Was slavery the only reason of the war?

Was slavery the Only reason for the ACW


  • Total voters
    120
Okay, i concur, it was Chase. There is a brief write up in one of the Cinci papers from that time, though it doesn't mention the speech or who said it, but it did give a date, which I forgot to record. Anyway, there's another site that basically gives a day by day of Lincoln's life at that time and he was not in Cinci, so... there you have it. Lincoln was being blamed for something he didn't say. But I wonder where the date 1858 came from in the book I linked, and I wonder how it got put off onto Lincoln, and why? Well... the why isn't so difficult. :wink:

Edited to add, New York Times Dec 28, 1860 http://www.nytimes.com/1860/12/28/news/mr-lincoln-and-negro-equality.html?scp=1&sq= They are saying that Lincoln did NOT say this, and give evidence why they don't believe it. Very interesting reading. Apparently whoever started the rumor really got it going cause a lot of people were convinced Lincoln said it, and it was being spread in the news both North and South.
 
Not sure where I stand on this one. Salmon P Chase did supposedly say that in 1845, as it is attested to here http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.972:3.lincoln. However... :smile: A couple of the sources I found last night credited Lincoln as having said it in 1858 and "some years ago." Take for example, this 1861 book http://books.google.com/books?id=XrFYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141 that clearly credits Lincoln with having said it. And then consider that Gov. Letcher also credited Lincoln as having said it. Letcher immediately following the contested quote even added, "When a President is elected, entertaining and boldly avowing such sentiments — when, to this moment, they have never been retracted or qualified, have we not reason for alarm and resentment?"
There's also the New Orleans Crescent, Nov. 12, 1860.
Whoever said it, Lincoln was being given credit for it by the Southerners, and it was fanning the flames.:smile:

I agree completely with your last sentence.

The speech appears nowhere in the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln.

See Gordon, A. J.; Chase, Salmon P. The Address and Reply on the Presentation of a Testimonial to S.P. Chase, by the Colored People of Cincinnati With Some Account of the Case of Samuel Watson . Cincinnati: Henry W. Derby and Co., 1845. [format: book], [genre: speech]. Permission: Northern Illinois University
Persistent link to this document: http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/file.php?file=1190.html

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.972:3.lincoln
 
I agree completely with your last sentence.

I just edited my post with a NY Times article from December 1860. Very good article that explains why Lincoln couldn't and didn't say it, and mentions how the Tribune fell for it. Yeah, gotta get that jab in there.
 
I just edited my post with a NY Times article from December 1860. Very good article that explains why Lincoln couldn't and didn't say it, and mentions how the Tribune fell for it. Yeah, gotta get that jab in there.

Well, that explains why it wasn't undercutting Know-Nothing support for Lincoln's candidacy. In 1845, the Know-Nothing movement was barely getting started, but Chase was speaking in a city full of German immigrants, so it makes sense he'd express support for foreigners.
 
From His Satanic Majesty himself.



Oh, all the work gets done only in the committee meetings, right? Even today that doesn't happen.

"But it was not the journalistic barrage and the poisonous rhetoric, nor even the covert activities of Crawford, that threatened serious divisions among the Jacksonians. It was, as Calhoun knew it would be, the tariff issue, on which the Adams administration was united but on which the Jackson forces were in disarray.

"Calhoun participated in discussions with Van Buren and Speaker Stevenson on the proposed tariff bill. None of them wanted the tariff question to play a part in the presidential campaign, but they saw no way to circumvent it since their opponents were determined to make it the prime political issue. ... What is known is that Calhoun approved the bill as reported." [John Niven, John C. Calhoun and the Price of Union, pp. 131-133]

And

"Van Buren had met with Calhoun and presented him with two alternatives. The first was for southern members to join with New Englanders and defeat the bill as reported. But, argued Van Buren, this would result in ultimate passage of a protective tariff because westerners would join with eastern interests to gain a modified bill. The second alternative was for southerners to resist all amendments that would raise rates and take a chance that the New England members would join the southerners and defeat the bill during its passage in either house. Van Buren stressed the fact that this arrangement risked a union of moderate and high tariff members, which would pass the bill, but it also held out the prospect of defeating the bill entirely. Calhoun accepted his reasoning and urged southern members to adopt the poison pill strategy." [Ibid., p. 133]

You read that stuff and accept it as the gospel, don't you? Have you read Calhoun's 1837 speech regarding this? I'll post a link to it and quote a few actual parts, maybe some wishing to buy the books you listed will have second thoughts. I learned very quickly since joining this forum that historians can't be trusted. Quoting their opinions can get embarrassing.
http://www.archive.org/details/worksofjohnc03calhrich

Wow this ain't pasting correct but it'll do.

"Have you forgot the tariff of
1828, that bill of abominations so execrated by the South,
and which has brought so many disasters on the country ?
I have (looking at Mr. Wright) its author in my eyes,
and he knows the fact. He well remembers the part he bore in
the passage of that act, and the means by which it was
effected. It was passed by a breach of faith. We were de-
ceived then. It will not be my fault if we be deceived now."

"Our hopes were soon blasted. A certain individual, then a
Senator, but recently elected to the highest office in the
Union, was observed to assume a mysterious air in relation
to the bill, very little in accordance with what, there was
every reason to believe, would have been his course. The
mystery was explained when the bill came up to be acted
upon. I will not give in detail his course. It is sufficient
to say, that, instead of resisting amendments, as we had a
right to expect, he voted for all which were necessary to
secure the votes of New England ; particularly the amend-
ments to raise the duties on woollens which were known to
be essential for that purpose. All these amendments, with
one or two exceptions, were carried by his votes, as appears
from the journal, now on my table, which I have recently
examined. If his name had been recorded on the opposite
side, they would have been lost, and with them, the bill itself."

"Having traced the tariff of 1828 to the Chairman of
the Committee on Finance, and the President elect,
as its authors; I next propose to trace, very briefly, what followed down to
the passage of the act of 1833, which settled the controversy
that grew out of the former, and which this bill, originating
with its authors, is intended to unsettle, in order that the
Senate may have a connected view of the whole series of
events connected with this deeply important subject, and of
which the present measure forms the last."
 
dvrmte,

You are reading it correct and that Calhoun had something to do with writing the Tariff of Abominations of 1828.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

We're finding out that ain't the case, now. The very speech of Calhoun that Freehling used, proves him wrong. Call it deceptive, dishonest or just good old irresponsible research.
 
Ok, this whole tarriff subject makes my eyes glaze over, thats probably why I did horrible at economics in school lol, but anyway; so what exactly was the South supposed to be paying so much more for that Northerners weren't also paying? Also, these tarriffs were supposed to be protecting and helping to nurture growing industries in some of the states, which in turn would benefit the whole of the country as these industries and spin offs grow..So the Southern states were complaining because these tarriffs weren't directly helping them? And how can the tarriffs be used as an issue to seceed when the levels in the years before the war were almost at free trade levels?
 
"Have you forgot the tariff of 1828,that bill of abominations so execrated by the South,and which has brought so many disasters on the country?"
http://ia700402.us.archive.org/15/items/worksofjohnc03calhrich/worksofjohnc03calhrich.pdf
Page 47

What disasters?

Kevin Dally

Calhoun will tell you, read his wordy South Carolina Exposition and Protest. My take on what he's talking about as a "disaster", is the near spilling of blood over enforcement of a tariff bill founded on abuse of power.

Yes Calhoun was a politician with rare talent, especially for lengthy speeches.
 
Ok, this whole tarriff subject makes my eyes glaze over, thats probably why I did horrible at economics in school lol, but anyway; so what exactly was the South supposed to be paying so much more for that Northerners weren't also paying? Also, these tarriffs were supposed to be protecting and helping to nurture growing industries in some of the states, which in turn would benefit the whole of the country as these industries and spin offs grow..So the Southern states were complaining because these tarriffs weren't directly helping them? And how can the tarriffs be used as an issue to seceed when the levels in the years before the war were almost at free trade levels?

I bet I hate the topic worse than you do. But there is much work to be done, too many have drank the Cool-aid already.:biggrin:

I think it was mainly a blow to their honor. Southerners saw protective tariffs as government abuse of power. Presidents were elected based on their position on protection. A free trade southerner didn't stand a chance at being elected.

Protective tariffs tend to hinder foreign trade and can trigger countermeasures from other countries. Southerners were worried about that after the 1828 Tariff passed.

Protective tariffs raise the production costs of farmers. Sometimes the complaint was the article taxed, like bagging for cotton or negro cloth.

Then after being pleased with the compromise tariff of 1833 and it's gradual declining rates, southern politicians heard the clamor for more protection in the 1840's.

The writing was on the wall and southerners were seeing it. If the Yankees could demand and receive protection for their industry, in a way that many southerners thought unconstitutional and an abuse of power that couldn't be resisted through the political system anymore, then what will the Yankees do with slavery?
 
Not sure where I stand on this one. Salmon P Chase did supposedly say that in 1845, as it is attested to here http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.972:3.lincoln. However... :smile: A couple of the sources I found last night credited Lincoln as having said it in 1858 and "some years ago." Take for example, this 1861 book http://books.google.com/books?id=XrFYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141 that clearly credits Lincoln with having said it. And then consider that Gov. Letcher also credited Lincoln as having said it. Letcher immediately following the contested quote even added, "When a President is elected, entertaining and boldly avowing such sentiments — when, to this moment, they have never been retracted or qualified, have we not reason for alarm and resentment?"
There's also the New Orleans Crescent, Nov. 12, 1860.
Whoever said it, Lincoln was being given credit for it by the Southerners, and it was fanning the flames.:smile:
This may have been posted before. The New York Times Complete Civil War ,2010,edited by Holzer & Symonds;
pg. 56 foot note to editorial of the Albany Atlas and Argus. "In responding to this charge himself, but in the third person, Lincoln had told New York Times editor Henry J. Raymond on December 18 1860 "Mr Lincoln is not pledged to the ultimate extinctinction (sic) of slavery; does not hold the black man to be the equal of white , unqualifiedly...."
 
Couple of things....Isn't the common man in the North also being affected by these same tarriffs? Wouldn't the small poor farmer in the North have to pay more for sacks for his crops or clothes for his family as well? I would think that there would be a ground swell of opposition from them as well, but haven't really run across that, though my reading on this subject is limited...

So in your mind it was more the threat of future tarriffs then anything they were actually experiencing at the time? But, lets say for arguments sake that New England companies found it more profitable or wanted to make a statement by importing Egyptian grown cotton wouldn't you think that the cotton states would be screaming for a tarriff to protect their own interest..
 
This
I bet I hate the topic worse than you do. But there is much work to be done, too many have drank the Cool-aid already.:biggrin:

I think it was mainly a blow to their honor. Southerners saw protective tariffs as government abuse of power. Presidents were elected based on their position on protection. A free trade southerner didn't stand a chance at being elected.

Protective tariffs tend to hinder foreign trade and can trigger countermeasures from other countries. Southerners were worried about that after the 1828 Tariff passed.

Protective tariffs raise the production costs of farmers. Sometimes the complaint was the article taxed, like bagging for cotton or negro cloth.

Then after being pleased with the compromise tariff of 1833 and it's gradual declining rates, southern politicians heard the clamor for more protection in the 1840's.

The writing was on the wall and southerners were seeing it. If the Yankees could demand and receive protection for their industry, in a way that many southerners thought unconstitutional and an abuse of power that couldn't be resisted through the political system anymore, then what will the Yankees do with slavery?
This is the point, as the Yankees held the sway in this regard. The defeat of the Lecompton Constitution Article 7, showed the the southern oligarchy that the balance of power, in the nation, had shifted north, and they hated the idea of it.
 
Couple of things....Isn't the common man in the North also being affected by these same tarriffs? Wouldn't the small poor farmer in the North have to pay more for sacks for his crops or clothes for his family as well? I would think that there would be a ground swell of opposition from them as well, but haven't really run across that, though my reading on this subject is limited...

So in your mind it was more the threat of future tarriffs then anything they were actually experiencing at the time? But, lets say for arguments sake that New England companies found it more profitable or wanted to make a statement by importing Egyptian grown cotton wouldn't you think that the cotton states would be screaming for a tarriff to protect their own interest..

From reading the Congressional Globe and the tariff debates within, tariffs were always a heated topic. Midwestern farmers didn't like the protective tariffs either but the majority of their produce wasn't for the export market. It was feeding those that wanted the protection.

The government had become incompatible for the southern economy and labor system. There was too much difference in the sections and it wasn't just slavery. It was the export crop, cotton. The complaints continued after the war. Post war transportation rates made farming costs higher in the South than in other regions. Cotton prices dropped and southerners were told they were overproducing. But they had to produce it or lose their land. They needed help but it was too late arriving.

With all the busted farmers looking for work, the Yankees moved their textile mills here to exploit the cheap labor source and rape the South some more.
 
"My take on what he's talking about as a "disaster", is the near spilling of blood over enforcement of a tariff bill founded on abuse of power."

The only "disasters" I see are in the minds of the likes of Calhoun and secessionist wanna-be's who have a strange sense that life, the Constitution, the Government, and the world will always somehow be fair. The whole "Tariff" spin reeks when you see what the confederate government passed on it's own people when they seceded and set higher tariffs on itself, than what the North had.

The cool-aid is the spin Calhoun, Editors, and the Slaveacracy worked at convincing the Southern slave States to tear asunder the Union.

Kevin Dally
 
"My take on what he's talking about as a "disaster", is the near spilling of blood over enforcement of a tariff bill founded on abuse of power."

The only "disasters" I see are in the minds of the likes of Calhoun and secessionist wanna-be's who have a strange sense that life, the Constitution, the Government, and the world will always somehow be fair. The whole "Tariff" spin reeks when you see what the confederate government passed on it's own people when they seceded and set higher tariffs on itself, than what the North had.

The cool-aid is the spin Calhoun, Editors, and the Slaveacracy worked at convincing the Southern slave States to tear asunder the Union.

Kevin Dally

Protective tariffs were not allowed in the Confederate constitution. They were for government revenue purposes only.

I just showed you the spin the cool-aid makers put on Calhoun's speech and the events around the 1828 Tariff.

It's pretty clear to me what section tore the Union asunder, by putting the South in a position to have to fight a war. They did it several times but compromises were reached before shots were fired.

The sections were too different to continue under the same government.
 
Protective tariffs were not allowed in the Confederate constitution. They were for government revenue purposes only.

dvrmte, not true, and I think you had better check and see how LA sugar production was indeed protected by the Confederate tariff. It was one of their conditions upon joining the CSA.

I just showed you the spin the cool-aid makers put on Calhoun's speech and the events around the 1828 Tariff.

"Faced with this impossible situation, South Carolina congressmen clutched at desperate remedies to save themselves from higher duties. The only hope, as some South Carolinians saw it, was to drive a wedge between those who wanted protection for raw materials and those who sought protection for manufactured products. By keeping duties on raw wool at high levels, for example, southerners hoped to make the tariff obnoxious to woolen manufacturers. By maintaining high rates on nonindustrial products, Southerners would then vote with New England manufacturers to defeat the entire Bill of Abominations.

The obvious risk in this strategy was that industrialists might prefer an imperfect bill to no bill at all. If manufacturers should vote for the final tariff despite shored-up rates on raw materials, slaveholders would succeed in saddling unnecessarily high taxes on the nation. George McDuffie correctly termed such a strategy "fighting the devil with fire," and the plot culminated in total disaster. Again and again,southern representatives voted against amendments to lower rates on raw materials. But enough northern Jacksonians, including such Van Burenites as Silas Wright, voted to lower enough of the duties so that industrialists managed to swallow the entire unseemly concoction.

The tariff of 1828 was the law of the land, and South Carolinians were the authors of its worst abominations.

Calhounites later claimed that Van Buren was in on their conspiracy and had betrayed them. Van Buren always denied the accusation and Calhoun never proved it; the debacle was probably a southern plot which backfired rather than a sabotaged Jacksonian stratagem." Source -- Prelude To Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836, by Willaim W. Freehling, chapter 5, pg. 137-138.

It's pretty clear to me what section tore the Union asunder, by putting the South in a position to have to fight a war. They did it several times but compromises were reached before shots were fired.

The sections were too different to continue under the same government.

Southern demands and insistence on the institution of slavery were the only thing that led to the Union being torn asunder.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Protective tariffs were not allowed in the Confederate constitution. They were for government revenue purposes only.

Here it is, section 8, paragraph 1:

Confederate Constitution said:
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.

compared to the U.S. Constitution, section 8:

U.S. Constitution said:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It sounds good in theory, but the problem is that not protecting some industry is almost impossible to accomplish. The very fact that there's a tariff at all, protects home-produced products compared to imports, and then you have to set the rates.

An equal percentage tariff on the value of all imported goods will hurt low-markup imports more than high ones. If I'm buying English widgets at 50 cents and selling them for $1, I'd hardly notice a 10% tariff, but if I'm buying English widgets at 90 cents and selling them for $1, a 10% tariff would put me out of business as an importer. But once you start adjusting tariff rates for particular items, somebody's going to claim protectionism.
 
Southern demands and insistence on the institution of slavery were the only thing that led to the Union being torn asunder.

That's true, but it's just as easy to turn it around and say that northern disrespect for southern slavery was what tore it asunder. The north was relentless in wanting the south to get rid of slavery, when the south just wanted left alone to prosper and maintain its way of life.
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top