll keep it to a minimum); trust me, when you read through the post, you'll see that I'm not really using the 's' word except when I need to refer to it to make a point.
To me, the 'heart' of the Civil War (if you will) is really about the South's economic system being threatened (the fact that their economic system includes 's' is purely arbitrary). What occurs to me in all the bickering about the 's' word, is the apparent lack of appreciation of what's behind the 's' word. People (or so it seems to me, anyway) focus myopically on the 's' word as if it were a thing unto itself....as though it existed in a vaccum. It doesn't. Indeed, it (the 's' word) exists within an economic framework...and this is important (I'll explain why in a minute); indeed, it's very important. As such, in order to even have the 's' word in the first place, certain things already have to be existing in the society/culture.
Bear with me....
In my mind, the Civil War is (ultimately) the consequence and result of the North and South unable to solve an economic problem that stems from changing ‘norms’. In my opinion, what’s really at stake vis-à-vis the Civil War is beyond the surface issue of just the 's' word by itself….it’s what the 's' word means to the South and what they stand lose without it - which is a lot.
Forget, for a moment, any ethical or moral judgments with regard to 's' and look at it simply as an economic reality. It’s unfortunate that things got set up like this, but the fact is that once 's' had been incorporated as the primary means of economic wherewithal, it’s pretty hard to change it. It’s my contention that even if the South wanted to get rid of 's' they would have been hard-pressed to come up with a solution to do it. It’s extremely difficult for a country to trade one economic infrastructure for another one; the desire to end 's' isn’t enough to make it happen – you have to know how to end it. Consider, by way of example, the economic difficulties the former Soviet block countries faced when one economic structure was exchanged for another. Some of these countries have gone through considerable growing pains in the process and other still have not even really grasped the profundity of their predicament. If the South had even wanted to end 's', it would have taken a room full of Alan Greenspans to figure out how to do it in a way that at least allows for some fiduciary damage control. Folks, this just isn't an easy thing; it just isn't.
Any time a nation’s (or group of people) economic means are threatened in such a way as they might lose it, it’s a threat to their very survival…and when someone’s survival is threatened, it will be met with the only logical response: fight for whatever it is that sustains you. In this regard I do not subscribe to the notion that the South ‘fought for 's'’ so much as they fought for the continuance of an economic means that sustained their existence (as any nation would in the same predicament). The only way to avoid the Civil War is to produce a feasible solution to the economic problem the South will have to face if they lose 's'. Do we have any idea how hard that is to do?
The passage of time will bring about change; if fact, ‘change’ is probably the only constant. As such, ideas, beliefs, knowledge, etc., are destined to evolve over time and what was once accepted practice in a given society becomes unaccepted practice. [Indeed, the creation of the United States is certainly a byproduct of a notion that was once accepted that became no longer accepted insofar as the Founding Father’s declaration that ordinary people (i.e., not kings, royalty, titled personages, etc.) can rule themselves. This recognition by the Founding Fathers was really ‘out there’ for its time and represents a genuine ‘thinking outside the box,’ so to speak.]
At some point, obviously, 's' begins to become unacceptable just about universally and the United States is under a degree of international pressure to conform thoroughly with changing attitudes. Thus, the South’s no-cost labor practices will increasingly become more and more untenable as time goes by. (As an aside, and again by way of example, this is not altogether dissimilar from the Middle East today insofar as there will probably come a time (soon, actually) when the world will no longer be dependent on oil; if you’re a smart Middle East leader, you’ll start thinking about diversifying your economic framework now. Otherwise you’ll face a considerable economic problem that will have a momentous impact on the society; indeed, it will probably have war-producing consequences, or certainly the potential for them. Gee, sound familiar?]
Whether the South fights a war or not, they’re still faced with having to grapple with an economic system that is no longer accepted. To this end, I don’t believe that their independence will deliver what they think it will deliver in the long run and, it would seem to me, that the only point in seeking out a sovereign independence is to obtain the self-determination to maintain your own economic status quo and continue the lifestyle you’ve become accustomed to. To this end, I believe I can fully understand why they fought against a change that struck at the very heart of their economic well-being. Indeed, from their perspective, they were fighting for their survival (of which 'economic' survival is paramount; without economic means, everything else is irrelevant).
So, in summary, and to answer Unionblue's question about causes of the Civil War without using the 's' word....it's my contention that the 's' word really doesn't have to be used at all because the 's' word actually exists within a much larger context of an entire economic system. Indeed, the whole thing is an economic problem insofar as one economic system is dying (in the same way that change occurs all the time) and another must needs take its place. This is a really difficult transition for any country. Economics is really important stuff (and it's also really boring stuff), but your life is more affected by it than anything else....it's like oxygen....it's all around you and you don't really notice it....until you can't breathe anymore! The endless and tiresome myopic focus on 's' as a 'cause' is really rather shortsighted, in my opinion. It's the equivalent of thinking that clouds are the 'cause' of rain. It's what's going on inside the cloud and the whole moisture/air mechanics that matters, not the cloud itself. Do you see what I mean?
So....this little 'economic problem' came to blows...really bad ones! But the good news in all of this is that this country survived its own civil war....indeed, many countries do not.
Okay - Unionblue....you can judge for yourself whether I used the 's' word too much, but I believe I was able to express my point of view using the 's' word only as a reference point when needed.
Last edited by CChartreux; 11-27-2005 at 07:37 PM.
Union,
My premise is that the tariff was the primary non servile cause at that time. When that document was written in 1832 we had been developing domestic industry for only 20 years or so, undisturbed the prior 30 yrs being interrupted by warfare. The vast majority of the industrial buildup was in New England who had its own secession crisis when the war of 1812 came around. My argument is that had the south industrialized it would have been at harmony within a generation or two of it catching up. That refusal to industrialize brought about the war. Since tariffs were placed on goods produced by factories instead of farms that excasorbated the difference
Respectfully,
Matt
Cash, in your reply to milhistbuff1, can you not find another area that would refute nullification over tariffs was a separate issue that added another area of contention between the North and the South?
Sorry, Neal, but knowing what was said prior to the Nullification Crisis and what was said after the Nullification Crisis, I have to reiterate that it is not a separate issue from the dreaded "s-word." The great fear was that if Congress had the power to raise tariffs for protectionist purposes, then they had the power to abolish a cherished institution of the south.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
I am assuming that he meant that South Carolina was upset over the idea that the tariff was unfair to the South in general and South Carolina in particular and that it favored the North in a decidely unfair way. Is there no historical evidence to support this scenario?
As the South Carolinians were the authors of the tariff, I have to say no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
Why not instead go with the approach that the very act of nullification was seen as an act of treason, by the federal government, President Andrew Jackson, and by-the-way, most of the Southern states at the time. Wasn't this nonaction by the rest of the South one of the reasons South Carolina backed down, as it could gather no support for its actions during the Nullification Crisis, not even from it's fellow Southern States?
It simply required an education of the rest of the south as to the threat posed to its cherished institution which cannot be named.
Cedarstripper,
I just meant in general, not factory items only. With all due respect wouldn't factory produced items be needed in order to make those products you just listed?
Respectfully,
Matt
Last edited by milhistbuff1; 11-28-2005 at 10:12 AM.
Thanks for starting what I'm certain will be a provocative new thread. I'm interested in liberty, and how that appeared to be an exclusive ideal at the time of the Civil War. It seems to me that secession was a symbol of America's incomplete national identity - one side needing a war to enforce unity, the other to defend the creation of a new nation.
If the South could not exercise their right to self-determination, and one of the purposes of the Constitution is to provide freedom and liberty for all; then what exactly is the definition of autonomy? Was the justice of the Union ideal greater than that of the South, and how specifically do you unite a country by force?
An excerpt from Lord Acton's letter to Robert E. Lee, dated November 4, 1866:
"Without presuming to decide the purely legal question, on which it seems evident to me from Madison's and Hamilton's papers that the Fathers of the Constitution were not agreed, I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics.Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo."
Without self-determination, there is no freedom, and I'm inclined to believe that the freedom to choose is the only real freedom that we have. The availability of inspiration is based expressly on liberty - if the heart and spirit of the people does not come first, then surely freedom is a mere parody of itself.
Forget, for a moment, any ethical or moral judgments with regard to 's' and look at it simply as an economic reality. It’s unfortunate that things got set up like this, but the fact is that once 's' had been incorporated as the primary means of economic wherewithal, it’s pretty hard to change it. It’s my contention that even if the South wanted to get rid of 's' they would have been hard-pressed to come up with a solution to do it. It’s extremely difficult for a country to trade one economic infrastructure for another one; the desire to end 's' isn’t enough to make it happen – you have to know how to end it. Consider, by way of example, the economic difficulties the former Soviet block countries faced when one economic structure was exchanged for another. Some of these countries have gone through considerable growing pains in the process and other still have not even really grasped the profundity of their predicament. If the South had even wanted to end 's', it would have taken a room full of Alan Greenspans to figure out how to do it in a way that at least allows for some fiduciary damage control. Folks, this just isn't an easy thing; it just isn't.
Strictly speaking, the above passage breaches the rules of this thread. But I thought it was so interesting, and so well-reasoned, that I wanted to compliment you on it. The subject which we cannot discuss on this thread was at once an ethical issue and a practical one. The people who wanted to abolish the subject we cannot discuss were guilty of the crime - and I believe it was a very real one - of only addressing the ethical element of this subject and thereby making it impossible to discuss the practical element of it.
I would like to discuss this further, but I fear it will have to be on another thread.
We are both outsiders looking in, noses pressed to the window, as far as the WBTS is concerned.
One of the things which intrigues me is how we see this issue of self-determination in such a similar way. To us it is self-evident that a nation which forces several million people to be its citizens against their will is a mockery of a democratic state. And yet there are many people here at CWT, who are neither wicked nor stupid, who will argue the opposite.
This thread, which Neil has so thoughtfully provided for us, gives us a perfect forum in which to discuss why the North went to war. This is a topic which clearly has nothing to do with slavery in any way, shape or form.
It seems to me that two of the most important subjects relating to the Northern cause are (a) the relative rights and obligations of majorities and minorities and (b) the definition of the nation state.
For instance, does the majority in a democracy have an absolute right to enforce its will, regardless of what harm that will does to the interests of the minority? Are the minority little better than the slaves of the majority until the next election comes along?
Another question is: how exactly does one define a nation state? Is it defined by its laws? Or is it effectively dissolved once its people cease to have mutual interests and aspirations? In a Federal system, is the distinction between nation and state particularly meaningful? Or is a state a nation which has subordinated aspects of its own sovereignty, but which retains all the salient elements of nationhood and can reassert them whenever it chooses?
Perhaps most importantly of all, if there is a conflict between two regions of a nation over how the above questions should be answered, what is the most civilised way of resolving that conflict?
These are all issues which can be discussed without any reference to the "s" word. So let's get on with it.
Thanks, Neil.
Bill
Last edited by bill_torrens; 11-28-2005 at 10:25 AM.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
