Was slavery the only reason of the war?

[wilber6150]

We can say that tariff wasn't important simply due to the fact that its hardly mentioned at all...Why should we put more importance on it they did....There are a lot of people who play up the role of tariffs use it to play down the importance of slavery to the Confederacy to somehow make the cause of the Confederacy more politically correct to modern eyes.. And Im not putting Dvrmte into this group as he honestly believes the tarriff issue was important to S. Carolina and has been doing some fine research on this aspect..

 

[James B White]

We can say that tariff wasn't important simply due to the fact that its hardly mentioned at all...

You must be reading different things than I am. One can find article after article on the tariff, if one is looking for it. Check out what southerners were saying to Englishmen in particular, since slavery wasn't so palatable over there. They tried to spin their concern over the tariff into the main cause when they wrote for Englishmen--unsuccessfully in many cases, but still:

"The author of The American Crisis quotes the [London] Times as his authority for saying that it is not slavery, but protection, which has caused the disruption of the republic. This is, no doubt, what Southern politicians invariably put forward as the plea to enlist European sympathy. And no doubt, also, that the indecent haste with which the Morrill tariff was enacted during the very thores of separation has contributed more than anything else to support such a plea. But let us look at facts..." Source.

Englishman Samuel Pope, speaking at a meeting in Manchester, England:

"It was slavery, and nothing but slavery. [Pope] knew it was said in this country that it was not slavery which was the cause of the war; that it was long-standing grievances, and especially grievances with regard to tariffs. He knew that was said in this country, but it was a little singular that it was not said anywhere else... because this particular question of tariff was one which caught the imagination of the English people." Source

So southerners were over-exaggerating the importance of the tariff to please their English audiences, but there was still a kernel of truth to it--the fear of a higher tariff, with its profits and protection going to the north, had been a thorn in their side. We only need to deny this because we live in the 21st century and the position has been forced on us, just like it was forced on England, so we need to over-exaggerate the opposite view.

But the war's over. It's time to stop worrying about spinning arguments to be palatable to the anti-slavery demographic, and it's time to stop letting those arguments frame the discussion.

There are a lot of people who play up the role of tariffs use it to play down the importance of slavery to the Confederacy to somehow make the cause of the Confederacy more politically correct to modern eyes.

Exactly. But they're forcing a false dichotomy. Where are period southerners saying the tariff wasn't important? Slavery was the main crisis they were focussed on, but only because we live in the 21st century do we have to argue that the tariff was unimportant, in order to argue that slavery was.

 

[Savez]

You must be reading different things than I am. One can find article after article on the tariff, if one is looking for it. Check out what southerners were saying to Englishmen in particular, since slavery wasn't so palatable over there. They tried to spin their concern over the tariff into the main cause when they wrote for Englishmen--unsuccessfully in many cases, but still:

"The author of The American Crisis quotes the [London] Times as his authority for saying that it is not slavery, but protection, which has caused the disruption of the republic. This is, no doubt, what Southern politicians invariably put forward as the plea to enlist European sympathy. And no doubt, also, that the indecent haste with which the Morrill tariff was enacted during the very thores of separation has contributed more than anything else to support such a plea. But let us look at facts..." Source.

Englishman Samuel Pope, speaking at a meeting in Manchester, England:

"It was slavery, and nothing but slavery. [Pope] knew it was said in this country that it was not slavery which was the cause of the war; that it was long-standing grievances, and especially grievances with regard to tariffs. He knew that was said in this country, but it was a little singular that it was not said anywhere else... because this particular question of tariff was one which caught the imagination of the English people." Source

So southerners were over-exaggerating the importance of the tariff to please their English audiences, but there was still a kernel of truth to it--the fear of a higher tariff, with its profits and protection going to the north, had been a thorn in their side. We only need to deny this because we live in the 21st century and the position has been forced on us, just like it was forced on England, so we need to over-exaggerate the opposite view.

But the war's over. It's time to stop worrying about spinning arguments to be palatable to the anti-slavery demographic, and it's time to stop letting those arguments frame the discussion.



Exactly. But they're forcing a false dichotomy. Where are period southerners saying the tariff wasn't important? Slavery was the main crisis they were focussed on, but only because we live in the 21st century do we have to argue that the tariff was unimportant, in order to argue that slavery was.

Sounds like it was up for debate then too. What were Northerners "saying to Englishmen"?

 

[dvrmte]

You've gotta be kidding! Here read the Disquisition, then comment on it.​

http://www.constitution.org/jcc/disq_gov.htm​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

​

I keep thinking Slim Pickens is going to pop in and say: "Gee Mr. Calhoun, you use yer tongue purtyer-n-a twenty dollar whore!​

(Sorry, I couldn't resist!)​

dvrmte, thanks... I'll copy and paste what you posted to file and read it. Mr. Calhoun is wordy and long winded, but I am interested to know more of what and how he's thinking. I'm way behind on all I want to get read these days!​

Kevin Dally​

​

Ha Ha, Blazing Saddles has a scene for every situation. The South should've put one of these up at all the fords on the Potomac. We'd have broken the North.

 

[dvrmte]

McDuffie very clearly laid out the conspiracy. Calhoun certainly alluded to it. I'd say the evidence is there to show the conspiracy existed.

As to the wording, I thought it was very clear Calhoun didn't write the tariff himself.

You said, rather authoritively, "He co-authored it." - (Co-author definition: a person who shares the writing of a book, article, etc, with another.) If it was so clear, why did you attempt to mislead?

A blog from an anonymous writer with no sourcing. I suppose that's what you consider credible. Just as long as it fits your view, right?

You're reaching, it makes you look desperate.

Whatever, dude. Does this mean you now repudiate your statement that, "I had to bring up Romini just to get some respect for my interpretation, which happens to be pretty close to his?"

Still reaching.

 

[wilber6150]

You must be reading different things than I am. One can find article after article on the tariff, if one is looking for it. Check out what southerners were saying to Englishmen in particular, since slavery wasn't so palatable over there. They tried to spin their concern over the tariff into the main cause when they wrote for Englishmen--unsuccessfully in many cases, but still:

"The author of The American Crisis quotes the [London] Times as his authority for saying that it is not slavery, but protection, which has caused the disruption of the republic. This is, no doubt, what Southern politicians invariably put forward as the plea to enlist European sympathy. And no doubt, also, that the indecent haste with which the Morrill tariff was enacted during the very thores of separation has contributed more than anything else to support such a plea. But let us look at facts..." Source.

Englishman Samuel Pope, speaking at a meeting in Manchester, England:

"It was slavery, and nothing but slavery. [Pope] knew it was said in this country that it was not slavery which was the cause of the war; that it was long-standing grievances, and especially grievances with regard to tariffs. He knew that was said in this country, but it was a little singular that it was not said anywhere else... because this particular question of tariff was one which caught the imagination of the English people." Source

So southerners were over-exaggerating the importance of the tariff to please their English audiences, but there was still a kernel of truth to it--the fear of a higher tariff, with its profits and protection going to the north, had been a thorn in their side. We only need to deny this because we live in the 21st century and the position has been forced on us, just like it was forced on England, so we need to over-exaggerate the opposite view.

But the war's over. It's time to stop worrying about spinning arguments to be palatable to the anti-slavery demographic, and it's time to stop letting those arguments frame the discussion.



Exactly. But they're forcing a false dichotomy. Where are period southerners saying the tariff wasn't important? Slavery was the main crisis they were focussed on, but only because we live in the 21st century do we have to argue that the tariff was unimportant, in order to argue that slavery was.

The reasons Southerners give for secession back then seems to depend very much on who their audience was..Slavery was unpopular to England, so its natural that they talk about tariffs.. But look into the debates of the secession conventions and the documents, tariffs were a very minor issue...While slavery and things connected to it were the critical issues for the cotton 7..

 

[wilber6150]

Ha Ha, Blazing Saddles has a scene for every situation. The South should've put one of these up at all the fords on the Potomac. We'd have broken the North.

Naaaa we would have almost broke even if Lee crossed one more time...

 

[cash]

You must be reading different things than I am. One can find article after article on the tariff, if one is looking for it. Check out what southerners were saying to Englishmen in particular, since slavery wasn't so palatable over there. They tried to spin their concern over the tariff into the main cause when they wrote for Englishmen--unsuccessfully in many cases, but still:

"The author of The American Crisis quotes the [London] Times as his authority for saying that it is not slavery, but protection, which has caused the disruption of the republic. This is, no doubt, what Southern politicians invariably put forward as the plea to enlist European sympathy. And no doubt, also, that the indecent haste with which the Morrill tariff was enacted during the very thores of separation has contributed more than anything else to support such a plea. But let us look at facts..." Source.

Englishman Samuel Pope, speaking at a meeting in Manchester, England:

"It was slavery, and nothing but slavery. [Pope] knew it was said in this country that it was not slavery which was the cause of the war; that it was long-standing grievances, and especially grievances with regard to tariffs. He knew that was said in this country, but it was a little singular that it was not said anywhere else... because this particular question of tariff was one which caught the imagination of the English people." Source

So southerners were over-exaggerating the importance of the tariff to please their English audiences, but there was still a kernel of truth to it--the fear of a higher tariff, with its profits and protection going to the north, had been a thorn in their side. We only need to deny this because we live in the 21st century and the position has been forced on us, just like it was forced on England, so we need to over-exaggerate the opposite view.

But the war's over. It's time to stop worrying about spinning arguments to be palatable to the anti-slavery demographic, and it's time to stop letting those arguments frame the discussion.



Exactly. But they're forcing a false dichotomy. Where are period southerners saying the tariff wasn't important? Slavery was the main crisis they were focussed on, but only because we live in the 21st century do we have to argue that the tariff was unimportant, in order to argue that slavery was.

But we have to look at what use they were putting to their discussions of the tariff. The confederates themselves had a tariff, and they used a protective tariff argument as part of their attempts to lure Virginia into the confederacy. They used the tariff discussions primarily to make the claim they didn't need the rest of the US and that the rest of the US needed them. In other words, it was primarily for the purpose of "calculating the value of the Union," not for detailing a reason for secession (for the most part).

 

[cash]

You said, rather authoritively, "He co-authored it." - (Co-author definition: a person who shares the writing of a book, article, etc, with another.) If it was so clear, why did you attempt to mislead?

Again, you're fixated on the stage rather than what happened behind the curtain. "Co-authored" fits exactly with coming to agreement on what was to happen and what the tariff would include.

Still reaching.

Projection.

 

[Glorybound]

Getting a couple of complaints folks, let's please keep it civil. Thanks for your help.

Posted as moderator

 

[OpnCoronet]

Calhoun's disquisition is quite lengthy, but in fact, while it could, arguably, be true, of more importance to me, is, does it agree or disagree with what the Constitution (and its Framers) actually says? It provides for a system of checks and balances, but does it make mention of(or provision for) concurrent majorities?
I am more interested in how Calhoun's disquition on the positive good of slavery,(1836) fits into the reasoning for his disquition on gov't in the first place.

P.S. Calhoun's Fort Hill Address,(July 26, 1831)on the relation which the State and General Gov't bear to each other, is much shorter, thus more readable(and understandable) than his disquistion.

 

[dvrmte]

The reasons Southerners give for secession back then seems to depend very much on who their audience was..Slavery was unpopular to England, so its natural that they talk about tariffs.. But look into the debates of the secession conventions and the documents, tariffs were a very minor issue...While slavery and things connected to it were the critical issues for the cotton 7..

One important thing you're missing in the stew. High tariffs on English manufactured goods, destined for the US, were extremely unpopular in England. At the rate they imported slave grown cotton, I'd say their pocketbooks overruled their morals.

 

[wilber6150]

Very true, they might be against slavery but they could certainly overlook it to get the high quality cotton...

 

[dvrmte]

Calhoun's disquisition is quite lengthy, but in fact, while it could, arguably, be true, of more importance to me, is, does it agree or disagree with what the Constitution (and its Framers) actually says? It provides for a system of checks and balances, but does it make mention of(or provision for) concurrent majorities?
I am more interested in how Calhoun's disquition on the positive good of slavery,(1836) fits into the reasoning for his disquition on gov't in the first place.

P.S. Calhoun's Fort Hill Address,(July 26, 1831)on the relation which the State and General Gov't bear to each other, is much shorter, thus more readable(and understandable) than his disquistion.

I wonder if it would've been better for the South and maybe the entire country in general, if Calhoun was born a generation earlier or later. A man of his nature couldn't help but be a major influence.

 

[seboyle]

One important thing you're missing in the stew. High tariffs on English manufactured goods, destined for the US, were extremely unpopular in England. At the rate they imported slave grown cotton, I'd say their pocketbooks overruled their morals.

Yet the working class mill workers of the north of England, the very people who were in danger of losing work through any kind of interruption to the flow of cotton, presented a massive pro-Union petition to Downing Street. Morals sometimes trump pocketbooks.

 

[dvrmte]

Very true, they might be against slavery but they could certainly overlook it to get the high quality cotton...

The Compromise Tariff that gradually lowered duties to a level accepted by southerners, lasted two months at the low levels, then the clamor began again. The result was the Black Tariff of 1842 with much higher duties. The almost immediate result was a near 50% reduction in imports and a 20% drop in exports. Take a guess what section was doing the exporting. So the high tariff protected the industry, but raised production costs for farmers across the board. However, only one section of farmers was exporting the vast majority of their production. That section suffered from higher production costs for their crops and reduced demand. England started looking elsewhere for a cotton source they could trade with.

 

[seboyle]

Here's one example from a public meeting at Free Trade Hall, Manchester, 31 December 1862. The cotton workers, depsite the hardship of the CW caused 'cotton famine,' still supported the North even though their livelihoods were at risk. They wrote a letter to Lincoln: ​

"... the vast progress which you have made in the short space of twenty months fills us with hope that every stain on your freedom will shortly be removed, and that the erasure of that foul blot on civilisation and Christianity – chattel slavery – during your presidency, will cause the name of Abraham Lincoln to be honoured and revered by posterity. We are certain that such a glorious consummation will cement Great Britain and the United States in close and enduring regards."​

​

However, it wasn't always slavery to the British working classes (though I don't see anywhere that it was tariffs). Sometimes it was republicanism too (as in freedom and democracy, something they themselves sorely lacked). ​

From a report by Henry Adams on a pro-Northern meeting in England. He noted that "No one could doubt what was intended". In other words, as well as being a pro-Northern meeting, much of what was said was aimed at the British establishment:​

​

"The meeting was a demonstration of democratic strength and no concealment of this fact was made. If it did not have a direct political bearing on internal politics in England it needed little of doing so. There was not even a profession of faith in the government of England as at present constituted. Every hostile allusion to the Aristocracy, the Church, the opinions of the 'privileged classes,' was received with warm cheers. Every allusion to the republican institutions of America, the right of suffrage, the right of self-taxation, the 'sunlight' of republican influence, was caught up by the audience with vehement applause. It may therefore be considered as fairly and authoritatively announced that the class of skilled workmen in London--that is the leaders of the pure popular movement in England--have announced by an act almost without precedent in their history, the principle that they make common cause with the Americans who are struggling for the restoration of the Union and that all their power and influence shall be used on behalf of the North." ​

​

 

[dvrmte]

Yet the working class mill workers of the north of England, the very people who were in danger of losing work through any kind of interruption to the flow of cotton, presented a massive pro-Union petition to Downing Street. Morals sometimes trump pocketbooks.

Out of curiosity, what year was that?

Edit: oops nevermind.

 

[cash]

England started looking elsewhere for a cotton source they could trade with.

Apparently not until the Civil War.

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/england-and-cotton.48595/

http://www.english.uga.edu/newsite/fyc/barnett/mays09-10.pdf

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/egypt.htm

http://www.logan.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/7325/richinhistory-kingcotton.pdf

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c....pdf+England+Alternate+Sources+Cotton&ct=clnk

 

[Potomac Pride]

We can say that tariff wasn't important simply due to the fact that its hardly mentioned at all...Why should we put more importance on it they did....There are a lot of people who play up the role of tariffs use it to play down the importance of slavery to the Confederacy to somehow make the cause of the Confederacy more politically correct to modern eyes.. And Im not putting Dvrmte into this group as he honestly believes the tarriff issue was important to S. Carolina and has been doing some fine research on this aspect..

The tariff issue had been a point of contention between the North and South for decades starting with the Tariff of 1828. The Morrill Tariff that went before Congress in 1860 was vehemently opposed by the southern states. The tariff issue was also very important to the Union since it provided the major source of tax revenue. In his inaugural address of March 1861, Lincoln practically threatned a military invasion of any state that did not collect its fair share of the federal tariff. In addition, Lincoln issued his Proclamation of Blockade Against Southern Ports in April of 1861 because the tariffs were not able to be collected in the southern states.