Was slavery the only reason of the war?

[wilber6150]

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.

So it would have been better if the mills didn't open up and the busted workers had no work? But, again at the time the tarriff levels were at their lowest so its a future fear of what tarriff levels might be in the future that was their concern over this issue..Just a quick question, most of the Presidents during this time period were Southern oriented, why didn't they veto these tarriffs if they were so harmful to the South?

 

[matthew mckeon]

James B. White,
I wouldn't characterize the "North" as being "relentless" in opposing slavery. The abolitionist minority were quite relentless, but that's not the same thing.

 

[James B White]

James B. White,
I wouldn't characterize the "North" as being "relentless" in opposing slavery. The abolitionist minority were quite relentless, but that's not the same thing.

From a northerner's point of view, most probably felt that the abolitionists who lived among them were in the minority, making more out of the problem than it deserved.

From a southerner's point of view, though, it was "the north" passing personal liberty laws, running the underground railroad, staging rescues of recaptured slaves, sending abolitionist pamphlets south through the mail, and in general keeping up the pressure, at least since the 1830s.

This difference in viewpoint is what makes a simple summary difficult.

A northerner might have noticed that 99% of the people around him didn't care about slavery, and thus conclude that it wasn't a big deal in the north. But a southerner might have noticed that 99% of the people stirring up abolitionist trouble were from the north, and thus claim, truthfully, that northerners were relentless in trying to free his slaves.

 

[dvrmte]

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

Sincerely,
Unionblue

UB, continually quoting from Freehling is just like repeating a catch phrase. Freehling is wrong, I've shown that.

Here it is, section 8, paragraph 1:



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



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.

The Confederate rate for sugar was 20%, which is borderline protective. But then you'll hear certain people refer to the figure of 20% as a free trade rate when describing the tariff rates in the decade before the war.

 

[1st OVHA]

Matthew Mckeon wrote: I wouldn't characterize the "North" as being "relentless" in opposing slavery. The abolitionist minority were quite relentless, but that's not the same thing.

From a southerner's point of view, though, it was "the north" passing personal liberty laws, running the underground railroad, staging rescues of recaptured slaves, sending abolitionist pamphlets south through the mail, and in general keeping up the pressure, at least since the 1830s.

Not to mention that the Northern people have now elected a president and Congress who ran on an almost purely anti-slavery platform. That alone showed that the tide was turning. Before there was just rhetoric from individuals, and a small group of abolitionists, but now it was the people who were speaking at the polls, and enough to change the political landscape. Whether or not the people of the North saw it this way I can't say, but certainly based on the arguments of the period the Southerners saw it and were outraged.

 

[Confederate Marine]

When one reads the 1860 Republican Party Platform which states, http://cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html

"4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state, to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

& then reads Lincoln's first Inaugural Address whttp://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
which states,

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

you will see that Slavery (as abhorent as it was/is) was not the reason for the War of Northern Aggression. The Southern States did not try and overthrow the United States Government, they Seceded just like the Colonists separated themselves from England.

Lincoln, used illogical reasoning said that the States had no right to secede and that he would use,

The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

Lincoln also mentions the Corwin Amendment which would have made Slavery legal. Lincoln states,

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

Lincoln says he has NO objection to making slavery LEGAL!!!!!

So by Lincoln's own admission an invasion would be to recover the tarrif (tax money) that the Southern States would no longer be paying to the United States Federal Government. As the war started to go bad for the North, Lincoln then used Slavery as a moral cause to conquer the South. Isn't it always about MONEY?????

-Confederate Marine

 

[dvrmte]

So it would have been better if the mills didn't open up and the busted workers had no work? But, again at the time the tarriff levels were at their lowest so its a future fear of what tarriff levels might be in the future that was their concern over this issue..Just a quick question, most of the Presidents during this time period were Southern oriented, why didn't they veto these tarriffs if they were so harmful to the South?

I think the tariff legislation from the beginning infuriated southerners. They didn't forget what happened in the 1820's and 30's. The most prosperous times for both North and South, prior to the ACW, was the period it operated under low tariffs, like the Walker Tariff of 1846, advocated by the southern president Polk. Polk and Walker argued that a low tariff stimulated commerce between the US and England. Polk probably did more in a single term than any president but the protectionists despised the low tariffs and were vocal about it.

Then with the Panic of 1857, the protectionist started again, blaming the low tariff for their woes. The tariff wasn't the problem, it was the banks, railroads, and land speculators. But they wouldn't hear it and clamored for protection in the form of the Morrill Tariff.

Then throw in the agitation over slavery during the same period and you have a section that wants to separate and be left alone.

It was/is a bitter pill to swallow for southerners to work in a cotton mill. There are very few people around here, my age or older, who haven't worked in a cotton mill at some time in their life. It's something you wouldn't want to brag about. You had to be very careful not to fall into the trap of being a wage slave. This is an extreme case here but I know exactly what he's talking about.
http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/mckelway/mckelway.html
"We work in his mill. We live in his houses. Our children go to his school. And on Sunday we go to hear his preacher." This is the pathetic plaint of the cotton mill workers of North Carolina, spoken more than once to our agent in North Carolina. It is refreshing to observe that at least the system of feudalism is recognized by the workers themselves. The expression we have quoted might be amplified with regard to some twenty or twenty-five mills in the South that are invariably advertised for their betterment work, with a significant silence as to the 700 other cotton mills that merely bask in the reflected glory of the "show mills." "We also go to his Y. M. C. A. when he has built one. We spend our leisure time, after the eleven-hour day, those of us who can read, in his reading room. Our children play in his streets. Our cow sleeps in his stable. We are sent to his store to buy our goods. When we are sick, or hurt in the mill, we go to his hospital. We are arrested by his constable, and tried by his magistrate. And when we die we are buried in his cemetery."



One of the reasons of the "southern attitude" is the knowledge that our forefathers were proud farmers. After the ACW, and all the way to when I was a young man, you had three choices. Leave the area of your nativity; hopefully have some family land to farm on; or go to work in a d*mned cotton mill.

I worked a short time in a cotton mill, just as they were getting more worker friendly, and then most of them shut down. More industry moved in and that's where I work. I have my own miniature farm going on too. So you Yankees ain't got me 100% industrialized or reconstructed.

 

[cash]

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."

Looks like it's exactly what I've written. He claims, "We were deceived then." and "We then followed his lead." "The tariff of 1828 was as much a political movement as a measure of protection."
"The battle was to be fought in Congress, and thus the presidential election came to be blended with the subject of the tariff."
"One of two courses might be taken: to join the New England interest, and vote such amendments to the bill as would make it aceptable to them; or to resist all such amendments, and take the chance of the members from New England joining those of the South, to defeat the bill in its passage in one or the other House." Keep reading.

 

[cash]

We're finding out that ain't the case, now. The very speech of Calhoun that Freehling used, proves him wrong.

The exact opposite is true. Calhoun's speech is EXACTLY what Freehling said.

Call it deceptive, dishonest or just good old irresponsible research.

You tell us what you did--which of the three?

 

[cash]

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.

This is very true, which is why when one says "slavery was the root cause" that small sentence encompasses quite a bit, and it's not the simple existence of slavery itself.

 

[seboyle]

you will see that Slavery (as abhorent as it was/is) was not the reason for the War of Northern Aggression.

Correct because the North went to war to preserve the Union (as in republican government), only later did it become a war to also end slavery. On the other hand the South (or at least the Cotton 7) started the War of Southern Aggression because they perceived slavery to be under threat. In actual fact, as you have shown, slavery was never under any (direct) threat at all.

What a senseless waste of lives. I would hope that some of the fire-eaters and planter aristocracy felt some sense of shame at some time in their lives for what they did. But I doubt that happened.

Lincoln says he has NO objection to making slavery LEGAL!!!!!

Yes, and in over 100 pre-war speeches he never once said he would attempt to eradicate slavery (since for starters he had no constitutional power to do so). No one is saying otherwise. So what were those fire-eaters thinking? And why did the Cotton 7 feel the need to secede upon his election?

So by Lincoln's own admission an invasion would be to recover the tarrif (tax money) that the Southern States would no longer be paying to the United States Federal Government.

Could you cite me where Lincoln makes such an admission?

Isn't it always about MONEY?????

In a word, no. My evidence? Thirty Years War, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and that'll do for now.

 

[dvrmte]

Looks like it's exactly what I've written. He claims, "We were deceived then." and "We then followed his lead." "The tariff of 1828 was as much a political movement as a measure of protection."
"The battle was to be fought in Congress, and thus the presidential election came to be blended with the subject of the tariff."
"One of two courses might be taken: to join the New England interest, and vote such amendments to the bill as would make it aceptable to them; or to resist all such amendments, and take the chance of the members from New England joining those of the South, to defeat the bill in its passage in one or the other House." Keep reading.

No you insisted Calhoun co-authored the tariff and quoted Freehling as a source. Freehling didn't quote Calhoun directly, but gave an inaccurate summary of his speech. I quoted what Calhoun actually said and have read his entire speech, which is nothing compared to some of his others. His actions were in response to the tariff, not authoring it. Calhoun wasn't the devil in that deal, as Freehling tries to make him out. I have used actual historical facts and you have give nothing but quotes from a flawed book.

 

[ForeverFree]

From a northerner's point of view, most probably felt that the abolitionists who lived among them were in the minority, making more out of the problem than it deserved.

From a southerner's point of view, though, it was "the north" passing personal liberty laws, running the underground railroad, staging rescues of recaptured slaves, sending abolitionist pamphlets south through the mail, and in general keeping up the pressure, at least since the 1830s.

This difference in viewpoint is what makes a simple summary difficult.

A northerner might have noticed that 99% of the people around him didn't care about slavery, and thus conclude that it wasn't a big deal in the north. But a southerner might have noticed that 99% of the people stirring up abolitionist trouble were from the north, and thus claim, truthfully, that northerners were relentless in trying to free his slaves.

I think the key here is that, there is a difference between reality and the perception of it; and that, when we consider the actions taken by people in the past or now, we need to understand the state of people's perceptions.

In fact, the "North" was not overrun with abolitionists. The vast majority of people in the section had no problem in keeping slavery where it was, ie, in the slave states. The majority were prejudiced against African Americans. They just didn't want slavery spread to the territories.

Even so, people in the slave states came to perceive the Republicans as "Black Republicans," and as an abolitionist party that was out to destroy the "southern way of life." Upon review and reflection, it's clear (to me) that the slave states' reaction to the election of Lincoln was not so much about Lincoln himself - who was a relative unknown at the time and had not spent a day in office before the Cotton 7 seceded- but about their fear for the institution itself. I was going to say it was about the fear of the unknown - but in fact, slave staters constructed a vision of the future in which abolitionists would rule. In his farewell speech to the Senate, Jefferson Davis spoke of those fears should that rule come:

(it is the) belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races.

The "perception thing" is one reason why I can't take the tariff causation theory seriously. Yes, there were sectional differences over the tariff. Yes, a separate Confederate state would enable the development of trade policy that would not be a compromise between the needs of the two sections. But the records just don't show that tariff policy was perceived as an issue that was worth dissolving the Union. It certainly wasn't presented as such in Davis' speech to the Senate. When Davis says that secession was about slavery and race, I believe him.

 

[dvrmte]

The exact opposite is true. Calhoun's speech is EXACTLY what Freehling said.



You tell us what you did--which of the three?

Stings, doesn't it?

 

[Confederate Marine]

Could you cite me where Lincoln makes such an admission?

Seboyle,
Maybe I used the wrong words. When Lincoln says in his 1st Inaugural Address that,

The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

Lincoln is admitting the true reason behind an invasion....Taxes! In other words he goes through this list of why the South cannot secede ie..its anarchy, the Union is older than the States etc.. and then he quickly mentions this. Remember he was a successful trial lawyer.
-C.M.

 

[James B White]

When one reads the 1860 Republican Party Platform which states, http://cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html
...
& then reads Lincoln's first Inaugural Address whttp://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
which states,
...
you will see that Slavery (as abhorent as it was/is) was not the reason for the War of Northern Aggression.

That's what northerners were saying. Now read what southerners were saying about Lincoln's election at the time. There are hundreds of examples.

From Mary Chesnut's diary:

CHARLESTON, S. C., November 8, 1860. - Yesterday on the train, just before we reached Fernandina, a woman called out: "That settles the hash." Tanny touched me on the shoulder and said: "Lincoln's elected." "How do you know?" "The man over there has a telegram."
The excitement was very great. Everybody was talking at the same time. One, a little more moved than the others, stood up and said despondently: "The die is cast; no more vain regrets; sad forebodings are useless; the stake is life or death." "Did you ever!" was the prevailing exclamation, and some one cried out: "Now that the black radical Republicans have the power I suppose they will Brown us all. " No doubt of it.

From the Raleigh NC Weekly Standard, Nov. 14, 1860 (available at Ancestry.com)

The people of this community received this intelligence [of Lincoln's] election of the first geographical triumph which has taken place in this country, with a feeling of mingled sadness and determination. For our part our motto is, Watch and Wait. North-Carolina will never permit Mr. Lincoln or his party to touch the institution of domestic slavery. Her people are at least a unit on this point. They may not advise or approve secession, but they will not submit to the slightest indignity or the slightest encroachment at the hands of the black Republican party.

From the Richmond Dispatch, November 19, 1860:

A great deal of excitement prevails in Lancaster county, Va., owing to some revelations made by a free negro. The Fredericksburg Herald says:
A slave was first arrested for making sundry assumptions of freedom "now that Massa Lincoln was elected," but expressing penitence, and stating that he was "in liquor" at the time, he was discharged. After wards, a free negro made revelations to the effect that the negroes from the upper and lower ends of the county were to meet at Lancaster Court House at a given time, break open the jail, seize the fire-arms therein, and commence an indiscriminate slaughter of men, women and children, and that means of their escape was provided by a vessel lying in the creek.

From the Anderson Intelligencer, Anderson Court House, SC, Nov. 1, 1860, concerning a speech at the Greenville courthouse by Col. Ashmore, who thought Lincoln's election was "almost certain":

...in order to show what might be the policy of such an administratin, read various extracts from the "Life of Lincoln," tracing out his political character of the past twenty years. These extracts furnished conclusive evidence that Lincoln recognized and practised the "higher law" doctrines of the Abolition party. The prime object of the Republican party was nothing less than the entire extinction of the peculiar institution of the Southern States.

I know that the victors write the history, but it's really sad to see the old Confederate viewpoints forgotten or denied, only 150 years later.

 

[Confederate Marine]

I think the key here is that, there is a difference between reality and the perception of it; and that, when we consider the actions taken by people in the past or now, we need to understand the state of people's perceptions.

In fact, the "North" was not overrun with abolitionists. The vast majority of people in the section had no problem in keeping slavery where it was, ie, in the slave states. The majority were prejudiced against African Americans. They just didn't want slavery spread to the territories.

Even so, people in the slave states came to perceive the Republicans as "Black Republicans," and as an abolitionist party that was out to destroy the "southern way of life." Upon review and reflection, it's clear (to me) that the slave states' reaction to the election of Lincoln was not so much about Lincoln himself - who was a relative unknown at the time and had not spent a day in office before the Cotton 7 seceded- but about their fear for the institution itself. I was going to say it was about the fear of the unknown - but in fact, slave staters constructed a vision of the future in which abolitionists would rule. In his farewell speech to the Senate, Jefferson Davis spoke of those fears should that rule come:

(it is the) belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races.

The "perception thing" is one reason why I can't take the tariff causation theory seriously. Yes, there were sectional differences over the tariff. Yes, a separate Confederate state would enable the development of trade policy that would not be a compromise between the needs of the two sections. But the records just don't show that tariff policy was perceived as an issue that was worth dissolving the Union. It certainly wasn't presented as such in Davis' speech to the Senate. When Davis says that secession was about slavery and race, I believe him.

The BIG picture is that the Federal Govt didnt then and to this day (under the wording of the Compact known as the Constitution), have any authority to dictate to the States how to conduct its own affairs. Once the Federal Govt (by might) took this "power" our Union ceased to be a Republic but something else.

C.M.

 

[seboyle]

Seboyle,
Maybe I used the wrong words. When Lincoln says in his 1st Inaugural Address that,

Yeh, I'd say that was the wrong words alright.

What actual evidence do you have that collecting duties and imposts is to be taken more seriously than the other powers confided in him that he mentions?

The only thing you would appear to have is that he's a *nudge, nudge, wink wink* "successful trial lawyer". Apparently he wasn't a good enough one to simply leave the obvious 'true' cause off the list altogether.

 

[Confederate Marine]

That's what northerners were saying. Now read what southerners were saying about Lincoln's election at the time. There are hundreds of examples.

From Mary Chesnut's diary:



From the Raleigh NC Weekly Standard, Nov. 14, 1860 (available at Ancestry.com)



From the Richmond Dispatch, November 19, 1860:



From the Anderson Intelligencer, Anderson Court House, SC, Nov. 1, 1860, concerning a speech at the Greenville courthouse by Col. Ashmore, who thought Lincoln's election was "almost certain":



I know that the victors write the history, but it's really sad to see the old Confederate viewpoints forgotten or denied, only 150 years later.

James,
I'll admit that those quotes are disgusting but it was a different time. Slavery or any other institution at that time was a State issue. Lincoln, the clever trial lawyer, figured out that by using slavery as a moral issue could then use it to expand Federal power over the States. Look at our country today. We are ALL SLAVES now!!

C.M.

 

[Confederate Marine]

Yeh, I'd say that was the wrong words alright.

What actual evidence do you have that collecting duties and imposts is to be taken more seriously than the other powers confided in him that he mentions?

The only thing you would appear to have is that he's a *nudge, nudge, wink wink* "successful trial lawyer". Apparently he wasn't a good enough one to simply leave the obvious 'true' cause off the list altogether.

The thread title is whether Slavery was the only reason for this unnecessary war. Im just showing the proof that Lincoln was indirectly saying it was about taxes.

C.M.