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.
Neil, that is not exactly true. Every consumer of every protected item pays more. Here's how. If US and European iron makers produce iron of the same quality, and the same price, then American consumers would buy only American iron (and save transportation costs). The only reason that American consumers would buy European iron is that it costs less than American iron, enough less that the difference covers the transportation costs. So, for the sake of argument, let’s say that European iron costs $100 per ton in the US, and US iron costs $110. So American iron makers petition Congress from protection from under-priced European iron, and get a 30% protective tariff on imported iron. Now, European iron costs $130/ton, and US iron costs $110, so everyone switches from buying European to buying American (which is the point of the tariff). Demand for US-made iron goes up, and in the short run, supply of US-made iron is largely fixed, so US prices of US-made iron go up to $120/ton. Same still applies: demand still outpaces supply. The dynamic will continue until the price of US-made iron is just shy of the post-tariff price of imported iron, say, $129/ton. If the price of US-made iron goes to $135, then some consumers will switch back to European ($130/ton) iron, demand for US iron drops until the equilibrium price of US-made iron settles just shy of the import post-tariff price. In the long run, the tariff will cause more people to engage in the protected industry, since there is so much money to be made now that prices have gone up. This is the intent of the tariff. The effect of the tariff, however, is to increase domestic prices for the protected commodity. So every consumer of every protected commodity pays more because of the tariff. The revenues collected only represent the money collected by the government on imported items.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
So how does this add up in your opinion, facts and figures, charts and lists, why anyone would want to kill a brother, father, son, unlce, nephew, or even a perfect stranger for?
And please, PLEASE tell me, in any battle, skirmish, action, land or sea, where anyone, soldier, commander, free or slave, led the charge with the cry, "DOWN WITH THE TARIFF!" I will even accept a cry, if you can produce it, from a Northerner, ANY Northerner, which led his men into battle with the cry, "FOR THE TARIFF MEN!"
And at which battle did Southern leaders shout, “Men, for your slaves!”?
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; 06-15-2006 at 03:35 AM.
Who paid the actual tariffs? Was it not those who imported goods from outside the US?
And, if you would hazard a guess, how much did the tariff cost each free white American male per year, in your own estimation?
Frankly John, the issue that the tariff was a cause of the war bores me to tears as it simply seems a real case of making a mountain out of a mole hill and a constant way of deflecting the real reasons of the war from the proper attention it deserves. And what is most disturbing, it seems a deliberate way of twisting history to suit a modern-day agenda. Hence my loss of patience with the entire issue. But this is my own personal problem, not yours, one that I must deal with.
May I say here that I do not find that to be true in your case, as your presentations and sources do you a considerable amount of justice and your presentations deserve attention and cool consideration. I have learned much from you and hope to continue to do so. I do not wish to give offense, merely to explain why I am so exasperated to cover this ground over and over again, to come to the same dreay conclusions, much ado about nothing. Again, my problem, not yours.
As for the battle cry to keep slaves, I will invite your attention to the comments, letters, articles, speeches of those Southern men who did make it a point to say this was a cause worth dying for, if you will permit me to search my posts and sources for a time. Unless you wish to forego being bored with my conclusions on this subject.
But I can induldge you, if you desire so.
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
Originally Posted by trice BTW, in case anyone is unaware, "paired-off" votes are arranged ahead of time by the people involved to make sure they have no effect on the outcome. Usually this means the Senators don't want to take a stand that could affect their re-election chances, or that they truly aren't sure what the best course would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Or they just can't be there for the vote, due to illness, or death in the family, or some other reason. Pairing off doesn't have to be moral weakness. It was just a gentleman's way of keeping his absence from having a negative impact on the vote.
If the 9 millions were paying 70-80% of the $53 million-
$37-42 million (and not getting an equal distribution of it to boot)
...and in the CSA are paying $25-34 million....and getting the full use of that amount for the cost of government, improvements, &c.
...then, yes, it would be a better deal.
Battalion, in 1860 some 68% of the tariff was collected at New York City. Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Boston followed behind that city as big points-of-entry. Only 7.2% was collected at ports within the seceding states. The biggest single revenue-generating category was sugar, I think, and imported wines and spirits were not far behind.
Now undoubtedly Southerners paid more then 7.2% once you figure in the trans-shipping aspects of the coastal trade. But these claims that they paid 70-80% of the entire tariff are also likely to be overblown.
For example, while I have considerable respect for the drinking capacity of Southern gentlemen, I don't think they were consuming 70-80% of the imported wines and spirits -- and I don't think their slaves were drinking very much of it at all.
Originally Posted by trice BTW, in case anyone is unaware, "paired-off" votes are arranged ahead of time by the people involved to make sure they have no effect on the outcome. Usually this means the Senators don't want to take a stand that could affect their re-election chances, or that they truly aren't sure what the best course would be.
Regards,
Tim
Even though they are not casting a vote...
...many place on record as to how they would have voted-
Now undoubtedly Southerners paid more then 7.2% once you figure in the trans-shipping aspects of the coastal trade. But these claims that they paid 70-80% of the entire tariff are also likely to be overblown.
Exactly so. Just as today, your distance from a refinery or pipeline feed affects your price for a gallon of gasoline.
Quote:
For example, while I have considerable respect for the drinking capacity of Southern gentlemen, I don't think they were consuming 70-80% of the imported wines and spirits -- and I don't think their slaves were drinking very much of it at all.
Neil's average is for proportionality only, demonstrating that the average per-person affect of existing tariff's isn't all that much. For example, what imports were used by virtuallly everyone? Coffee, sugar, tea, spices, salt, molasses, come to mind. Which ones were used by a few? Imported wines and spirits, silks, crystal, exotic spices, come to mind.
The entire situation becomes a rat's nest of "yes, but"s. If "negro cloth" were imported (I don't know if or how much was) the free states used next to none compared to the slaveholding states. Higher quality steel would have its most predominant use in the north.
Finally, in Battalion's excellent post (I'm getting to it Battalion, will have it deciphered and analyzed soon), he assigns the imports of raw goods proportionally according to population. The ratio should have been based on factories and production. A most telling statistic was that there were 50,000 manufacturies in the northern states. The southern states had 50,000 factory workers. (And that does not imply a per-capita proportion.)
And, Neil, I too suffer some over the rehash of a tired, perhaps irrelevant subject. However, we have some fresh perspectives now, and it appears that the mutual goal is to reach an acknowledgement of what is real. Opinions will not be changed, but we should, at least, have a common set of facts.
Regards,
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
Well, no, John. This is your insistence expressed as Lincoln's. His was quite different. Lincoln wanted all the states to remain with the Union.quote] “Interview between Messengers of Peace and Sir Lincoln” The Baltimore Sun has the following in relation to the interview between the President and a committee of the “Young Men’s Christian Association of Baltimore,” it says: We learn that a delegation from five of the Young Men’s Christian Associations of Baltimore, consisting of six members of each, yesterday proceeded to Washington for an interview with the President, the purpose being to intercede with him in behalf a peaceful policy, and to entreat him not to pass troops through Baltimore or Maryland. The Rev. Dr. Fuller, of the Baptist church, accompanied the party, by invitation, as chairman, and the conversation was conducted mainly between him and Mr. Lincoln, and was not heard entire by all .the members of the Convention. Our informant, however, vouches for what we now write. He states that upon the introduction, they were received very cordially by Mr. Lincoln—a sort of rude familiarity of manner – and the conversation opened by Dr. Fuller seeking to impress upon Mr. Lincoln the vast responsibility of the position he occupied, and that upon him depended the issues, of peace or war—on one hand a terrible, fratricidal conflict, and on the other peace. “But” said Mr. Lincoln, what: am I to do?” “Why, sir, let the country know that you. are disposed to recognize the independence of the Southern States. I say nothing of secession; recognize the fact that they have formed a Government of their own; that they will never be united- again with the North, and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense, and war may he averted.” “And what shall become of the revenue? I shall have no Government—no resources?” Dr. Fuller expressed the opinion that the Northern States would constitute an imposing government and furnish revenue. (emphasis added) Memphis Daily Avalanche, 8 May 1861, pg. 1, col. 4.
These are Mr. Lincoln's words, from a contemporary source. They are remarkably similar to the words that Virginia Unionist Baldwin attributed to Lincoln in testimony before Congress in 1866.
John, what exactly do you think you are proving with this quote? A gentleman from Maryland asked the President to simply recognize the independence of the seceding states. Lincoln asks, rather reasonably, "Then what?"
It is a fair question. It is not possible to determine from this quote of a quote to determine when the interview took place, but obviously sometime before May 8 and I would guess sometime in April.
Again, at this point the seceding states have already acted aggressively against the US government. They have taken US property illegally; they have used force and the threat of it. If after Ft. Sumter was attacked, they have already waged war against the US. If this is after the Virginia actions (also illegal), then Harpers Ferry and the Norfolk Navy Yard (probably the single most costly installation in the entire country) are also gone.
Lincoln has arrived in office in the middle of a huge financial crisis brought on by all these Southern actions, including the seizure of US Customs money and revenue, US payrolls, and other things. The secessionists have stuck with all the debts while making off with large assets and cash reserves. Federal credit is no good (bankers, Northern and European, were refusing to buy Federal notes in early 1861 under Buchanan) largely because of the secessionists. Southerners (nice, honorable men, bah!) are threatening not to pay honest debts to Northern merchants and already holding back funds.
Personally, what I see here is a responsible leader asking reasonable questions of a man proposing an idea he has not thought through. It is undoubted that an economic crisis existed -- it existed because the seceding states had created it on purpose to get their own way.
But once again, it hurts you to much to look at what the secessionists actually did. All you want to do is to point at Lincoln's reactions to Southern bad behavior and make believe the Southern behavior never happened. That is not credible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Lincoln was worried about his cash cow escaping. Of course, holding the Union together in order to maintain an exploitative relationship is hardly a sound basis for just government.
Once again, this is your opinion expressed as fact while not proven. All I see in the financial matters of that day is the normal interplay of different interests, and I would think it was the Southern secessionists "withdrawal" that unbalanced the system. They had no difficulty with sectional rivalries when they were trying to form an alliance of South-West against North. The problem appears to be that they didn't play that right and the West ended up more aligned with the North for a variety of reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Why are you so opposed to self-determination?
Stop playing to the crowd, John. You have tried to introduce this rhetorical question or "sound bite" before, as if it has meaning in some way, and it appears to be simply a device you think will make you look good. As I have asked you every time you used it, what do you mean by "self-determination"?
The term was not in common use in 1860. It was not a recognized term in international law, and barely used in political theory. So either stop throwing this out or define what you mean by it when you do.
Usually this means the Senators don't want to take a stand that could affect their re-election chances, or that they truly aren't sure what the best course would be.
Tim, that just implies that pairing off is a spineless cop-out. There are sometimes completely honorable reasons for pairing off.
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
Frankly John, the issue that the tariff was a cause of the war bores me to tears as it simply seems a real case of making a mountain out of a mole hill and a constant way of deflecting the real reasons of the war from the proper attention it deserves. And what is most disturbing, it seems a deliberate way of twisting history to suit a modern-day agenda.
The seceding States went to the trouble of disproving your thesis. If they really didn’t care about the issue, they wasted a lot of ink. I lose patience, as well, especially when unconditional Unionists say things like slavery was at the bottom of everything they worried about. That is demonstrably not true, and I don’t appreciate it when people lie about dead soldiers’ motives to further some modern agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
May I say here that I do not find that to be true in your case, as your presentations and sources do you a considerable amount of justice and your presentations deserve attention and cool consideration. I have learned much from you and hope to continue to do so. I do not wish to give offense, merely to explain why I am so exasperated to cover this ground over and over again, to come to the same dreay conclusions, much ado about nothing.
Thanks for the kind words. But the record does not support your apparent conclusion. It just seems that you have a closed mind on the subject, and no amount of material from the period is going to change your mind. I find closed minds sad. No, I will freely admit that, to some Southerners, maintaining their slave property was very important. To others, maintaining racial subordination was important (and here, I would include many Northerners). To many Southerners being bleed dry financially to line the pockets of northern industrialists was a bad thing. To others, living in a Republic of unlimited powers was a dangerous thing. To many Southerners, living with a people who seemed willing to resort to, condone, and commit indiscriminate violence (and protect its perpetrators) to further their opposition to slavery was not a political society worth living in. All of these issues motivated Southerners collectively to varying degrees. The first two today are rightly considered dishonourable goals. The rest are, or should be entirely honorable. To individual Southerners of that period, some may have been more important than others, but collectively, they were all there, in the record for those with open minds to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
As for the battle cry to keep slaves, I will invite your attention to the comments, letters, articles, speeches of those Southern men who did make it a point to say this was a cause worth dying for, if you will permit me to search my posts and sources for a time. Unless you wish to forego being bored with my conclusions on this subject. But I can induldge you, if you desire so.
I would, if you don’t mind (perhaps in a separate thread). But the standard should not be a mention of slavery in any context, but secession as a means of defending slavery per se. If all you have are statements that merely mention slavery, then save us both the time. There is a difference between saying one endorses secession of the slaveholding states because he is tired of being milked for cash, and seceding to defend slavery per se. There is a difference between seceding to escape from anti-slavery violence and seceding in order to protect slavery per se. (I have mentioned elsewhere my opposition to abortion on demand as a means of birth control, and at the same time my opposition to bombing abortion clinics to stop THAT peculiar institution.) There is a difference between demanding that northern States comply with their constitutional obligation to return fugitives from labor, and slavery per se. A Union whose Constitution a State can nullify at will, and still retain the benefits of membership in the Union, is not a ethical Union. A Union in which a State can protect from prosecution a murderer, merely because the murderer’s politics coincide with those of the State Governor, is a dangerous Union. So, yes, if you can show me that every Southern supported secession for no reason but protecting slavery per se, by all means, lay it on me. 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
