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.
[sarcasm]I don’t know Tim, for some reason the Confederates had this crazy notion that the North might not let them go peacefully. Where they got that idea, I have no idea. [/sarcasm] Which other foreign countries, in your book, don’t have the right to raise an army? If Canada raises an army, does that give the US justification to invade Canada (Psst, don’t look now, but I believe the Canadians have done just that, better dust off War Plan Crimson).
Come on, John. Drop the sarcasm and the constant attempts to avoid admitting how aggressive and warlike the Confederacy was in 1861.
They had, long before they attacked Ft. Sumter, seized nine Federal forts. They had grabbed literally millions of dollars worth of Federal facilites, large amounts of equipment (military and non-military), seized $600,000 of specie at New Orleans and more elsewhere. They used armed force against Federal employees and soldiers -- who did nothing to provoke them or resist them. The Confederacy besieged two other Federal posts, threatening to assault both of them, attempting to starve the garrison of Sumter into submission, fired on US flag vessels at Charleston, and finally decided that Sumter was a better place to start the war than Ft. Pickens. So they assaulted it, firing more than 3,000 rounds of artillery into it, attempting to kill Federal troops.
In those months, the Federal government did exactly nothing to them. Lincoln and Buchanan did not ask for a single soldier, or any additional military funding. But the Confederates authorized an army of 100,000 Volunteers and a Regular Army of another 10,000 men -- at a time when the entire Federal Army was 16,000 men, and 7/8ths of them were west of the Mississippi. Some 30,000 men were already called up in early April -- and still the Union had not raised a single additional man.
Throw into this that the Confederate leader and many others in power there believed they could not succeed if the Upper South did not join them. Upper South secessionists -- such as the Fire-Eater Richard Pryor -- were urging the Confederates to "Strike a blow!" so that they could bring their states out. So the Confederacy made a deliberate. cold-blooded calculation and started a war, attacking the US, in the belief and hope the Upper South would join them, among other things.
The major feeling in the North in late March and early April was that there would be no war and a peaceful solution would be worked out -- not isolated newspaper articles, but the results of a study of hundreds of newspaper articles I saw years ago. Yet you assure us the "the Confederates had this crazy notion that the North might not let them go peacefully". Unless you really think they were crazy, your sarcasm is badly misplaced. Any objective examination of the facts shows the Confederates preparing for war and the Federal government doing nothing to prepare for war. I believe you need to be more honest with yourself here. At a minimum, you need to begin admitting what Confederates actually did to start the war.
Neil, I was unaware of the 1989 incident, but the US maintained war plans for possible contingencies in the 1930's, some more far-fetched than others. Plan Orange (a war with japan) ended up happening. Green (Mexico) was less likely. Plan Red (Great Britain, with a associated plan called Crimson for Canada) was really unlikely, but not absolutely ludicrous. Since the US has only two neighbors, maintaining war plans in the event of war with them was not unreasonable.
Thank you for your service to the country.
John, when the plans were first drawn up (1920), the most likely opponent in a new war actually was Great Britain and it looked like it would happen within 5 years. As a subcase of that, it was generally assumed a war with Britain likely meant a war with Japan, a British ally.
After WWI, the US and Britain were engaged in a major naval arms race. Congress had passed a building plan in 1916 with the avowed goal of making the US fleet 2nd to none, and they continued it after the war ended. This continued up to the Washington Naval Treaty in 1922, with both sides straining to build more and larger battlefleets. As part of that deal, major warships were severely cut back, many scrapped in the yards when up to 80% complete, and a few converted (like Lexington and Saratoga) to other use. The US made the British jetison their alliance with Japan to get the treaty done. Many senior US Admirals continued to think of Great Britain as the main enemy right up into the 1930s.
Other plans drawn up included Plan Blue (France), Plan Green (Italy) and Plan Black (Germany). Since Germany was knocked flat, Plan Black remained a very slim folder until Hitler rose to power. I assume there were a few more I might be unaware of, but it is generally expected that the military should be "thinking the unthinkable" about wars in the future.
I have a relative who told me once he had briefly worked on a study of an invasion of a nation in the Middle East (and not one we have ever invaded), circa 1970s. Probably just an operational study at a low level to improve skills, since he was never assigned to any real war-planning I am aware of and would have been in Germany at the time in an armored infantry unit. But I would think there is at least a skeleton plan sitting around in the files for an operation in just about any part of the world, up-to-date or not. It would be unsettling to think there was none.
but it is generally expected that the military should be "thinking the unthinkable" about wars in the future.
All countries with a respectable military have a goodly number of policy wonks working on "what ifs."
If we had to invade Canada, how would we do it? As mentioned, excercising the minds, evaluating readiness, "thinking the unthinkable." Can you imagine the hubbub with a half-hundred promotion-hungry colonels arguing about how best to invade Canada and under what circumstances it might be justified? While across the hall there is an equal number arguing about Venezuela, and on and on -- looking in a mirror at your image in a mirror.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice Putting an extra 15% tariff on goods from the North automatically raises the cost to Southern consumers. It is unlikely that Northern manufacturers will be able to just drop all that margin. It is likely that prices to Southerners go UP, not down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
This is what prompted the Econ 101 quote. This is true only if the North is the only supplier of commodities consumed in the South. For commodities for which there are comparable European-made substitutes (e.g. iron, wool manufactures, cotton manufacturers), you are simply dead wrong.
No, John. That is simply not how economics works. Governments frequently act on just such thoughts and mess up.
Essentially what you are saying here is that European goods are fairly priced and Northern goods are not. You are also saying that European supply is sufficient to make up for the loss of all Northern supply if freed from the tariff protection allowed Northern goods. But you offer no actual data to support your argument.
I don't actually know what the specific tariff rate was on manufactured cotton or woolen goods in 1860 -- do you? I do know the rates in the Tariff of 1857 declined over time, that there were discounts for being carried in US flag ships, and that the Confederate rate was scheduled to be 15% in 1861 (Starting August 31, IIRR) I have heard that the average US rate collected across all goods in 1860 was 18%.
One thing that means is that the total difference between Confederate and US rates on these goods might be 18%-15% = 3% or less, maybe 1.2% reduction if the 10% (?) ship discount vanishes. Do you really think that is going to send Confederate consumer prices down? Or do you think European prices will simply stay about the same?
Northern manufacturers might lower prices because of this new tariff -- but what makes you think they will lower it to offset the new 15% tariff completely? What makes you think they would be able to do so?
Do you know what the relative prices of similar-quality products were in 1860? Assuming the Northern manufacturers really did need some or all of that protection (i.e., their cost-of-production was higher than Europeans) to compete, end price to Southern consumers (Northern price plus new tariff) might be higher, and the price of European goods might rise because of weaker competition.
Unless and until you do the detail work here, you really have no idea what the impact of the change will be -- yet you assure us only one answer is possible. That is not believable, but many politicians with a vision do practice economics that way.
Your understanding of international economics continues to amaze me. Southern consumers paying less post-secession does NOT rely on Northerners cutting their prices (although it probably would have that effect, desirable from the Southern perspective and undesirable from the Northern).
Nope. If Northerners do not cut prices, their goods have just become 15% more expensive to the Southern consumer. European goods have just become much more affordable, so they won't cut prices in all likelihood. If no one cuts prices, -- and some real prices have actually gone up because of the new Southern tariff -- please explain how end prices to Southern consumers go down at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
You continue to act as if the Northern producers of Southern consumption items were the only suppliers in the world. That is demonstrably not true.
Nope, not me. I keep talking about the competition in realistic terms of supply and demand and pricing.
[quote=JohnTaylor]If it were, there would be no need for protective tariffs, since there would have been no foreign competition against whom Northern manufacturers needed protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
And the pre-tariff prices for foreign-made competitive products had to be lower than the prices of comparable Northern-made products, if that were not the case, protective tariffs would have been unnecessary.
"Had to be"?
Have any figures to show us? How about the comparative prices of similar goods, US vs. European, quoted for sale at Charleston, Mobile, New Orleans in 1860? Are they priced the same, higher, or lower? Any idea? Any data? Or do you just want it to be the way you want it to be, no matter what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
If foreign-made commodity cost more (pre-tariff) than the US-made product, nobody would buy a foreign-made commodity that cost more.
No? Happens all the time. There is a buyer for everything and anything if the price is right. For example, a *lot* of what we are talking about here would be intended for those millions of slaves working in the South. I have to assume those deals usually were for low-quality cloth goods, since I don't think plantation owners were buying prime stuff for field hands.
But some things are not simply based on cost-of-production. People will pay premiums (often ridiculous ones unrelated to cost-of-production) for exclusive, prestigous, or fashionable items. Heck, in college I had a summer job in a button factory and the prices at that time ranged from 17 cents/gross to $6 or $7/gross. Some manufacturing, size, and material differences but the biggest difference was the profit margin. At the low end, you could lose money on a sale if you got stuck paying the shipping charge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
In the high grade wool example I used before, if the duty-free price of foreign made wool was $1.01/lb. The tariff was intended to increase the price that the domestic-made commodity can fetch, as well as cause American consumers to switch from buying foreign wool to domestically-made wool. The protective effect of a tariff is to raise prices and increase demand for domestic products (vis-à-vis foreign production).
US tariffs in 1857-60 are regarded as very close to free-trade levels -- and the lowest in the world at the time as far as we know. So low the Buchanan administration had created a financial disaster in four years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Thus, if pre-tariff foreign prices are lower than the price of the domestic product, the reduction of the tariff will make foreign-made wool cheaper than US-made wool.
Well, no. What makes US goods effectively priced higher is the new Confederate tariff on Northern goods, which never existed before. This raises the average price to Confederate consumers -- and Northern manufacturers may choose to lower their profit margins to compete in the market place as a result. Or they may decide a different marketplace provides better margins and make little or no reduction in the South.
If the goal of the Confederate tariff were to lower prices to consumers, they would have eliminated the tariff on European goods. But that was not the goal. The Confederate tariff was for the most part a revenue tariff, designed to generate cash to run the Confederate government. Overall, they were planning to collect more revenue on imported goods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Allowing secession to stand would mean that northern manufacturers would lose southern market share, and probably have to lower their prices to compete successfully in the Confederate market against European-made wool.
What you are describing is a squeze on Northern profit margins without a corresponding decrease in Southern end-consumer prices. Indeed, prices might actually go up for the consumer under this scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
And, if the differential between US and CS tariffs was wide enough, smugglers would undermine the US Morrill tariff by importing through the CS ports and smuggling into the US along a long undefended US-CS border.
That is a sword that cuts both ways: in March 1861, it is the Confederacy trying to collect tariffs along that "long undefended US-CS border." If Southerners can save 10-15% by not paying the Confederate tariff on Northern manufactutred goods, what is it you think they will be doing? Smuggling, perhaps?
This is consistent with normal policy for those arguing for secession/the South: always ignore/avoid the details of the Confederacy side and present a rosy view, scowl and snarl at the Union side. It is not credible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Northerners at the time recognized this (the New York Post article I provided), even if you refuse to.
John, what you presented was an editorial in an opposition paper chortling at a Republican problem with some hypothetical speculation. Sure enough, it would have been a problem if things worked out that way, but it was not the only way to handle the situation.
I feel way out of my depth here, but I thought the following article might be considered in your current debate.
This is an article from the Staunton Spectator, January 22, 1861, p. 2, c. 3. It speaks about concern about new taxes, etc., that will be imposed on the Southern people as a result of secession. Tell me what you both think.
__________________ "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
Tim, the Confederate government did not maintain any troops until after President Lincoln inaugural address, in which he declared "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." The clear implication of that statement is that there would be an invasion in order to possess the forts and collect the tariff. For the Confederate Government to do nothing in the face of that overt threat would have been grossly negligent. The Confederate government responded on March 6th by authorizing a 10,000 man Confederate Regular Army and authorizing the President to accept 100,000 volunteers.
As for the acts of violence, Twiggs men in Texas marched out with their arms. No one was attacked. In Louisiana, the State had take control of the military stores in the country and receipts given to the caretakers of that property. Much the same happened in various other seceding States. Nobody was killed. Gov. Moore's acts in this case were a response to the Federal actions in Charleston. Moving the garrison of Moultrie to Sumter had broken the agreement with the people of South Carolina to make no change in affairs in Charleston until some settlement had been reached between the government of South Craoina and the US Government. The people of South Carolina had agreed to not molest the Moultrie garrison because they were so vulnerable to attack from the land in Moultrie. Their very vulnerability was the best guarantee of their safety. (Analogous to the situation between the US and the Soviet nuclear weapons and populations in the Cold War: vulnerability lessens the likelihood of acting provocatively) Once the garrison moved to Sumter, they were no longer vulnerable, and thus became a menace. By violating this agreement, the officers of the Federal Government had shown that agreements with the Federal Government could be dangerous subterfuges, and to best protect the people was to have the property out of Federal hands.
Sumter had been deeded to the US Government for the purpose of protecting Charleston. Once it no longer fulfilled that function, and indeed became a menace to Charleston, the people of South Carolina had a legitimate right to demand the return of the land un which it was situated.
Certainly there were people who felt that striking a blow would precipitate the crisis which would make straddling the fence and trying to patch up the Union impossible, and thus cause Virginia (etc.) to join the Confederacy.
At the same time, Lincoln undoubtedly hoped that precipitating the crisis at that particular time would cause the upper South to stay with the Union (Virginia had voted against secession on April 4th). Allowing Sumter to be evacuated would make it much more difficult to make the South appear to be in the wrong later on, so he could not allow that to happen.
More to the point of this thread, Lincoln felt that letting the South go would seriously damage northern industry, and undermine Federal revenues, and thus, could not be allowed to stand, too much money was at stake.
And the war came...
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, the Confederate government did not maintain any troops until after President Lincoln inaugural address, in which he declared "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." The clear implication of that statement is that there would be an invasion in order to possess the forts and collect the tariff.
Your pardon, but let us look at this rationally. The Confederate states had seized property that did not belong to them through the use of force. Now you are saying that the recovery of those stolen objects is "an invasion". Once again, be more honest with yourself and acknowledge the prior violations by the Confederates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
For the Confederate Government to do nothing in the face of that overt threat would have been grossly negligent.
Again, be more objective here. Seizure of the property, armed threats, theft of funds, etc. were all committed by the Confederacy before this. Where is your outrage at their actions? The "neglect" you are talking about is that of a thief not posting a guard when the posse is headed his way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
The Confederate government responded on March 6th by authorizing a 10,000 man Confederate Regular Army and authorizing the President to accept 100,000 volunteers.
Yes, I have already told you that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
As for the acts of violence, Twiggs men in Texas marched out with their arms. No one was attacked.
Come on, now, John. You obviously are intelligent and well-informed, so it is clear you are dissembling here. The Texans surrounded the barracks with large numbers of armed men and occupied some parts of the post at San Antonio; short of firing upon them, there was no choice open to the Federals. The Federals were then forced to leave behind most of their equipment and withdraw to the coast (instead of simply heading north as would have been quicker and more efficient), handing over large amounts of property and equipment to the Texans. Then, of course, Jefferson Davis ordered the violation of the agreement when he also ordered the attack on Ft. Sumter, commissioning Earl Van Dorn to carry it out and sending him back to Texas. Some 1100 US Regulars were interned as they tried to peacefully carry out the agreement that had been forced upon them. The last of them was finally exchanged in late 1863, the Confederacy having often refused to exchanges for them in the early days of the war.
Were there any shots fired, was anyone killed in San Antonio in February? No, the weapon was merely armed intimidation of men peacefully carrying out their duty of protecting Texas from marauders. But is this clearly an aggressive, provocative, and illegal act: yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
In Louisiana, the State had take control of the military stores in the country and receipts given to the caretakers of that property.
Again, be more forthright with yourself. It is surely nice that the robber gives you a receipt, but it still remains robbery. The US forces in the barracks protested; so did the Arsenal people, including William T. Sherman in his related capacity. I think the 700 armed men the governor sent to seize the property proves that this was not an act of law, but an illegal seizure.
The state of Louisiana has no ownership rights in US property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Much the same happened in various other seceding States. Nobody was killed.
Yes, indeed, other states illegally seized Federal property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Gov. Moore's acts in this case were a response to the Federal actions in Charleston. Moving the garrison of Moultrie to Sumter had broken the agreement with the people of South Carolina to make no change in affairs in Charleston until some settlement had been reached between the government of South Craoina and the US Government. The people of South Carolina had agreed to not molest the Moultrie garrison because they were so vulnerable to attack from the land in Moultrie. Their very vulnerability was the best guarantee of their safety. (Analogous to the situation between the US and the Soviet nuclear weapons and populations in the Cold War: vulnerability lessens the likelihood of acting provocatively) Once the garrison moved to Sumter, they were no longer vulnerable, and thus became a menace. By violating this agreement, the officers of the Federal Government had shown that agreements with the Federal Government could be dangerous subterfuges, and to best protect the people was to have the property out of Federal hands.
More examples of how to twist things about and never acknowledge secessionists ever acted badly.
Your analogy is clearly flawed. Ft. Moultrie was essentially indefensible from the land side, with one of the city streets running through the fort and nearby sand dunes (which should have been constantly removed over the years but had been neglected) high enough to allow snipers to fire over the walls.
The Cold War standoff between sides was based on the MAD doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction: if we blow them up, they blow us up. That does not exist in Charleston harbor in 1860. There it is more like: we kill the Federals, then we bury them. In reality, any analogy to your Cold War situation would have to put the Federals in a situation of strength -- such as occupying Ft. Sumter.
You also, of course, skip over the fact that Ft. Sumter was still vulnerable -- just not as vulnerable as Ft. Moultrie. No fort isolated in the middle of a harbor can long stand without relief. It can be starved out by blockade (as the Confederates immediately implemented one). It can be reduced by attack (as Beauregard was to prove in April). This is particularly true of a post like Sumter: not yet completed, inadequately provisioned, and garrisoned by a fraction of the intended force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Sumter had been deeded to the US Government for the purpose of protecting Charleston. Once it no longer fulfilled that function, and indeed became a menace to Charleston, the people of South Carolina had a legitimate right to demand the return of the land un which it was situated.
Nope. Not by use of threats and force they didn't. Not by violent assault. They certainly had the right to ask for terms to reacquire it -- and the Federal government had a right to say no and keep their property, just as they did with all the other forts, postal facilites, customs houses, payrolls, funds, boats, ships, and other equipment the Federal government owned and the seceding states seized illegally.
While we are at it, you do realize that their was no land there when SC "ceded" it? That the island where Ft. Sumter stands was merely a shallow spot in the water, and that it was built up largely on a base of granite imported from New England? That this was owned by the United States of America in common -- and never by SC?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Certainly there were people who felt that striking a blow would precipitate the crisis which would make straddling the fence and trying to patch up the Union impossible, and thus cause Virginia (etc.) to join the Confederacy.
And among those people were Jefferson Davis and most of his Cabinet, who actually made the decision to start the war. Cause and effect, perhaps? Aggressors who acted aggressively to get what they wanted? Why ignore their responsibility and blame Lincoln for reacting to what they did? Why be so one-sided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
At the same time, Lincoln undoubtedly hoped that precipitating the crisis at that particular time would cause the upper South to stay with the Union (Virginia had voted against secession on April 4th).
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. His guidance was to maintain the Union and enforce the laws. The secessionists wanted to be out of the Union and not subject to the laws.
That Lincoln saw little purpose in simply being tromped on, giving the secessionists whatever they demanded is clear. You seem to find any instance of the US standing up for itself and its rights personally offensive -- just as the Fire-Eaters and secessionists did. Why? How is it that the United States of America is reduced to the status of a non-entity and must endure what any nation could only view as intolerable insult without protest? Please explain yourself in objective terms, not by repeating the rhetoric of secessionist propaganda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Allowing Sumter to be evacuated would make it much more difficult to make the South appear to be in the wrong later on, so he could not allow that to happen.
How so? The secessionists were right or they were wrong or they were somewhere in the middle. That they were acting illegally and aggressively is merely fact, totally apart form the constitutional issue of secession, and just as true under their own laws as under Federal law. Withdrawing from Sumter under threat -- the real situation -- certainly has practical implications but it does not change the moral or legal aspects of what the secessionist were doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
More to the point of this thread, Lincoln felt that letting the South go would seriously damage northern industry, and undermine Federal revenues, and thus, could not be allowed to stand, too much money was at stake.
Once again, stating your opinion as a fact does not make it one.
The damage and disruption potential is obvious enough. Heck, the secessionists crowed over it gleefully, believing that the damage they were doing would let them get their way -- just as some were foolish enough to believe that King Cotton ruled the world. When they decided to threaten and eventually to hold back funds owed legally to northern firms by private citizens, they deliberately chose to antagonize and pressure those who were their natural allies. They did the same by seizing everything they could lay hands on, imposing new tariffs on Northern merchants (yes, the tariffs are new, since they never existed before), seizing common funds, abrogating long-standing agreements, etc. etc.
That Lincoln wanted to put a stop to such abusive behavior is obvious. That the secessionists wished to continue to act as such bullies is also obvious: witness the sieges of Ft. Sumter and Ft. Pickens, the internment of Federal troops only guilty of following the terms of their agreement with Texas by withdrawing, and all the other varied threats and actions of the Confederacy.
Again, we see the pattern of the apologists for secession. Blame the Union for reacting to Southern aggression. Never look objectively at what the secessionists actually did to cause the reaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
And the war came...
Yes, the War of Southern Aggression certainly did.
I feel way out of my depth here, but I thought the following article might be considered in your current debate.
This is an article from the Staunton Spectator, January 22, 1861, p. 2, c. 3. It speaks about concern about new taxes, etc., that will be imposed on the Southern people as a result of secession. Tell me what you both think.
There were many different opinions about the situation at the time. This is one of them. The seceding states were trying to convince Virginia in early 1861 that she would become the Confederate industrial giant, sheltered against Northern competition by the new tariff on imported goods -- sort of the New England states moved below the Mason-Dixon line. Naturally enough, secessionist propaganda spoke only of how wonderful things would be out of the Union -- and not all Southerners believed them.
This man is pointing out a few of the overlooked costs the new Confederacy would be assuming, such as the $3.5 million in postal system costs in the Southern states alone, and the change in the nature of taxation to provide for the new Confederacy. When you realize the 1860 tariff had raised about $53 million for the US as a whole, and that projections for the May 1861 tariffs of the Confederacy seem to indicate a total of about $25-34 million might be generated in peacetime, you begin to understand what this guy is talking about.
He sees additional taxes for the common man in the South, with no way to avoid them -- as you might with tariffs on foreign goods. He foresees economic destruction from a possible war. He foresees enormous taxes necessary to deal with the seacoasts and frontiers being created. He speaks of other problems, and shows much of the doubt that was felt of the wisdom of the course being forced upon the people.
Personally, I feel there is some truth to the following part of his address. I think secession was largely led by a small group of self-interest people, and not generally in the interest of the common people of the seceding states. The politicians of that day failed the country, or we would never have come to such a pass. They let the extremists get too much power, or this all would have been handled in better fashion, there would have been no secession attempt, and no war. But in saying that, it is also clear that the radical Fire-Eaters in the South actually attained enough power to cause it, and that the radical Abolitionists in the North never did quite get there before 1861.
=====
Strong intimations have been thrown out through the public press, that a treasonable scheme has been concocted at Washington to overthrow the Federal Government. It is charged that Senators, and others, who have sworn to support the Constitution, have conspired to subvert it. Information which I have received from other sources, which I believe to be reliable, tend to confirm these intimations, and induce the belief that a provisional government for the South, has already been agreed on, and that its great seal has been provided, a name adopted, and every arrangement made to put it into operation, on or before the 4th of March. The servants of the people have thus assumed to be their masters, and usurped the power which, occording to our bill of rights, resides only with the people.
=====
That the above was already in progress as he spoke is undoubted. The meeting was already called, the representatives preparing to go. Specific details might or might not be exact -- I don't know if they had already agreed on the great seal or not -- but clearly it was a done deal as much as such things ever are.
There were many different opinions about the situation at the time. This is one of them. The seceding states were trying to convince Virginia in early 1861 that she would become the Confederate industrial giant, sheltered against Northern competition by the new tariff on imported goods -- sort of the New England states moved below the Mason-Dixon line. Naturally enough, secessionist propaganda spoke only of how wonderful things would be out of the Union -- and not all Southerners believed them.
This man is pointing out a few of the overlooked costs the new Confederacy would be assuming, such as the $3.5 million in postal system costs in the Southern states alone, and the change in the nature of taxation to provide for the new Confederacy. When you realize the 1860 tariff had raised about $53 million for the US as a whole, and that projections for the May 1861 tariffs of the Confederacy seem to indicate a total of about $25-34 million might be generated in peacetime, you begin to understand what this guy is talking about.
The Confederacy comprised about 30% (9 million) of the population of the former United States.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
