Without slavery, do we have a Civil War???

[ole]

Yes part of the war was due to slavery, but don't forget the high tarriffs that the Industrial north had imposed. These hurt the very products the south produced. Part the of the problem was unfair taxation, sound familiar?

Jason: Tariffs were imposed on imports only. In no way did they affect southern products. Louisiana lobbied for tariffs on sugar, Missouri loved tariffs on hemp, South Carolina was enamored with tariffs on rice. A lot depended on whose ox was getting the mooky end of the stick.

What controversy there was (as Neil mentioned, most of it post war) was about the protectionist nature of the tariffs; i.e., protecting northern industry. As the south had little industry, it quite naturally found protecting any one else's industry to be objectionable.

On other threads you will find enough discussion on tariffs to make your hair hurt and your teeth itch. For the most part, and it's only my view, tariffs were included in a few of the declarations of secession simply to put some lipstick on the pig -- we ain't gonna give up our slaves. (Ignoring the idea that no one was asking them to.)

Great to have you aboard. Keep on postin'.
Ole

[unionblue]

Battalion,

A brilliant, well researched and documented reply, as always.

Do you mean to imply that there was a personal income tax before the war?

Do you mean to imply that the IRS was in full swing before the war?

Do you mean to imply that there was a sales tax before the war?

Or are you simply going to let your icons and smiley faces do your debating for you?

And for God's sake, man, don't just post a chart or schedule without some sort of explanation as to why it supports your view. It get's really old after a while.

Unionblue

[ole]

An off-topic request for fact:

Exactly what is the status of a wife's property in 1860? I've read where women were not allowed to buy and sell property and other legal strictures on their rights. I've also read of men who married wealthy widows or heiresses and subsequently went on to make a good living -- Lee and Grant among them (the marrying part, not the good-living part),

Then there's the question of the husband's interest in his wife's property. It looks like his interest was at the forebearance of his wife -- that he didn't legally acquire his wife's property automatically.

Someone out there knows. Russ? Cash? Tim? Cedarstripper?
Ole

[unionblue]

Jason,

You might want to view the following site for a bit of background about taxes in the US.

Fact Sheet on the History of the US Tax System.

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-...es/ustax.shtml

As for taxes and the Civil War, I found an interesting fact or two from the book, Greenback, The Almighty Dollar and the Invention of America, by Jason Goodwin.

"The Union entered the war with two hundred thousand dollars in its coffers, but the treasury secretary, Salmon P. Chase, remained cool until the Battle of Bull Run in July 1861 upset all hopes of an easy victory over the South. The army was now looking at a long campaign, and soldiers needed to be paid. Chase borrowed from the northern banks, sold war bonds to patriotic investors, and finally, sorrowfully (for he was a hard-money man) he turned to the option of printing money. In April 1862 Chase issued $150 million on the credit of the United States. Five months later he ordered a second round of $150 million, and another $150 million the next year. The second issue included the first government-issued one-dollar bills. They were like nothing like the dollar bills Americans already knew, with pictures of "Indians, steamboats, trains, settlers, frontiersmen, buffalo, Liberty, Justice and historical statesmen like Washington and Jefferson." They actually bore a portrait of Salmon P. Chase himself, and were printed in black ink on the front but in green on their backs."

Hence the name, greenbacks.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[5fish]

Originally Posted by Buffalo-Guard

OK there is that age old argument that goes on and on in which one side sayd the war was over slavery while the other side says the war was over several issues to include slavery. Who's right. That is not the subject of debate for this question.

Lets take slavery out of it for a while. Go back in history, it's 1859. The Buchanan administration has instituted a gradual emancipation. which is over by the summer of 1861. Now mind you slavery is over but there is still the argument of sates rights and tariffs.

Do we still have a Civil War a War Between The States???

An old post!!


My confederate friendly members the answer is so easily "No Slavery" there's "No War"?

I want to see if anyone can make a case for war with out slavery as an issue...

[5fish]

Originally Posted by 5fish

An old post!!


My confederate friendly members the answer is so easily "No Slavery" there's "No War"?

I want to see if anyone can make a case for war with out slavery as an issue...

The Truth of Silence.......no case was made