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.
Who paid the actual tariffs? Was it not those who imported goods from outside the US?
Neil, as a modern example, if the US puts a $10,000 tariff on imported cars, and then Ford jacks up they price $9,000 to take advantage of the new increased cost of imported cars, you are the one paying the $9,000, but that is never going to show up on a government ledger anywhere. It is merely a transfer of $9,000 additional dollars from you, the consumer, to the producer, because the producer was able to use the police power to the state to "protect" his industry. No tariffs would be involved in this transaction, but the transfer of cash is very real, nevertheless.
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
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.
You seem to be admitting that it was about money here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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.
The interview occurred in April, before Sumter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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 … are threatening not to pay honest debts to Northern merchants and already holding back funds.
Looks like talking to the representatives of the seceding States would have been a wise move. Refusing the talk about the issue is a poor negotiating technique, but it certainly puts the blame for ensuing unpleasantness squarely on the party that refuses to talk.[
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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.
You DO seem to be admitting that it was about money. Because the US government was under financial distress (which I would suggest was a loss of confidence in a US without its cash cow, but that is another story), the Federal government has a right to invade the seceding States, overthrow their elected governments. Just out of curiosity, which other countries does the US have the right to invade and overthrow their governments if the US is having a hard time selling T-bills? Could you provide us a list, so we could warn them off?[/quote]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. [/quote]But Lincoln’s response wasn’t “I’m in favour of government of the people, by the people and for the people, “ of even, the Union is such a good deal, why would one wish to leave it. Instead, President Lincoln said, “If I let the Southern States go, I will have trouble raising cash.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
what do you mean by "self-determination"?
I will let the men of the day speak for themselves. The SC Address (drafted by Rhett) wrote of “one great principle, self-government, and self-taxation the criterion of self-government.” The SC Declaration (Memminger’s) wrote of defending, “the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted.” William Porcher Miles wrote, in a February 1860 letter: "We want, I repeat, self-government and free trade. We should scorn to be ruled by a hostile section who openly avows their determination to prevent our regaining the political equality we have lost, and who are perverting the Government in every way to the purposes of their own sectional aggrandizement; and every enlightened political economist (outside of the Northern manufacturing States of this Union) would tell you that, to a cotton-growing people, Free Trade would be the boon of boons. The question remains: Will the South follow the example of our forefathers, and throw off the yoke of an oppressive government?"
Thomas M. Hanckel, in a speech in May 1860, called “the liberty of self-government … the most precious of all liberties." (Charleston Mercury, May 24th 1860, pg. 4, col. 3)
Mr. Sheffey, in the Virginia Convention on February 27th, said, “All the theory of our Government forbids the exercise of force by the general Government against the States. We recognize no high, divine power, no divine right in any power to govern us. The power of self-government is an inherent power in the people themselves. Our government is an agency—a representative government. Government can never rise above its creator.” (Virginia Convention, vol. I, pg. 241.)
Mr. Staples, on April 16th, 1861, said, “The Revolutionary war was waged in the defence of the great principle of self-government, and in the maintenance of the doctrines, that among the rights with which the Creator has endowed us "are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its power in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." In support of these time-honored principles, in defence of which the revolutionary patriots poured out their blood like water, I announced to my constituents, when I was a candidate for a seat in this body, that while I cordially endorsed the reasons that impelled the seceded States to dissolve their connection with the Federal Government; yet I doubted the propriety of their course, and I hesitated not to declare that sound policy dictated a united movement on the part of all the Southern States, in order to procure from the Northern people an acknowledgment of our absolute equality in this government and of all the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. At the same time I declared my unalterable opposition to any attempt on the part of the Federal Government to coerce any of the seceded States back into the Union as in direct violation of the fundamental principles of the government and as in conflict with the acknowledged right of every people to regulate their own institutions in their own way.” (Virginia Convention, vol. IV, pg. 59-60.)
Sounds like they had a pretty good grasp on the subject. Just to be clear, self-determination, or self-government, would mean that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. When a government ceases to fulfil the purposes for which it was created, the people have the right to withdraw that consent, and establish new governments that will fulfil the purpose. In a Federal system, in which the peoples of the constituent States created the central government, and delegated to it specific, limited powers, self-determination means that the creators of the Federal government (the people of the States) have the right, when the political society into which they entered fails to fulfil the purposes for which it was created, to recall their delegated powers and delegate them elsewhere to suit their purposes. 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
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.And at which battle did Southern leaders shout, “Men, for your slaves!”?
The details of this assume, of course, that Americans never compete with one another, and that Europeans are unwilling to cut their own price to try to compete. It also leaves out any allowance for innovation to cut costs. That is not a very real-world case.
If you want to say that tariffs were often voted in for such reasons, that's fine -- they were. But the real economic world usually does not match the vision of politicians, political economists, and the public. This iron-clad guarantee you give us on how pricing will work will only hold true if nothing else changes -- and something else always does.
Your vision also ignores many things. The North and West had a vibrant export business as well, although cotton was a larger one (57% in 1860). But in the late 1850s Northern exports took a knock in the head with the worldwide Panic of 1857 (which had many causes, including the sinking of a US ship carrying 15 tons of gold from California and the return of Russian products to the markets following the Crimean War) and had just begun to recover when the election of 1860 came along.
Neil, as a modern example, if the US puts a $10,000 tariff on imported cars, and then Ford jacks up they price $9,000 to take advantage of the new increased cost of imported cars, you are the one paying the $9,000, but that is never going to show up on a government ledger anywhere. It is merely a transfer of $9,000 additional dollars from you, the consumer, to the producer, because the producer was able to use the police power to the state to "protect" his industry. No tariffs would be involved in this transaction, but the transfer of cash is very real, nevertheless.
Yep. Just as when the Confederacy imposed tariffs on US goods in February of 1861, the immediate effect was to raise the prices Confederate consumers paid on goods not previously taxed. Europeans *might* decide to ship goods there for sale in the future because their rate was lowered slightly -- or they *might not*. Americans *might* decide to lower their prices there for sale in the future -- or they *might not*. But the immediate and short-term effect is merely to take money out of the pocket of the Southern consumer.
Looks like talking to the representatives of the seceding States would have been a wise move. Refusing the talk about the issue is a poor negotiating technique, but it certainly puts the blame for ensuing unpleasantness squarely on the party that refuses to talk.
I'm a bit disappointed, John Taylor, in this argument. It ignores politics, reality, and public approval -- the basis of any political party. You simply cannot negotiate with your robber. Even if he is entitled to a portion of what he stole, negotiating with him after the theft is a ludicrous proposition.
It smacks greatly of the embezzler who justifies his theft with: "They owe me." Or the armed robber: "I need it more than they do."
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
You seem to be admitting that it was about money here.
The seceding states had certainly forced a financial crisis. You do agree that they were responsible for what they did, don't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Looks like talking to the representatives of the seceding States would have been a wise move.
Or a very foolish one. I have never been sure why secessionists make such a big stink about this. Lincoln was barely in office, dealing with getting a government established, trying to get a hand on what could and could not be done in a rapidly shifting situation. Letting the Southerners cool their heels for a few days after all the secessionists abusive acts doesn't seem all that outrageous.
Since you introduced this, when did they arrive in Washington and when did they leave?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Refusing the talk about the issue is a poor negotiating technique, but it certainly puts the blame for ensuing unpleasantness squarely on the party that refuses to talk.
See above. It is often an extremely powerful and useful technique, widely seen in international affairs.
Much more abusive and blameworthy is the prior use of force, the seizure of property, etc. by the secessionists -- but you really don't wish to acknowledge how they acted, do you? You keep trying to sweep it under the carpet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
You DO seem to be admitting that it was about money. Because the US government was under financial distress (which I would suggest was a loss of confidence in a US without its cash cow, but that is another story), the Federal government has a right to invade the seceding States, overthrow their elected governments.
Now you already know that this was not the case before the Confederacy chose to start the shooting. Still afraid to look directly at how the secessionists acted, I suppose -- can't bear to admit that Lincoln is reacting to their abusive behavior. How come? Why is it that you feel you must avoid all realistic and objective analysis of the timeline of events?
A financial crisis exists BECAUSE of secessionist seizures and actions. Remove their actions and this is not an immediate financial crisis. The secssionists deliberately played this card, and it turned out badly for them -- but it was not Lincoln who forced the crisis upon the nation. Maybe what you should be doing is criticizing the ineptnesss and maladroitness of those who led secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Just out of curiosity, which other countries does the US have the right to invade and overthrow their governments if the US is having a hard time selling T-bills? Could you provide us a list, so we could warn them off?
Another grandstand play having nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said. Please stop this practice.
Just to be clear, self-determination, or self-government, would mean that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. When a government ceases to fulfil the purposes for which it was created, the people have the right to withdraw that consent, and establish new governments that will fulfil the purpose. In a Federal system, in which the peoples of the constituent States created the central government, and delegated to it specific, limited powers, self-determination means that the creators of the Federal government (the people of the States) have the right, when the political society into which they entered fails to fulfil the purposes for which it was created, to recall their delegated powers and delegate them elsewhere to suit their purposes.
Not a concept that was established in 1860, at any rate. Closer to what Woodrow Wilson presented in 1918 or so, and what developed afterwards through the UN. I think some political theorist -- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, about 1859? -- was just beginning to talk in these terms in the 1850s, and I don't think his view agrees with yours exactly.
For one thing, Mill always distinguished between persuasion and coercion. Secessionist acts between December 1860 and April 1861 he would have thought of as coercion, IMHO, and coercion was never permissable in his view. Lincoln's acts look like persuasion, and might have become coercion -- but had not yet done so when the Confederacy fired 3000+ rounds of heavy artillery into Ft. Sumter.
But where in this definition of "self-determination" does it say that one state can unilaterally withdraw, terminating all agreements, using force and the threat of force, seizing common property, interning people, attacking bases, defaulting on obligations, etc. I don't see that as proper, but you do. It seems your view of the South is that they have all the "rights", but no one else has any. If that is what you mean, I disagree.
I'm a bit disappointed, John Taylor, in this argument. It ignores politics, reality, and public approval -- the basis of any political party. You simply cannot negotiate with your robber. Even if he is entitled to a portion of what he stole, negotiating with him after the theft is a ludicrous proposition.
It smacks greatly of the embezzler who justifies his theft with: "They owe me." Or the armed robber: "I need it more than they do."
Ole
Ole, the argument is bonafide for two reasons. First, some public property is not moveable, and thus must be occupied by the State authorities eventually, and can only be resolved by negotiation. The moveable Federal property was certainly a worthy item of discussion. But the Federal government, in refusing to order Anderson back to Moultrie, told every other Southern Governor not to wait for the Federal authorities to act honestly. The message of Sumter to the Southern authorities was, they must act first, and not rely on Federal honesty.
Second, the very refusal to meet with South Carolina (and later Confederate) emissaries was particularly ominous to any seceding State (and later, the Confederacy). The refusal (by both the Buchanan and the Lincoln Administrations) to recognize them as commissioners authorized to deal with the Federal government on these issues meant that the Federal government did not (and probably was never going to) recognize the independence of the seceding States and would have to use force eventually to force them back into the Union. If you read the records of the Virginia Convention, you will see moderate Unionists, over and over, torn between wishing for a chance to find some compromise to rebuild the Union, but expressing the conviction that any attempt on the part of the Federal government to coerce the seceded States would cause Virginia's secession, and asking both sides to refrain from any provocative moves. Meeting with the Commissioners would have defused a lot of the tensions. Refusing to even meet them told the South that the Federal authorities were not even willing to open any negotiations, but were going to fight against Southern independence, but were waiting for the most opportune time to start the hostilities.
If you won't even meet with duly appointed representatives, then complaining about not getting your way rings a little hollow. I believe that meeting with the Confederate Commissioners would have undermined the "coercionist" wing of the North, and made war less likely, and made successful secession more likely.
For reasons related to the topic of this thread, President Lincoln could not allow that to happen.
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
First, some public property is not moveable, and thus must be occupied by the State authorities eventually, and can only be resolved by negotiation.
How so? If the Federal government owns a building in New Orleans, why must it "be occupied by the State authorities eventually"? How about the Federal government just gets to keep the building unless they choose to sell or give it to someone else?
Also, if these are matters that can only be dealt with by negotiation, doesn't that put the secessionists in the wrong when they seized them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
The moveable Federal property was certainly a worthy item of discussion. But the Federal government, in refusing to order Anderson back to Moultrie, told every other Southern Governor not to wait for the Federal authorities to act honestly. The message of Sumter to the Southern authorities was, they must act first, and not rely on Federal honesty.
How so? Perhaps it was just like acting watchful when the highwayman rode in your direction. All that had happened is the Federal troops had remained on Federal property, moving from one position to another. No threat was issued. No weapon was fired. In fact, some US weapons were disabled.
The biggest problem seems to be that Anderson and his garrison were slightly less vulnerable at Sumter than in Ft. Moultrie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Second, the very refusal to meet with South Carolina (and later Confederate) emissaries was particularly ominous to any seceding State (and later, the Confederacy).
Why "ominous"? Because it meant the US might not simply give them whatever they wanted? Why must everything be based on caving in to secessionist demands, do you think?
[/quote]The refusal (by both the Buchanan and the Lincoln Administrations) to recognize them as commissioners authorized to deal with the Federal government on these issues meant that the Federal government did not (and probably was never going to) recognize the independence of the seceding States and would have to use force eventually to force them back into the Union.[/quote]
So it is your belief that the Federal government should have recognized these people as what, exactly? Private citizens? Representatives of a foreign power no nation in the world recognized? On what basis would they do that and why should they rush to do so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
If you read the records of the Virginia Convention, you will see moderate Unionists, over and over, torn between wishing for a chance to find some compromise to rebuild the Union, but expressing the conviction that any attempt on the part of the Federal government to coerce the seceded States would cause Virginia's secession, and asking both sides to refrain from any provocative moves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Meeting with the Commissioners would have defused a lot of the tensions.
Or exacerbated and inflamed them. Why is it you insist only one possibility existed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Refusing to even meet them told the South that the Federal authorities were not even willing to open any negotiations, but were going to fight against Southern independence, but were waiting for the most opportune time to start the hostilities.
Secessionist propagandists seem to have thought so. You think so. Other people undoubtedly thought otherwise.
But again, why would you open negotiations with someone who was acting as abusively as the secessionists were?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
If you won't even meet with duly appointed representatives, then complaining about not getting your way rings a little hollow.
What are you referring to here??????? At what point is the Federal government complaining about not getting their own way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
I believe that meeting with the Confederate Commissioners would have undermined the "coercionist" wing of the North, and made war less likely, and made successful secession more likely.
Or it might have outraged public opinion and brought war closer. In any case, it was not the duty of Buchanan or Lincoln to make "successful secession more likely". If that was anyone's duty, it was that of those seceding -- and perhaps that means they should have avoided all their aggressive and violent actions, seizing nothing, refraining from the use of force. Or do we once again see the secessionists-can-do-whatever-they-want logic here, and is it somehow improper for the rest of the nation to do anything at all that stands in their way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
For reasons related to the topic of this thread, President Lincoln could not allow that to happen.
So you think it is proper for the South to use bullying tactics, seize property, threaten and use armed force, bring on a financial crisis -- and improper for Lincoln to try to act to quell this behavior?
The refusal (by both the Buchanan and the Lincoln Administrations) to recognize them as commissioners authorized to deal with the Federal government on these issues meant that the Federal government did not (and probably was never going to) recognize the independence of the seceding States and would have to use force eventually to force them back into the Union.
John, I would think that this should have sent a very strong signal to anyone who had any common sense not to proceed any further. These "commissioners" knew Lincoln would not recognize them as emissaries from another country. That's why they made the efforts to be seen by Lincoln, so that Lincoln would reject them, as they knew he would, thereby giving them further "justification" for the eventual attack on Sumter. Those guys weren't dummies. They knew darn well what they were doing, and why, and what the outcome would be. They got what they wanted.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
