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 don't find the tariff argument particularly compelling either. I think Neil calculated the tariff as coming to less than two dollars per person, per year.
Secession, and then war came in bursts of enthusiasm and was fought with extraordinary violence and at tremendous cost. To think that issues like tariff policy provoked such bloodshed and commitment is unpersuasive.
To say the South bolted because of duties on iron...well if the South couldn't contain more than one economic activity at a time, it was not going to survive anyway.
What is persuasive is that slavery couldn't be compromised, or reformed, or even discussed by the slaveowning society. Why? Besides its tremendous economic power, especially in the 1850s, slavery is not just an economic activity like making shoes, or selling nails. It was a way of life that required a belief system about human beings, black and white. This belief system told the people of that society who they were, and what they were valued for. And that was what was threatened.
Whatever they told themselves(and here I am moving into speculation), thoughtful slaveowners must have realized they were in a role that was open to criticism and disapproval, and that abolitionist attacks were on some level justified. Mary Chesnut, Robert E. Lee, and others expressed relief when slavery was abolished. It doesn't mean they wanted to lose the war, or didn't want the CSA to endure, but they were sick of slavery.
There is an interesting study of the secessionist ordinances passed by the soon to be Confederate states called "Apostles of Disunion." The leading arguments of the secessionists revolved around preserving and extending slavery, with the tariff issues playing a very minor role.
Yes. I remember the book. Since US tariffs in 1857-1860 were the lowest of any of the major countries in Europe or America at the time, it is pretty hard to see why the tariff would be a major part of secession issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew mckeon
The "public safety" arguments that are being made here..who is making them? The states that "suffered" the most were the border states, Missouri(their border ruffians vs. free soilers), Maryland(many runaways), Virginia(John Brown's raid). Yet these are the states that were the most reluctant to secede, or didn't secede at all. The states keenest to secede, and were the first to secede, were the cotton states, whose economy and society were most influenced by slavery, and who had never seen an abolitionist, and whose slaves had the least chance of escaping.
To the best of my knowledge, only Texas made this claim. It is based on a clause in the treaty of annexation of Texas in the 1840s.
I don't find the tariff argument particularly compelling either. I think Neil calculated the tariff as coming to less than two dollars per person, per year.
Secession, and then war came in bursts of enthusiasm and was fought with extraordinary violence and at tremendous cost. To think that issues like tariff policy provoked such bloodshed and commitment is unpersuasive.
To say the South bolted because of duties on iron...well if the South couldn't contain more than one economic activity at a time, it was not going to survive anyway.
One of the reasons for the Morill Tariff (introduced in 1860, passed in 1861) is that the Buchanan administration was suffering from some financial embarassment. More revenue was needed or major cuts would be needed.
The military of the 1850s had suffered through hard times, as per usual in peacetime. If Texas, for example, wants greater protection the military needs to be expanded and well-funded, which requires expenditures, which requires revenue, which in the 1860 period means, well, tariffs.
There is an interesting study of the secessionist ordinances passed by the soon to be Confederate states called "Apostles of Disunion." The leading arguments of the secessionists revolved around preserving and extending slavery, with the tariff issues playing a very minor role.
The "public safety" arguments that are being made here..who is making them? The states that "suffered" the most were the border states, Missouri(their border ruffians vs. free soilers), Maryland(many runaways), Virginia(John Brown's raid). Yet these are the states that were the most reluctant to secede, or didn't secede at all. The states keenest to secede, and were the first to secede, were the cotton states, whose economy and society were most influenced by slavery, and who had never seen an abolitionist, and whose slaves had the least chance of escaping.
I'm not saying that the fears about slave uprisings, or John Brown type raids didn't play a part. But its a minor role, IMO.
Matthew, I have read Apostles of Disunion. The problem with Dew's argument is that anything connected with slavery equals slavery itself. Dew seems to be arguing that opposition to Harper's Ferry type of attacks equals protection of slavery per se. This is a fallacy. I might personally oppose bombing abortion clinics and shooting abortion doctors, at the same time oppose abortion on demand as a means of birth control. They are two separate, but related things, and opposing violent anti-abortion acts does not equate to supporting abortion on demand as a means of birth control
Now, I am not saying that non-slaveholders were opposed to slavery per se (most, no doubt, supported the institution, and most would have liked to own slaves themselves). Just that, until the events of 1859-1861, they were not pro-slavery enough to be willing to embrace independence as a remedy. But antislavery violence had grown and was receiving official sanction from Republicans by 1859-1861. So Southern non-slaveholders started to embrace independence in sufficient numbers to make it the majority position in those States.
It is not a coincidence that the first two States to leave the Union had majority black populations. South Carolina, while a minority of the white families were slaveholders (43% of SC white families owned slaves), had a black majority population (57% black to 43% white). Mississippi, in which 49% of families owned slaves, had a population that was 55% black. Thus, if a slave insurrection broke out, nonslaveholders would suffer as much as slaveholding families. That is why the "blackest" States were the first to secede, not the ones that most suffered from antislavery violence to date.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Last edited by JohnTaylor; 05-23-2006 at 07:44 AM.
I'm not saying that the fears about slave uprisings, or John Brown type raids didn't play a part. But its a minor role, IMO.
Sergeant McKeon: I'll have to pick on that a bit. Fear of slaves, uprising or simply unruly, played a significant role as it was this fear that the secessionists used to gain support. Although few southerners owned slaves, one might suppose that most were afraid of having them free. The widely held belief that slaves were savages and would quickly revert to that savage state, along with the claims that the Republicans would soon free the slaves, served to gather the yeoman into the secessionist camp,
Respectfully,
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Above you say "Keitt and Memminger were indifferent to the other issues; they just felt that PLLs and excluding slavery from the territories were sufficient justification for independence."
Just to clarify, what I meant to write was that "Keitt and Memminger were not indifferent to the other issues; they just felt that PLLs and excluding slavery from the territories were sufficient justification for independence."
Apologies about any confusion.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
You speak of "And ultimately, regardless of what Keitt and Memminger said, the people of South Carolina, in their collective and sovereign capacity, declared that economic exploitation was part of what had driven them to embrace independence." Yet I just reviewed the declaration again, and I can't see where they did that. Would you please point it out for us?
"The Southern States now stand in the same relation toward the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation, that our ancestors stood toward the people of Great Britain. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation, and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British Parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue -- to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
... The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected three-fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others connected with the operation of the General Government, has provincialized the cities of the South. Their growth is paralyzed, while they are the mere suburbs of Northern cities. The bases of the foreign commerce of the United States are the agricultural productions of the South; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade is almost annihilated. In 1740 there were five shipyards in South Carolina to build ships to carry on our direct trade with Europe. Between 1740 and 1779 there were built in these yards twenty-five square-rigged vessels, beside a great number of sloops and schooners to carry on our coast and West India trade. In the half century immediately preceding the Revolution, from 1725 to 1775, the population of South Carolina increased seven-fold." (Source: "The Address of the people of South Carolina, assembled in Convention, to the people of the Slaveholding States of the United States," please tell me you have read this)
The Convention declared their belief that the Federal system of taxes and expenditures had turned the South into the cash cow for the North.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
