In The Absence Of Slavery There Would Have Still Been Secession Over Other Fiscal Issues

Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,825
Location
South Carolina
I emphasized a set of words in your sentence because this sectional divide was still about slavery. The concern was the political balance of free state vs slave state would allow the federal government to stop enabling slavery.
And as I said, there was a lot more to it than that. Slavery was a useful "wedge issue" (to use a modern term) to allow one section to dominate the other, given time. It wasn't freedom for the slaves that the Republicans and north were after, but more territory, more power within the Union and control of the nation's wealth and destiny.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,317
weren't well aware of this.
The constant focus on slavery puts the greedy desire for spoils squarely in the South's camp, but there was a big prize to be gained for the North as well, war or no war. They'd have run everything with only token opposition.



Actually, many in the north, including Lincoln, opposed the expansion of slavery as a moral issue, i.e., the practice of enslaving other human beings, was Wrong Declaring that unless the supporters of chattle slavery, could provide convincing proof that a slave was, in fact, no different from an oxen or chair, That if, in fact, the slave were human beings, then, it follows that having ultimate control of ones own life and another mans also, without that other man's consent, to that extent was not democracy, but tyranny.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,502
I emphasized a set of words in your sentence because this sectional divide was still about slavery. The concern was the political balance of free state vs slave state would allow the federal government to stop enabling slavery.
Just can't avoid "slavery" in any discussion of the Civil War or its cause. Maybe that's because slavery WAS the root cause....
 
Last edited:

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,502
And as I said, there was a lot more to it than that. Slavery was a useful "wedge issue" (to use a modern term) to allow one section to dominate the other, given time. It wasn't freedom for the slaves that the Republicans and north were after, but more territory, more power within the Union and control of the nation's wealth and destiny.
And the Southern politicians were content with just the then-slave states? They weren't after "more territory, more power wiyhin the Union and control of the nation's wealth and destiny"?
Take some time to read about the decade of the 1850s. You might acquire a better understanding of what happened in 1860s....
 
Joined
May 19, 2019
Messages
161
Was New York duty free? Was a tax imposed on Charleston that was not imposed in Philadelphia? Tariffs were a combination of a national sales tax on luxuries and an excise tax on equipment. The South Carolinians did not want the federal government to collect any taxes. They did not want there to be any power outside their legislative body consisting of later day imitation Dukes and Counts.
You mean like the Rockefellers, Chase's, Carnegie's? of a later period. Wealth that was harnessed after the CW.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,067
And the Southern politicians were content with just the then-slave states? They weren't after "more territory, more power wiyhin the Union and control of the nation's wealth and destiny"?
Take some time to read about the decade of the 1850s. You might acquire a better understanding of what happened in 1860s....
Fourth, the common enemies that mattered most to early Republicans were the Democratic party and especially white southern slaveholders. In the prewar years, those southerners were labeled an insolent, aggressive and tyrannical Slave Poser, "the most revolting and oppressive (aristocracy) with which the earth was ever cursed." During and after the Civil War, they were denounced as Confederate traitors, rebels who sought to destroy the Union and then to win the postwar peace after their rebellion had failed. During the 1850s, in short, Republicans discovered that South bashing was the easiest way to defeat Democrats in the North, and that knowledge shaped their electoral tactics for at least twenty years after Lincoln's election in 1860.

This assertion is controversial because it appears to minimize or marginalize the genuine commitment of some Republicans to abolition and racial justice. There can be no doubt, in fact, that some Republicans--and in no historian has supplied or ever can supply a verifiable estimate of the size of that faction--considered African American slavery as morally intolerable before the war, always insisted that abolition be a goal of the North during the war, and remained committed to equal civil and political rights for blacks after it. Nonetheless, the preponderance of evidence suggest that Republican politicians discovered very quickly in the 1850s that fanning and exploiting white northerners' fear and resentment of white southerners paid far greater political dividends in the North than professing sympathy for blacks' rights to freedom and equality. Thus the famous black abolitionist Fredrick Douglass later recalled of Republicans in the 1850s that "the cry of Free Men was raised, not for the extension of liberty to the black man, but for the protection of liberty of the white." Thus William Henry Seward, the Republicans' ,most prominent leader in the 1850s, declared in 1860 that "the motive of those who have protested against the extension of slavery (has) always been concern for the welfare of the white man, not an unnatural sympathy for the negro." pp34 The Grand Old Party, written by Holt

Holt goes on to say, the Republicans wanted to destroy the Democrats. Also with the rise of the American Party, Republicans had to convince the Northern Angry Mob that the Southern Whites were a greater threat to them than the Catholics. Catholic hatred was the Center of the American Party and was thought to be the Replacement for the Whigs. Yep, we can all Learn.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
116
I see lots of running about by Modern Southerners trying avoid slavery when the Southerners in the time and place thought slavery was as good of a thing as moderns see capitalism.
I think your not exactly correct here. Capitalism as understood today is based on free labor society; my understanding is that Slavery was superior to our current system. Progress marched on and its easy to attribute the progress we do see today as proof that Slavery was bad. I think, however, if Slavery were still around today we would be much further along progress wise. The struggle to end slavery was just a counter productive digressive distraction from real issues; like how well we treat one anther. Considering slavery as axiomatically bad is a fallacy pure and simple.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
609
Location
Pittsburgh
I think your not exactly correct here. Capitalism as understood today is based on free labor society; my understanding is that Slavery was superior to our current system. Progress marched on and its easy to attribute the progress we do see today as proof that Slavery was bad. I think, however, if Slavery were still around today we would be much further along progress wise. The struggle to end slavery was just a counter productive digressive distraction from real issues; like how well we treat one anther. Considering slavery as axiomatically bad is a fallacy pure and simple.
Finally a sympathizer who isn’t embarrassed to truly embrace the confederate cause. Thank you for not trying to whitewash the truth of confederate beliefs with lost cause ideology.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
816
Yes, I think in the absence of slavery there would have still been secession at some point over other fiscal issues. It would have been later, and wouldn't have looked like the Civil War of 1861, but a split would have happened. We almost got armed conflict in 1832 during the nullification crisis, so the precedent was there. New England states had considered secession over fiscal issues in the past, so again, there was precedent.

John C. Calhoun, the intellectual leader of the nullification process wrote in a private letter that the tariff dispute was really about slavery.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
816
John Calhoun himself, the mastermind of the terrible tariff concept, in a private letter to Virgil Maxy written in 1830, said:

I consider the Tariff, but as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick institutions of the Southern States, [slavery] and the consequent direction which that and her soil and climate have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriation in opposite relation to the majority of the Union; against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states, they must in the end be forced to rebel or submit to have . . . their domestick institutions exhausted by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves & children reduced to wretchedness. Thus situatied [sic], the denial of the right of the state to interfere constitutionally in the last resort, more alarms the thinking than all other causes.

Additionally, at the secession convention, South Carolina fire-eater Laurence Keitt explicitly addressed the tariff question to the members of the assembly:

But the Tariff is not the question which brought the people up to their present attitude. We are to give a summary of our causes to the world, but mainly to the other Southern States, whose co-action we wish, and we must not make a fight on the Tariff question. ...

African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism. . . . The anti-slavery party contend that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States.
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Messages
35
Location
Bellingham, WA
Just can't avoid "slavery" in any discussion of the Civil War or its cause. Maybe that's because slavery WAS the root cause....
Territory had little or nothing to do with the Southern cause in the late 1850s. The key was WHAT the territories TURNED STATES would be permitted to become, slave or free? As things stood until Dred Scott, the Missouri Compromise prohibited expansion of slavery. The South foresaw the handwriting on the wall: the momentum of territorial expansion, if slaves were NOT permitted to be taken into territories, doomed Southern political power in Congress. Again, the fight was over political power. North saw insidious SLAVE POWER encroaching them. South saw the Black Republican Abolitionists stealing their political power. Then it got really, really bad.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
816
I'm having difficulty imagining what the southern economy would have been like without slavery. "King Cotton" ruled the economy and slavery was the muscle power behind it. I think without slavery the United States would have been entirely different, North and South. How does anyone know what the economic system would have been? So how can we answer this question - or at least I would have to know what the economics were to be able to answer this question.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,825
Location
South Carolina
John Calhoun himself, the mastermind of the terrible tariff concept, in a private letter to Virgil Maxy written in 1830, said:

I consider the Tariff, but as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick institutions of the Southern States, [slavery] and the consequent direction which that and her soil and climate have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriation in opposite relation to the majority of the Union; against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states, they must in the end be forced to rebel or submit to have . . . their domestick institutions exhausted by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves & children reduced to wretchedness. Thus situatied [sic], the denial of the right of the state to interfere constitutionally in the last resort, more alarms the thinking than all other causes.

Additionally, at the secession convention, South Carolina fire-eater Laurence Keitt explicitly addressed the tariff question to the members of the assembly:

But the Tariff is not the question which brought the people up to their present attitude. We are to give a summary of our causes to the world, but mainly to the other Southern States, whose co-action we wish, and we must not make a fight on the Tariff question. ...

African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism. . . . The anti-slavery party contend that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States.
Like others on this forum, you miss the forest for the trees. That one Calhoun quotation does not reveal some hidden agenda or explain the motivations of all the players in the nullification crisis. With all due respect, you and Tin Cup need to get beyond that one cherry-picked quote by Calhoun, which is actually about the threat of centralized government power over the states.

"if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states, they must in the end be forced to rebel or submit"

It makes no sense to look at everything that went on during the tariff crisis, in which all actions and reactions revolved around the tariff, get to the end, look at one opinion from Calhoun and decided "oh, here's what it's really about!" That's poor historical analysis.

The Keitt quote is from 30 years later, and has no bearing on what happened in 1832, where he is discussing the "present attitude", i.e. the attitude in 1860.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
816
Like others on this forum, you miss the forest for the trees. That one Calhoun quotation does not reveal some hidden agenda or explain the motivations of all the players in the nullification crisis. With all due respect, you and Tin Cup need to get beyond that one cherry-picked quote by Calhoun, which is actually about the threat of centralized government power over the states.

"if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states, they must in the end be forced to rebel or submit"

It makes no sense to look at everything that went on during the tariff crisis, in which all actions and reactions revolved around the tariff, get to the end, look at one opinion from Calhoun and decided "oh, here's what it's really about!" That's poor historical analysis.

The Keitt quote is from 30 years later, and has no bearing on what happened in 1832, where he is discussing the "present attitude", i.e. the attitude in 1860.
So I should ignore his statement about the "real cause" and "the truth can no longer be disguised" from a man admitting he had been disguising the truth? That, I believe would be a poor analysis on the level of ignoring evidence outside the mental blinders of posters who discount every reference to the importance of slavery and suggest discarding "everything that went on" possibly to disregard anything outside their predetermined ideas.

Perhaps it is not obvious to you, but when the originator of an idea states he has a real cause and a no longer disguised truth different from the original, this is not cherry-picking but a statement that is more significant because it goes against the personal interest of the person making the statement.
 
Last edited:



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top