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.
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
Sure thing. I have three relatives who graduated West Point, one still in and currently on his 2nd tour of Iraq with the 101st. All 3 went through Ranger and Airborne school, and some other stuff. All 3 can give out with colorful hints and stories of things when speaking privately.
The one who finished his 30 left as a colonel; I was at his retirement ceremony at Trophy Point back in 1999. One of his relatives at the party, also a USMA grad, was in the 10th Mountain as a captain then, but left the service in 2000 I think. I don't recall the name, though.
The colonel had been through General Staff school out in Kansas, and would occasionally tell me interesting things about wargames he'd been involved in there. Also had been through the National Industrial College down in Washington and had interesting views on the defense industry. [:^)]
The Confederacy comprised about 30% (9 million) of the population of the former United States.
So.....
...$53 million for 31 millions of people...
compared to
...$25/34 million for 9 millions of people...
...hmmmm.....how is that bad?
The $34 million was the maximum projection, assuming there was no smugling at all. The $25 million is the reasonable estimate of what it would actually generate. These numbers are largely this high because of tariffs on the import of goods that no Southerner was taxed on before (either new items on the list, or tariffs on goods they would be buying from the US that had not been taxed before) As a result, they indicate money out of the pockets of Southerners.
In addition, creating a new government requires massive initial expeditures and the establishment of a new and ongoing bureaucracy that duplicates the functions being carried out by the existing Federal government. Someone has to pay for this. It will be the Confederate citizen unless the Confederacy plans to shift costs somehow -- say by adding a transit tax on goods from the North shipped through Southern ports (which they claimed they would not do.)
In Marchof 1861, the Confederacy had already begun establishing a new bureaucracy and infrastructure along the NC-TN-AR border to collect the new tariffs. Someone has to pay the employees and build the warehouses, etc. These facilites never existed before. Extra cost.
The Confederacy has no Navy, no ships, no yards to support them. They have to either buy them or seize them. The ships and yards then have to be manned and supplied and operated. As secessionist apologists assure me, they were giving receipts for what they seized and were planning on paying a fair price for the purloined goods "sometime" down the road. Any idea when that would be, how much it would be, or who was going to pay for it? Again, the Confederate citizen one way or another.
Same story for the Army. All startup expenses need to be paid for, and the ongoing expenses. We note that the South was initially projecting an Army of 10,500 when the US Army was about 16,000: 65% of the force on a population of 30% (a large portion of whom would not be allowed to serve anyway). Proportionately, Confederate military expenses would be much higher.
Then, of course, it is reasonable to expect the Confederacy will want to fortify some part of their border with the neighbors they have just antagonized. More new expense.
It goes on and on and on like this. The economies of scale, the duplication of effort, ensure that the costs of the new Confederacy will be much higher after secession than their prior proportionate share of the US expenses. That is why the gentleman quoted at the link is pointing this out to his fellow Virginians, as well as the proposals for direct taxes on Confederate citizens to pay for them.
For any out there who believe the tariff was not a sectionally charged issue...
...I submit the following-
Morrill Tariff Votes-
................................For-Against
House (1860)..............104-64
Senate (1860)..............27-30 (counting "paired-off" votes)
Senate (1861)..............25-14
Total.........................156-108
Breakdown by region-
New England......................49- 0......(ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI)
Northeast..........................53- 2......(NY, NJ, PA)
Northwest.........................44-17......(OH, IN, IL, IA, MI, MN, WI)
Border................................7-19......(DE, MD, KY, MO)
Far West.............................2- 5......(California, Oregon)
South.................................1-65.....(11 to-be Confederate States)
Total...............................156-108 New England & Northeast...........102- 2 11 to-be Confederate States..........1-65
"Sectionally charged"? Obviously it was, as most issues of such magnitude always are, and House votes are usually more closely tied to popular opinion of the moment than Senate votes because of the difference in terms.
But you really aren't presenting the whole story here, are you? You list 2 Senate votes, for example, and they are not really about the same thing, IIRR. The 1860 27-30 vote came down to a procedural matter where "Run Mad Tom" Hunter of VA wanted it put off until after the election, and he got what he wanted. The 1861 vote is after 7 states had supposedly withdrawn; their Senators mostly resigned -- and if you assume they would have voted against it, their votes might have defeated the Morrill Tariff yet again.
Also, IIRR, a number of New England Senators still voted against the Morrill Tariff in 1861. That's not surprising, because NJ and PA manufacturers strongly favored the tariff, and New England manufacturers did not. How about you give us a breakdown of those Senate votes, state by state or region by region, so we can compare apples to apples?
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.
Neil, Alexander H. H. Stuart was a Whig from Augusta County, a county which voted Douglas in 1860, if I recall correctly. The Spectator was the Whig paper (the Vindicator was the Democrat paper). Stuart argued repeatedly against secession during the Virginia convention and was among the group called "extreme Union party" by Mr. Montague. As an extreme Unionist, Stuart was elected to the delegation that went from the Convention to speak with President Lincoln about Sumter. Some of Stuart's arguments were a little sensational, and others were weak, but they reflect the tenor of the people of Augusta County at that time. Later, however, in the May referendum, Augusta voted 3130 to 10 in favor of secession. Stuart voted against secession on April 4th, and again on April 17th, but later was allowed to amend his vote to gain further unity, once it became obvious that Virginia would leave the Union. 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
Also, IIRR, a number of New England Senators still voted against the Morrill Tariff in 1861. That's not surprising, because NJ and PA manufacturers strongly favored the tariff, and New England manufacturers did not. How about you give us a breakdown of those Senate votes, state by state or region by region, so we can compare apples to apples?
Regards,
Tim
No senators from New England voted against the tariff....1860 or 1861.
1860- All 12 voted in favor of the tariff.
1861- 10-0. Two did not vote (wasn't necessary).
Yeas
Anthony (R-Rhode Island)
Clark (R-New Hampshire)
Fessenden (R-Maine)
Foot (R-Vermont)
Foster (R-Connecticut)
Hale (R-New Hampshire)
Morrill (R-Maine)
"Wood-Screw" Simmons (R-Rhode Island)
Sumner (R-Massachusetts)
Wilson (R-Massachusetts)
No senators from New England voted against the tariff....1860 or 1861.
Then please simply give us a breakdown of who actually voted for what in the Senate in these two votes so that everyone can see for themselves.
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.
So.....
...$53 million for 31 millions of people...
compared to
...$25/34 million for 9 millions of people...
...hmmmm.....how is that bad?
Consider that the $53MM was mostly tariff, and a tariff is a tax passed on to the purchasers of goods subject to tariff -- often expressed as an average per citizen by dividing that figure among 31 million. Now take the $25/34mm divided among 9 million people; do the math. How is that good?
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=trice]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. 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. Why are you so opposed to self-determination? 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
Then please simply give us a breakdown of who actually voted for what in the Senate in these two votes so that everyone can see for themselves.
See previous post (I added that info).
Quote:
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
To me, it appears as a courtesy to other members in case they are unable to vote (due to illness, etc.).
(I know that seems sort of strange this day and age)
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
