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.
And not good enough for the south: Lincoln's assurances that slavery would not be interfered with where it existed.
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
I agree with trice on this one.
It's true the South was going to allow free access all along the Mississippi...
...but these assurances weren't enough for the North-
Actually, no, the South wasn't going to allow free access all along the Mississippi. They had already voted for tariffs and restrictions on existing trade along that border while they were down in Montgomery forming their government. Anyone above the NC-TN-AR line was already affected by them in March 1861.
It is easy to make bold pronouncements, but no one will trust you when they see you are already acting against what you say. That is how the secessionists did things in early 1861. Lots of double-speak.
Actually, no, the South wasn't going to allow free access all along the Mississippi. They had already voted for tariffs and restrictions on existing trade along that border while they were down in Montgomery forming their government. Anyone above the NC-TN-AR line was already affected by them in March 1861.
It is easy to make bold pronouncements, but no one will trust you when they see you are already acting against what you say. That is how the secessionists did things in early 1861. Lots of double-speak.
Regards,
Tim
Tim, can you provide a case from the record of the time, between February 25th and April 12th 1861, in which a vessel bound for a port within the United States, up the Mississippi (or down the river from the US) that paid the Confederate tariff?
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
Tim, can you provide a case from the record of the time, between February 25th and April 12th 1861, in which a vessel bound for a port within the United States, up the Mississippi (or down the river from the US) that paid the Confederate tariff?
Nope. I have no idea if there was one or not. I merely point out that the Confederacy was enacting laws to do it. Since they were barely being organized at this point and their government was scarcely established, it would be reasonable they just had not gotten around to it yet. The move of the government to Richmond would certainly have delayed implementation of many things, and might have included the final regulations.
However, it was clearly their intent and purpose to do so. They passed their tariff law. Their Constitution prohibits the slave trade with anyone outside the Confederacy: TN, VA, NC, MD, DE, MO, AR, KY are all affected immediately.
It is also clear that, once LA seized the Customs facilites at New Orleans and began collecting and keeping the revenue, the Union states were being charged a tariff on imported goods from which they got no benefit -- the money was used to fund the Confederacy. Sounds vaguely like taxation without representation, too. Or theft.
I am aware the restriction on the slave trade had many points behind it. One of them was that the Upper South, particularly VA, was making money selling slaves to the Deep South. The Confederacy knew that they had just cut this off, legally. They intended to use it as a political lever to get them to secede, among other things. (This was probably stupid in the long-term, since the deep South had the driving demand for new slaves while the Upper South had the surplus supply.)
But the clear and unmistakable point, John, is that no matter what pronouncements and bold words were uttered, the Confederacy had already taken action to restrict trade with the rest of the Union. Any tariff on goods moving through the Confederate states to the Union was a new tax, not accruing to the people of the Union but to the Confederacy solely. We are looking at the difference between words and deeds -- and the word of the Confederacy was belied by their actions here.
Nope. I have no idea if there was one or not. I merely point out that the Confederacy was enacting laws to do it.
Au contraire, mon ami.
On January 26th, 1861, immediately after passing the ordinance of secession, “the people of the State of Louisiana recognized the right of free navigation of the Mississippi river and its tributaries by all friendly States bordering thereon. And we also recognize the right of egress and ingress of the mouth of the Mississippi by all friendly States and powers; and we do hereby declare our willingness to enter into any stipulation to guarantee the exercise of said rights.” (Official Journal of the Proceedings of the Convention of the State of Louisiana, (New Orleans, J. G. Nixon, 1861), pg. 18.)
On February 22nd Congress passed, and on the 25th, President Davis signed, a law granting free navigation on the Mississippi. (Journals of the Confederate Congress, vol. 1, pg. 76)
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
However, it was clearly their intent and purpose to do so. They passed their tariff law. Their Constitution prohibits the slave trade with anyone outside the Confederacy: TN, VA, NC, MD, DE, MO, AR, KY are all affected immediately.
Wrong again. "Sec. 9. (1) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of theUnited States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same."
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
It is also clear that, once LA seized the Customs facilites at New Orleans and began collecting and keeping the revenue, the Union states were being charged a tariff on imported goods from which they got no benefit -- the money was used to fund the Confederacy. Sounds vaguely like taxation without representation, too. Or theft.
Surely you are not suggesting that foreign countries have no right to impose tariffs on imported goods without the approval of the United States.
If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that economic exploitation is a reason for anger, I would agree. What one does about that anger matters. If the old Northwest States really wanted to have the Southern market, they could join the Confederacy, and leave Pennsylvania and New England protectionists to their own tariff laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
I am aware the restriction on the slave trade had many points behind it. One of them was that the Upper South, particularly VA, was making money selling slaves to the Deep South. The Confederacy knew that they had just cut this off, legally. They intended to use it as a political lever to get them to secede, among other things. (This was probably stupid in the long-term, since the deep South had the driving demand for new slaves while the Upper South had the surplus supply.)
The Confederacy specifically left open the importation of slaves from the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
But the clear and unmistakable point, John, is that no matter what pronouncements and bold words were uttered, the Confederacy had already taken action to restrict trade with the rest of the Union. Any tariff on goods moving through the Confederate states to the Union was a new tax, not accruing to the people of the Union but to the Confederacy solely. We are looking at the difference between words and deeds -- and the word of the Confederacy was belied by their actions here.
Your opinions ought to have some basis in fact. When the record contradicts the record, it is time to re-examine your opinions. Or admit they are myths that you wish to retain, in spite of the record.
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
“the people of the State of Louisiana recognized the right of free navigation of the Mississippi river and its tributaries by all friendly States bordering thereon. And we also recognize the right of egress and ingress of the mouth of the Mississippi by all friendly States and powers; and we do hereby declare our willingness to enter into any stipulation to guarantee the exercise of said rights.”
Emphasis mine. That is, "join our side or lose the Mississippi outlet to the world."
Quote:
If the old Northwest States really wanted to have the Southern market, they could join the Confederacy, and leave Pennsylvania and New England protectionists to their own tariff laws.
The Northwest states needed the river for export. They had access to Memphis and St. Louis on the river and by rail for domestic trade. What was threatened was the need of the Northwest to use of the river. The tenuous prospect of cheaper goods coming up the river was not enough to outweigh the prospect of an impeded outflow of farm product.
The Northwest of the time was predominantly agrarian, there wasn't a great deal of need for imported products. Cotton, wool, sugar, salt, tools, and a bit of cash in exchange for their excess were the primary needs. With that and hard labor, the people could survive without foreign imports. Flour, fruit, vegetables and livestock were grown or available locally for neighborly swapping. But that river gave them access to the cash money they needed for schoolbooks, churches, teacher's, local government, et al. To improve, buy the neighbor's farm, send their kids to college, paint the barn, secure their twilight years, set up their children for a better life.... Their dream, the American dream, relied on that river. Promises would not be good enough.
What you seem to be overlooking, John, is the attitude that "we have a good, cooperative, mutually profitable thing going here -- why on earth are you trying to mess it up?" I think you have misread the Northwest.
Respectful 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
Emphasis mine. That is, "join our side or lose the Mississippi outlet to the world."
Ole, neither the Louisiana resolution nor the Confederate law says that. The Old Northwest could have politically joined the Confederacy, but the use of the river does not require it. It simply says don't be unfriendly, and the free and unrestricted use of the river is yours. Ironically, the river was open until President Lincoln closed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
The Northwest states needed the river for export. They had access to Memphis and St. Louis on the river and by rail for domestic trade. What was threatened was the need of the Northwest to use of the river. The tenuous prospect of cheaper goods coming up the river was not enough to outweigh the prospect of an impeded outflow of farm product.
The Northwest of the time was predominantly agrarian, there wasn't a great deal of need for imported products. Cotton, wool, sugar, salt, tools, and a bit of cash in exchange for their excess were the primary needs. With that and hard labor, the people could survive without foreign imports. Flour, fruit, vegetables and livestock were grown or available locally for neighborly swapping. But that river gave them access to the cash money they needed for schoolbooks, churches, teacher's, local government, et al. To improve, buy the neighbor's farm, send their kids to college, paint the barn, secure their twilight years, set up their children for a better life.... Their dream, the American dream, relied on that river.
But they had that already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
Promises would not be good enough.
What about the St. Lawrence River, as an example. If Canada closes off trade on the St. Lawrence, would that justify the US in invading Canada? Doesn't that sound a little weak as a reason for going to war?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
What you seem to be overlooking, John, is the attitude that "we have a good, cooperative, mutually profitable thing going here -- why on earth are you trying to mess it up?" I think you have misread the Northwest.
I'm sure southerners were asking exactly that. Why would Northerners want to mess up the US by tolerating radical Abolitionists; by agitating over an issue over which they had no control and thus, for which they bore no responsibility; by providing aid and protection to anti-slavery murderers; by passing laws designed to thwart a provision of the US Constitution; and passing tariff laws to make the South the cash cow for the Union. In the end, the majority of Southerners probably just felt that giving the North their freedom to agitate, legislate, and tax as they saw fit was the best for both parties.
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
Ole, neither the Louisiana resolution nor the Confederate law says that. The Old Northwest could have politically joined the Confederacy, but the use of the river does not require it. It simply says don't be unfriendly, and the free and unrestricted use of the river is yours. Ironically, the river was open until President Lincoln closed it.
They didn't write it that way, but that's essentially what they meant or, at least, the way it was interpreted. And please expand on how Lincoln closed it.
Quote:
But they had that already.
And a closed river would be viewed as taking it away.
Quote:
What about the St. Lawrence River, as an example. If Canada closes off trade on the St. Lawrence, would that justify the US in invading Canada? Doesn't that sound a little weak as a reason for going to war?
How much US trade used the St. Lawrence? That's comparing a raisin to a pumpkin. The Mississippi carried commerce for states and territories from Montana to Pennsylvania. Would that population simply complain if one of a confederation of unfriendly states commandeered that waterway? I don't think so.
Quote:
In the end, the majority of Southerners probably just felt that giving the North their freedom to agitate, legislate, and tax as they saw fit was the best for both parties.
Again, raisins to pumpkins. The secessionist agitators played on the fears of what might happen with Lincoln's election. The factual control of the river, with its attendant "could and would" speculation was far more real.
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
Wrong again. "Sec. 9. (1) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of theUnited States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
Gee, John, you seem to have stopped short of reading the next paragraph here:
Sec. 9. (2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
Since every foreign country other than the US has already been eliminated by (1), just who do you think (2) is aimed at? Could this be a deliberate threat, already issued, against the slave states remaining in the Union? Can it be that the Confederacy was already taking action, just as I told you, and you just don't wish to see or acknowledge it? If you were in VA or MD, selling slaves to the Deep South in 1861, could you see this as anything but a threat to your livelihood? Doesn't this effectively say "Join us, or we can cut you off at any time"?
Don't spend too much time avoiding the data here. I admit I appear to be wrong on the actual prohibition in the Constitution, but the threat is unmistakable. Surely you can now admit what the Confederacy was doing here, trying to exert pressure on the Upper South to get them to secede through this, can't you?
Tim, can you provide a case from the record of the time, between February 25th and April 12th 1861, in which a vessel bound for a port within the United States, up the Mississippi (or down the river from the US) that paid the Confederate tariff?
John,
I still haven't found an instance of a ship on the Mississippi, but maybe this will help open your eyes:
From Harper's Weekly, March 30, 1861
CUSTOM-HOUSES ON THE FRONTIER.
A telegram dated Charleston, March 20, says: Measures have been taken by the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Memminger, to prevent the introduction of goods by the inland routes.
At all railway connections between the Confederate and Border States officers have been stationed to enforce the decrees and tariff regulations of the Confederate States.
Now if the Confederacy had already taken steps to enforce the regulations and laws on imports on all the RR connections across the NC-TN-AR line by March 20, 1861 I believe it is only reasonable to expect that they had done so on the biggest route of all, the Mississippi River. Do you somehow think otherwise? Please give us a define yes-or-no answer here.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
