Was there really a "cause" in 1861?

Almost every piece of important legislation from the 1840's up to the civil war had one intent, and that was to keep the political powers in the South happy.. Im hard pressed to think of anything that was passed to keep the Northern states happy..There was one item that I could think of that was a comprimise with the North, but the Southern states ended up changing that just a few years later...What did the politicians from the cotton states due in the years preceeding the war that shows they were willing to work for a peaceful relationship with the free states.. There was no give-and-take, with the free states. The relationship consisted of a series of legislative attempts to pacify the hot heads in the deep South..

Its hard not to put the majority of the blame on the politicians of the deep South..

1842 Tariff - Increased protection of northern industry, resisted in the South and West but supported by New England. Winners= Yankees

1846 Tariff - Moderately lowered protection of industry, the West and South teamed up to get this one in. The industry is still protected in the end. Winners= Yankees

1857 Tariff - The most across the board supported tariff, at least until the 1857 Panic, which wasn't caused by the Tariff. It hardly affected the South. Must have upset the Yankees, that southerners didn't have much to complain about,since cotton was selling.

It's not just the South that was complaining about the protection the manufacturers were getting. The Westerners shifted away from it when they had enough grain production for the export business.

The debate shouldn't be how much each section was paying in tariffs at ports or as a consumer. The better argument is taxation without benefit. Or taxing one business for the benefit of another.

So what legislation did these bully southerners pass that hurt the North so bad?
 
dvrmte,

Tariff 1828-61.

"The Democrats won in 1844, electing James K. Polk as president. Polk succeeded in passing the Walker tariff of 1846 by uniting the rural and agricultural factions of the country for lower rates. They sought minimal levels of a "tariff for revenue only' that would pay the cost of government but not show favoritism to once section or economic sector at the expense of another.

The Walker Tariff remained in place until 1857, when a nonpartisan coalition lowered them again with the Tariff of 1857 to 18%. This was in response to the British repeal of their protectionist "Corn Laws."

The Democrats in Congress, controlled by Southerners, wrote the tariff laws in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s, and kept reducing rates, so that the 1857 rates were the lowest in history. The South had no complaints but the low rates angered Northern industrialists and factory workers, especially in Pennsylvania, who demanded protection for their growing iron industry. The Republican Party replaced the Whigs in 1854 and also favored high tariffs to stimulate industrial growth; it was part of the 1860 Republican platform. Pennsylvania iron mills and New England woolen mills mobilized businessmen and workers to call for high tariffs, but Republican merchants wanted lower tariffs. The high tariff advocates lost in 1857, but stepped up their campaign by blaming the economic recession of 1857 on the lower rates. Economist Henry Carey of Philadelphia was the most outspoken advocate, along with Horace Greelye and his influential newspaper, the New York Tribune. Increases were finally enacted in February 1861 after Southerners resigned their seats in Congress.

Historians in recent decades have minimized the tariff issue, noting that few people in 1860-61 said it was of central importance to them. Some secessionist documents do mention the tariff issue, though not nearly as often as the preservation of slavery."

Source: Tariffs in United States history - Wikipedia.

For a history of US Tariffs, see the following website:

Tariff Table, Major Tariff and Trade Legislation.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h963.html

Unionblue
 
What we tend to overlook in much of this discussion is that the tariffs are what paid government salaries and kept the post office running and put lighthouses on remote sandbars.

Did the tariffs hit the south harder than the north? I don't know. Were there more people in the north than in the south? That I do know. Did most of the imports land in the north? That I do know. Why?

Hinton Helper made a cry in the wilderness. The south, generally, didn't care. Why wasn't Charleston a major port? Why wasn't Savannah, or Mobile? Why did all the imports come into northern ports? You're in Atlanta and want a piano, it comes into New York. Why not Savannah?

In 1800 or thereabout, Virginia was a major player. In 1850, Virginia ports were scant players in the import business. What happened in there?

Upshot. Northern ports had rails and ways to deliver products. Southern ports did not. No one cared beyond buying more slaves and land.

In the north, the first things one built on a new settlement was a church and a school. In the south, it may have been more cabins for slaves.

Somewhere in there, priorities diverged. With a humongous cost. Last I heard it was 627,825. (Don't write down the number, it changes daily.)

What we are talking about is populations going their own way. Either way can be argued about.

It remains that both societies lived off each other. Which is what makes it strange that one would want to go to war with the other. Why is that?
 
...
Hinton Helper made a cry in the wilderness. The south, generally, didn't care. Why wasn't Charleston a major port? Why wasn't Savannah, or Mobile? Why did all the imports come into northern ports? You're in Atlanta and want a piano, it comes into New York. Why not Savannah?

In 1800 or thereabout, Virginia was a major player. In 1850, Virginia ports were scant players in the import business. What happened in there?

Upshot. Northern ports had rails and ways to deliver products. Southern ports did not. No one cared beyond buying more slaves and land.
...

There are lots of reasons for this.

One of them is simple geography: the rivers and ports in the South didn't lend themselves to that type of development in that age, and they did not serve major consumer markets.

Another was that Southern governments did not spend the money (i.e., invest) to build up their ports and provide the necessary facilities to attract trade. Opposition to "internal improvements" limited growth.

Another was the simple patterns of the Southern economy: cotton, tobacco, rice, sugar cane. These are seasonal crops. They will drive shipping demand in a typical boom and bust pattern: when the cotton crop is in, Savannah becomes very busy, but when it is not, the harbor is empty.

Another was weather. Given the choice, who wants to put their ship off the Southern coast in hurricane season? If it is heavily damaged, what port do you go to for repairs when Southern ports don't have anything like a real shipyard and drydock? New York? Boston? Philadelphia? Baltimore?

There were people with ideas about this, but they could not find the necessary support to follow through on their ideas. New York became the dominant American port because the State of New York financed and built the Erie Canal. Local financial interests followed up by building what became the New York Central, tying New York to the emerging West by both boat and rail.

Then there is the story of money. Money follows trade, so financial interests congregated in the great cities far to the North (New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore). "Rich" Southerners were, essentially, farmers. Farmers are usually land-rich and cash-poor. In the case of the South, the big farmers were slave-and-land-rich, cash-poor. It was routine for them to borrow from Northern bankers between crops (to buy luxuries, to expand by buying more land or slaves, to buy goods to clothe and feed their slaves, etc.), then pay it off when they sold the crop and repeat the cycle. That's a cycle any farmer can tell you about, with the slaves only being a wrinkle on the process.

Then there is the question of education and tradesmen. If you want to have a vibrant economy with major ports, you need educated and trained people. You need to fund more and better schools. You need skilled tradesmen. You need greasy mechanics and shopkeepers -- people the South tended to look down upon. You need a large and bustling middle class -- and the South didn't seem to want one, possibly because those people would have had a problem with the aristocratic planter class, and competed with it for political power.

Tim
 
I would say the FSL that trampled on the rights of Northern states to control the arrest and imprisonment of people without a trial within their states...

Did the FSL hurt anything but their pride? Did it require the poor man of the North to pay tribute to the South? How much less money would it have cost had they went along with it rather than pass laws to interfere with it?
 
dvrmte,

Tariff 1828-61.

"The Democrats won in 1844, electing James K. Polk as president. Polk succeeded in passing the Walker tariff of 1846 by uniting the rural and agricultural factions of the country for lower rates. They sought minimal levels of a "tariff for revenue only' that would pay the cost of government but not show favoritism to once section or economic sector at the expense of another.

The Walker Tariff remained in place until 1857, when a nonpartisan coalition lowered them again with the Tariff of 1857 to 18%. This was in response to the British repeal of their protectionist "Corn Laws."

The Democrats in Congress, controlled by Southerners, wrote the tariff laws in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s, and kept reducing rates, so that the 1857 rates were the lowest in history. The South had no complaints but the low rates angered Northern industrialists and factory workers, especially in Pennsylvania, who demanded protection for their growing iron industry. The Republican Party replaced the Whigs in 1854 and also favored high tariffs to stimulate industrial growth; it was part of the 1860 Republican platform. Pennsylvania iron mills and New England woolen mills mobilized businessmen and workers to call for high tariffs, but Republican merchants wanted lower tariffs. The high tariff advocates lost in 1857, but stepped up their campaign by blaming the economic recession of 1857 on the lower rates. Economist Henry Carey of Philadelphia was the most outspoken advocate, along with Horace Greelye and his influential newspaper, the New York Tribune. Increases were finally enacted in February 1861 after Southerners resigned their seats in Congress.

Historians in recent decades have minimized the tariff issue, noting that few people in 1860-61 said it was of central importance to them. Some secessionist documents do mention the tariff issue, though not nearly as often as the preservation of slavery."

Source: Tariffs in United States history - Wikipedia.

For a history of US Tariffs, see the following website:

Tariff Table, Major Tariff and Trade Legislation.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h963.html

Unionblue

The green is incorrect, the 1842 Tariff raised protection. The 1846 Tariff only moderately lowered the protective rates. But does it not show that southerners were willing to compromise and pay tribute to the demands of the industrialists, even at the expense of their own interests?

It just seems the industrialists were looking for a handout or bailout, whatever you want to call it.
 
Did the FSL hurt anything but their pride? Did it require the poor man of the North to pay tribute to the South? How much less money would it have cost had they went along with it rather than pass laws to interfere with it?

Depends on if you consider black men to be men or not I suppose, because it certainly hurt them quite a bit. Is it important to be concerned about how the FSL affected men and women in your population no matter what their color? You APPEAR to be arguing that if their skin is black, the effect on them doesn't matter. I don't believe you mean to argue that, so perhaps you should reword?
 
Savez,

These are figures that give no answer to my question. Neither does your later post in which you state, "When the money started going the other way, Northern elites were not happy, hence the Morrill Tariff."

WHAT money was going the other way? WHERE was it coming from? HOW much money? WHICH Northern elites were not happy and how do you know this to be true? WHAT did the Morill Tariff have to do with it?

Give me something, Savez, something to hang a historical hat on instead of a set of figures without explanation or some detail as to why you came to this point of view.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

You do the same and maybe I can answer your question. You spout $4 billion in slaves. What do you mean? I still haven't seen any documentation from you for that number. I'm assumning you could use the same source I posted could you not? You were talking about Battalion's numbers I gave you real numbers from a leading economist of the time. My original point is that the war as are most wars was about power and money. The South had gained the advantage in the tariff question as many of you have pointed out thousands of times when someone brings up the tariff. The Morill Tariff was created to reverse that advantage. I'm not saying the Morill Tariff causes secession, I'm just trying to show how important money was in the equation.
 
I am also still wondering what those figures mean.

Those figures are showing Unionblue that his $4 billion dollars in slaves is close to an accurate statement but he leaves out that its the overall value of property in the South not just in slaves. And that the Union property value is not significantly less as he would lead us to believe.
 
dvrmte,

Tariff 1828-61.

"The Democrats won in 1844, electing James K. Polk as president. Polk succeeded in passing the Walker tariff of 1846 by uniting the rural and agricultural factions of the country for lower rates. They sought minimal levels of a "tariff for revenue only' that would pay the cost of government but not show favoritism to once section or economic sector at the expense of another.

The Walker Tariff remained in place until 1857, when a nonpartisan coalition lowered them again with the Tariff of 1857 to 18%. This was in response to the British repeal of their protectionist "Corn Laws."

The Democrats in Congress, controlled by Southerners, wrote the tariff laws in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s, and kept reducing rates, so that the 1857 rates were the lowest in history. The South had no complaints but the low rates angered Northern industrialists and factory workers, especially in Pennsylvania, who demanded protection for their growing iron industry. The Republican Party replaced the Whigs in 1854 and also favored high tariffs to stimulate industrial growth; it was part of the 1860 Republican platform. Pennsylvania iron mills and New England woolen mills mobilized businessmen and workers to call for high tariffs, but Republican merchants wanted lower tariffs. The high tariff advocates lost in 1857, but stepped up their campaign by blaming the economic recession of 1857 on the lower rates. Economist Henry Carey of Philadelphia was the most outspoken advocate, along with Horace Greelye and his influential newspaper, the New York Tribune. Increases were finally enacted in February 1861 after Southerners resigned their seats in Congress.

Historians in recent decades have minimized the tariff issue, noting that few people in 1860-61 said it was of central importance to them. Some secessionist documents do mention the tariff issue, though not nearly as often as the preservation of slavery."

Source: Tariffs in United States history - Wikipedia.

For a history of US Tariffs, see the following website:

Tariff Table, Major Tariff and Trade Legislation.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h963.html

Unionblue

The bold speaks volumes or acutally maybe I should say speaks nothing. Why have those historians in recent decades minimized the tariff issue? Which tariff issue? As jpeter pointed out in his orginial post ...

It wasn't a matter of simply making a decision about whose policy you were for or against. If you were born in the South between 1840 and 1845 (the period most soldiers were born into), then by the time you were of fighting age, you would have been raised believing two sections of the country were hostile towards each other. You naturally would have sided with your respective clan.

Some of that hostility was caused by tariff issues. To deny that would be like saying the Nullification crisis never happened.
 
You do the same and maybe I can answer your question. You spout $4 billion in slaves. What do you mean? I still haven't seen any documentation from you for that number.

3.5 million slaves in the seceded states at an average cost of $1,150 per slave is approximately $4 billion.

I gave you real numbers from a leading economist of the time.

No, you didn't. Kettle wasn't a leading economist of the time.


The South had gained the advantage in the tariff question as many of you have pointed out thousands of times when someone brings up the tariff. The Morill Tariff was created to reverse that advantage.

No, the Morrill Tariff was created to provide sorely needed revenue for the government after the Panic of 1857. The vast majority of the tariff was paid outside the south.
 
There are lots of reasons for this.

One of them is simple geography: the rivers and ports in the South didn't lend themselves to that type of development in that age, and they did not serve major consumer markets.

Another was that Southern governments did not spend the money (i.e., invest) to build up their ports and provide the necessary facilities to attract trade. Opposition to "internal improvements" limited growth.

Another was the simple patterns of the Southern economy: cotton, tobacco, rice, sugar cane. These are seasonal crops. They will drive shipping demand in a typical boom and bust pattern: when the cotton crop is in, Savannah becomes very busy, but when it is not, the harbor is empty.

Another was weather. Given the choice, who wants to put their ship off the Southern coast in hurricane season? If it is heavily damaged, what port do you go to for repairs when Southern ports don't have anything like a real shipyard and drydock? New York? Boston? Philadelphia? Baltimore?

There were people with ideas about this, but they could not find the necessary support to follow through on their ideas. New York became the dominant American port because the State of New York financed and built the Erie Canal. Local financial interests followed up by building what became the New York Central, tying New York to the emerging West by both boat and rail.

Then there is the story of money. Money follows trade, so financial interests congregated in the great cities far to the North (New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore). "Rich" Southerners were, essentially, farmers. Farmers are usually land-rich and cash-poor. In the case of the South, the big farmers were slave-and-land-rich, cash-poor. It was routine for them to borrow from Northern bankers between crops (to buy luxuries, to expand by buying more land or slaves, to buy goods to clothe and feed their slaves, etc.), then pay it off when they sold the crop and repeat the cycle. That's a cycle any farmer can tell you about, with the slaves only being a wrinkle on the process.

Then there is the question of education and tradesmen. If you want to have a vibrant economy with major ports, you need educated and trained people. You need to fund more and better schools. You need skilled tradesmen. You need greasy mechanics and shopkeepers -- people the South tended to look down upon. You need a large and bustling middle class -- and the South didn't seem to want one, possibly because those people would have had a problem with the aristocratic planter class, and competed with it for political power.

Tim

When the lower South seceded, how did these Banker's feel? When the average Northern citizen was willing to let the South go, what do you think the banker's and investors felt? Guess who's ear they were in?
 
When the lower South seceded, how did these Banker's feel? When the average Northern citizen was willing to let the South go, what do you think the banker's and investors felt? Guess who's ear they were in?

The bankers felt that if there was a war there would be no way they could get their investments back.
 
When the lower South seceded, how did these Banker's feel? When the average Northern citizen was willing to let the South go, what do you think the banker's and investors felt? Guess who's ear they were in?

Your post seems to have nothing to do with mine. It is merely an attempt to take the discussion off on a tangent.

Tim
 
No, the Morrill Tariff was created to provide sorely needed revenue for the government after the Panic of 1857. The vast majority of the tariff was paid outside the south.

1-39 just because the felt like it right?
 
The bankers felt that if there was a war there would be no way they could get their investments back.

The bankers felt that if they let the South go there was no way to get their investments back.
 
Those figures are showing Unionblue that his $4 billion dollars in slaves is close to an accurate statement but he leaves out that its the overall value of property in the South not just in slaves. And that the Union property value is not significantly less as he would lead us to believe.

He has shown you his calculation. He might be high on his average value/slave, particularly if they were all being sold at once, but it is a commonly used figure, even by people of that day. What do you think those slaves should be valued at?

But if you want to, assume that people are not property and that therefore the slaves are worth zero in monetary terms. What then is the value of the assets in the South?

Tim
 
Your post seems to have nothing to do with mine. It is merely an attempt to take the discussion off on a tangent.

Tim

Wrong again. I am the one that keeps bringing the post back to the original topic.
 
Back
Top