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.
From an oration by Edward Everett in 1861. Everett was considered the greatest orator of his time in the US, and spoke for 2 hours before Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address in 1863.
This is the section where he addresses the "Fishing Bounties" mentioned in the Georgia Decalration on secession ("Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury.")
====================
And what, think you, was the grievance in the front rank of those oppressions on the part of the North, which have driven the long-suffering and patient South to open re-bellion against the best government that the
history of the world gives any account of it? It was not that upon which the Convention of South Carolina relied. You will hardly be-lieve it; posterity will surely not believe it.
We listened, said Mr. Vice-President
Stephens in his reply, to my honorable
friend last night [Mr. Toombsjj, as he re-
counted the evils of this Government. The
first was the fishing bounties paid mostig to the
sailors of New England. The bounty paid
by the Federal Government to encourage the
deep sea fisheries of the Unite4 States!
You are aware that this laborious branch
of industry has, by all maritime states, been
ever regarded with special favor as the nur-
sery of naval power. The fisheries of the
American Colonies before the American Rev-
olution drew from Burke one of the most
gorgeous bursts of eloquence in our language
in any language. They were all but pn-
nihilated by the Revolution, but they fur-
nished the men who followed Manly, and
Tucker, and Biddle, and Paul Jones to the
jaws of death. Reviving after the war, they
attracted the notice of the first Congress, and
were recommended to their favor by Mr.
Jefferson, then Secretary of State. This
favor was at first extended to them in the
shape of a drawback of the duty on the va-
rious imported articles employed in the build-
ing and outfit of the vessels and on the for-
eign salt used in preserving the fish. The
complexity of this arrangement led to the
substitution at first of a certain bounty on
the quantity of the fish exported; subse-
quently on the tonnage of the vessels em-
ployed in the fisheries. All administrations
have concurred in the measure; presidents of
all parties, though there has not been
much variety of party in that office, have
approved the appropriations. If the North
had a local interest in these bounties, the
South got the principal food of her laboring
population so much the cheaper; and she
had her common share in the protection
which the navy afforded her coasts, and in
the glory which it shed on the flag of the
country. But since, unfortunately, the deep
sea fisheries do not exist in the Gulf of Mex-
ico, nor, as in the age of Pyrrha, on the
top of the Blue Ridge, it has been discov-
ered of late years, that these bounties are
a violation of the Constitutions a largess
bestowed by the common Treasury on one
section of the country, and not shared by the
other; one of the hundred ways, in a word,
in which the rapacious North is fattening
upon the oppressed and pillaged South. You
will naturally wish to know the amount of
this tyrannical and oppressive bounty. It is
stated by a senator from Alabama (Mr. Clay),
who has warred against it with perseverance
and zeal, and succeeded in the last Congress
in carrying a bill through the Senate for its
repeal, to have amounted, on the average, to
an annual sum of $200,005! Such is the
portentous grievance which in Georgia stands
at the head of the acts of oppression, for
which, although repealed in one branch of
Congress, the Union is to be broken up and
the country desolated by war. Switzerland
revolted becau~e an Austrian tyrant invaded
the sanctity of her firesides, and compelled
her fathers to shoot apples from the heads of
her sons; the Low Countries revolted against
the fires of the Inquisition; our fathers re-
volted because they were taxed by a Par-
liament in which they were not represented;
the Cotton States revolt because a paltry
subvention is paid to the hardy fishermen
who form the nerve and muscle of the Amer-
ican navy.
But it is not, we shall be told, the amount
of the bounty, but the principle, as our fath-
ers revolted against a three-penny tax on tea.
But that was because it was laid by a Parlia-
ment, in which the Colonies were not repre-
sented, and which yet claimed the right to
bind them in all cases. The fishing bounty
is bestowed by a government which has been
from the first controlled by the South. Then
how unreasonable to expect or to wish, that,
in a country so vast as ours, no public ex-
penditur~ should be made for the immediate
benefit for one part or one interest that can-
not be identically repeated in every other.
A liberal policy, or rather the necessity of
the case, demands, that what the public
good, upon the whole, requires should under
constitutional limitations be done where it
is required, offsetting the local benefit which
may accrue from the expenditure made in
one place and for one object, with the local
benefit from the same source, in some other
place for some other object. More money
was expended by the United States in re-
moving the Indians from Georgia,-.--eight or
ten times as much was expended for the
same object in Florida, as has been paid for
fishing bounties in seventy years. For the
last year, to pay for the expense of the post-
office in the seceding states, and enable our
fellow-citizens there to enjoy the comforts of
a newspaper and letter mail to the same
extent as they are enjoyed in the other states,
three and a half million of dollars were paid
from the common Treasury. The post-office
bounty paid to the seceding states exceeded
seventeen-fold the annual average amount of
the fishing bounty paid to the North. In
four years that excess would equal the sum
total of the amount paid since 1792 in boun-
ties to the deep sea fishery.
The second of the grievances under which
the South is laboring, and which, according
to Mr. Stephens, was on the occasion alluded
to pleaded by the Secretary of State of the
seceding states as a ground for dissolving
the Union is the Navigation Laws, which
give to American vessels the exclusive en-
joyment of our own coasting trade. This
also is a policy coeval with the Government
of the United States, and universally adopted
by ma~itime powers, though relax~d by Eng-
land within the last few years. Like the
fishing bounty it is a policy adopted for the
purpose of fostering the commercial and with
that the naval marine of the United States.
All administrations of all parties have
favored it; under its influence our commer-
cial tonnage has grown up to be second to
no other in the world, and our navy has
proved itself adequate to all the exigencies
of peace and war. And are these no objects
in a national point of view? Are the seced-
ing statesmen really insensible to interests
of such paramount national importance?
Can they, for the sake of an imaginary in-
finitesimal reduction of coast-wise freights,
be willing to run even the risk of impairing
our naval prosperity? Are they insensible
to the fact that nothing but the growth of
the American commercial marine protects
the entire freighting interest of the country,
in which the South is more deeply interested
than the North, from European monopoly?
The South did not always take so narrow a
view of the subject. When the Constftution
was framed, and the American Merchant
Marine was inconsiderable, the discrimina-
tion in favor of United States vessels, which
then extended to the foreign trade,was an
object of some apprehension on the part of
the planting states. But there were states-
men in the South at that day, who did not
regard the shipping interest as a local con-
cern. So far, said Mr. Edward Rutledge,
in the South Carolina Convention of 1788,
from not preferring the Northern States
by a navigation Act, it would be politic to
increase their strength by every means in
our power; for we had no other resource in
our day of danger than in the naval force of
our Northern friends, nor could we ever ex-
pect to become a great nation till we were
powerful on the waters. (Elliots Debates
IV. 299.) But powerful on the waters the
South can never be. She has live oak, naval
stores, and gallant officers; but her climate
and its diseases, the bars at the mouth of
nearly all her harbors, the Teredo, the want
of a merchant marine and of fisheries, and
the character of her laboring population will
forever prevent her becoming a great naval
power. Without the protection of the navy.
of the United States, she would hold the in-
gress and egress of every port on her coast
at the mercy, I will not say of the great
maritime states of Europe, but of Hol-
land and Denmark, and Austria, and Spain.
of any second or third rate power, which
can keep a few steam frigates at sea.
It must be confessed, however, that there is
a sad congruity between the conduct of our
seceding fellow-citizens and the motives which
they assign for -it. They attempt a suicidal
separation of themselves from a great naval
power, of which they are now an integral
part, and they put forward, as the reasor~ for
this self-destructive course, the legislative
measures which have contributed to the
growth of the navy. A judicious policy designed to promote that end has built up the
commercial and military marine of the Union
to its present commanding stature and power
the South, though unable to contribute any
thing to its prosperity but the service of her
naval officers, enjoys her full share of the
honor which it reflects on the country; and
the protection which it extends to our flag,
our coasts, and our commerce, but under the
influence of a narrow-minded sectional jeal-
ousy is willing to abdicate the ~oble position
which she now fills among the nations of the
earth; to depend for her very existence on
the exigencies of the cotton market, to live
upon the tolerance of the navies of Europe,
and she assi~ns as leading causes for this
amazing fatuity, that the Northern fisheries
have been encouraged by a trifling bounty,
and that the Northern commercial marine has
the monopoly of the coast-wise trade. And
the politicians, who, for reasons like these, al-
most too frivolous to merit the time we have
devoted to their examination, are sapping a
noble framework of government, and drench-
ing a fair and but for them prosperous coun-
try in blood, appeal to the public opinion of
mankind for the justice of their cause and the
purity of their motives, and lift their eyes to
Heaven for a blessing on their arms!
============
Have no idea where you got this, but it is powerful stuff. Thanks so much.
Ken
__________________ 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
Tim, is it really surprising that Edward Everett, a Massachusetts Whig and resident of the section that most benefitted from fishing bounties, coasting trade monopolies, and ship-building monopolies would assert that these burdens were not heavy on those that paid for them? Of course, he is going to say that these issues are no problem; his State benefitted mightily from these policies.
Maybe that had something to do with why he didn't support secession.
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
To give you an idea of how important the fishery was to Massachusetts, John Adams, in working out the Treaty of Paris with the British at the end of the Revolution, made sure provision was made for American access to the North Atlantic fishery. In the chamber of the General Court(state legislature) in Boston is a huge cod made out of copper, fixed to the wall, referred to as "the sacred cod."
My pedantry aside, I mean really, the fishing bounty is a cause for civil war? As a teacher of mine used to remark when I said something er...not well thought out..."that's a very unique comment."
Tim, is it really surprising that Edward Everett, a Massachusetts Whig and resident of the section that most benefitted from fishing bounties, coasting trade monopolies, and ship-building monopolies would assert that these burdens were not heavy on those that paid for them? Of course, he is going to say that these issues are no problem; his State benefitted mightily from these policies.
Maybe that had something to do with why he didn't support secession.
Is that your only objection, that Edward Everett was from Massachusetts, and so you will insist he was lying about all this? Let me set your mind at ease then. Here is Congressman Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia, soon to be Vice-President of the Confederacy, speaking on the self-same claim about "fishing bounties", November 14, 1860 to the Georgia legislature:
"... We listened to my honorable friend who addressed you last night (Mr. Toombs) as he recounted the evils of this Government. The first was the Fishing Bounties, paid mostly to the sailors of New England. Our friend states that forty-eight years of our Government was under the administration of Southern Presidents. Well, these fishing bounties begain under the rule of a Southern President, I believe. No one of them, during the whole forty-eight years, ever set his administration against the principle or policy of them. It is not for me to say whether it was a wise policy in the beginning; it probably was not, and I have nothing to say in its defence. But the reason given for it was to encourage our young men to go to sea, and learn to manage ships. We had at the time but a small navy. It was thought best to encourage a class of our people to become acquainted with seafaring life; to become sailors, to man our naval ships. It requires practice to walk the deck of a ship, to pull the ropes, to furl the sails, to go aloft, to climb the mast; and it was thought by offering this bounty, a nursery might be formed, in which young men would become perfected in these arts, and it applied to one section of the country as well as to any other. The result of this was, that in the war of 1812, our sailors, many of whom came from this nursery, were equal to any that England brought against us. At any rate, no small part of the glories of that war were gained by the veteran tars of America, and the object of these national bounties was to foster that branch of the national defence. My opinion is, that whatever may have been the reason at first, this bounty ought to be discontinued-- the reason for it at first no longer exists. A bill for this object did pass the Senate the last Congress I was in, to which my honorable friend contributed greatly, but it was not reached in the House of Representatives. I trust that he will yet see that he may with honor continue his connection with the Government, and that his eloquence, unrivalled in the Senate, may hereafter, as heretofore, be displayed in having this bounty, so obnoxious to him, repealed and wiped off from the statute book."
So here we have a Georgia man telling you there is no real problem here, that the Senate has acted on this already, and the problem is in the House. If that's the case, the Senate can block further budget bills until this is worked out (and the Republicans would be a minority in both houses of Congress in 1861-62). We can now toss your prejudice argument out. Anything else?
Dear Tim, Ole, and JT,
To give you an idea of how important the fishery was to Massachusetts, John Adams, in working out the Treaty of Paris with the British at the end of the Revolution, made sure provision was made for American access to the North Atlantic fishery. In the chamber of the General Court(state legislature) in Boston is a huge cod made out of copper, fixed to the wall, referred to as "the sacred cod."
My pedantry aside, I mean really, the fishing bounty is a cause for civil war? As a teacher of mine used to remark when I said something er...not well thought out..."that's a very unique comment."
To put it more clearly, it's silly, particularly when you look at Alexander Stephens' discussion of it in his speech to the GA legislature in my post to John Taylor. At worst, this is just your average government boon-doggle, tossed about like any political "sound-bite" issue. We won't see any comments from the South about excessive spending for river dredging or levee building. They found no problem with Federal spending to promote their goals (War with Mexico, acquisition of Cuba, etc.).
It should also be noted that Stephens appears to have been right. The Fishing Bounty was discontinued in 1866, and might well have been discontinued earlier if there had been no Civil War.
Is that your only objection, that Edward Everett was from Massachusetts, and so you will insist he was lying about all this?
Tim, I never said he was lying; I'm sure he was quite sincere. Just that he was from the section of the country that was benefiting from the expenditure. Of course he would favor the program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
... So here we have a Georgia man telling you there is no real problem here, that the Senate has acted on this already, and the problem is in the House. If that's the case, the Senate can block further budget bills until this is worked out (and the Republicans would be a minority in both houses of Congress in 1861-62). We can now toss your prejudice argument out. Anything else?
I also note that both Everett and Little Alec opposed secession as an appropriate response to this program (as part of the other justifications listed in Toombs' speech of which was one). Maybe there is some relationship between these two facts.
Everett & Stephens: "This isn't a problem = don't secede"
Toombs: "This is a problem = do secede"
What do you think?
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 prohibition of the Confederate federal government to financially aid commerce would help kill any theory of secession.
Unable to assist in the financing of needed commerce meant Confederate supplies were always limited. It skirted the prohibition in some instances, but it took nearly the entire war to build a connecting railroad line between Danville, Virginia and Greensboro, North Carolina. It was acceptable for states to finance railroads, but not the Confederate federal government in Richmond.
One may wonder what the British thought of this limitation. It was unlawful for the Confederate federal government to spend capital on commerce to improve supplies, but the Confederacy had no problem seeking the use of British royalty capital expenditures to defend the Confederacy. Surely, the British must have thought the Confederacy daffy.
Tim, I never said he was lying; I'm sure he was quite sincere. Just that he was from the section of the country that was benefiting from the expenditure. Of course he would favor the program. I also note that both Everett and Little Alec opposed secession as an appropriate response to this program (as part of the other justifications listed in Toombs' speech of which was one). Maybe there is some relationship between these two facts.
Or perhaps Toombs and others were simply doing what politicians so often do: making unbalanced arguments because they are more concerned with getting what they want than finding out what the truth is.
The point of any such complaint is whether or not it is true and accurate. It appears from the record (Senate already having passed a bill on this in 1860, and the bounty itself disappearing in 1866, as soon as things settled down from the Civil War) that this is, at best, a silly complaint that would have just vanished in the normal course of events. All the South had to do was wait and work through the system and it would go away. As a cause for secession, it is just silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Everett & Stephens: "This isn't a problem = don't secede"
Toombs: "This is a problem = do secede"
What do you think?
Obviously they disagreed. For anyone doing analysis of this, the first thing to consider is whether or not either side's statements are actually true and accurate. If you find the compalint is not supportable, the complaint should be tossed out as worthless.
One of the things I regularly notice in the arguments of secessionists is that they omit all reference to the benefits to the country as a whole. They are all small, local, narrow in focus. If they truly believed in this approach they were lousy Americans because they did not care about the United States, and were only looking for what was directly and specifically beneficial to them -- and they resented everything that did not fit that narrow definition.
A major purpose of the Fishing Bounties had been to build up the fishing fleet as a source of experienced sailors for the protection of America. Particularly in the Age of Sail, it took many years of practical experince to develop seamen, whether officers or common sailors. That development aided the US for decades. As Stephens says here in 1860, it might have become outdated by events, which is why he was for doing away with it now -- but that is no cause for secession, merely normal politics and bureaucratic inertia.
At the same time, another program had been started in 1845 that paid subsidies to men on US Mail steamers. Why? Because the US dominated the fast sail ship market and the British had begun to dominate the new market for steam-powered ships. So the US passed a new law for classes of mail steamers, got them built, and offered bounties for men to serve on them, requiring minimum percentages of US citizens who had to sign on as "Naval volunteers" to learn this new trade and skill. This is much cheaper than actually expanding the Navy with new ships, and develops a class of men with the required skills for time of need.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Fishing Bounties 
Linear Mode
