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

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
ALTHOUGH slavery was the chief, it was not the only factor in causing the secession of the Southern States. From the formation of the government , the North had continually gained while the South had lost in commercial prosperity. The foreign imports that in colonial times went largely to Charleston began going to New York and other Northern cities. The North was increasing far more rapidly than the South in manufactures and in wealth. It was claimed by the Southern political leaders that this gain had been brought about largely by unequal legislation, tariff and other laws which, it was asserted, in their practical operations worked chiefly for the benefit of North and to the detriment of the South, and as early as 1798 there was talk of Virginia and North Carolina organizing a separate confederacy in order to cut loose from the alleged domination of Massachusetts and the other New England States, a project which was discouraged by Jefferson, not on any constitutional grounds , but chiefly because he did not then deem it necessary to resort to secession. - Political History of Secession by Daniel Wait Howe p. 15
 

Jimklag

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Location
Chicagoland
ALTHOUGH slavery was the chief, it was not the only factor in causing the secession of the Southern States. From the formation of the government , the North had continually gained while the South had lost in commercial prosperity. The foreign imports that in colonial times went largely to Charleston began going to New York and other Northern cities. The North was increasing far more rapidly than the South in manufactures and in wealth. It was claimed by the Southern political leaders that this gain had been brought about largely by unequal legislation, tariff and other laws which, it was asserted, in their practical operations worked chiefly for the benefit of North and to the detriment of the South, and as early as 1798 there was talk of Virginia and North Carolina organizing a separate confederacy in order to cut loose from the alleged domination of Massachusetts and the other New England States, a project which was discouraged by Jefferson, not on any constitutional grounds , but chiefly because he did not then deem it necessary to resort to secession. - Political History of Secession by Daniel Wait Howe p. 15
Talking about it is light years away from doing it. In 1860-61 no issue other than slavery carried enough weight to get enough people to agree to secession.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Political History of Secession by Daniel Wait Howe P19

On the other hand, the right of secession was advocated in the South from an early date. Not only was there a very general belief in the South in this right, but the belief became part of the political creed of all parties. Although not written in party platforms, it was as much part of them as the unwritten law of England is part of its jurisprudence. There were three political doctrines that were peculiar to the South, and that explain the political course of the Southern States prior to the beginning of the Civil War.

One was the doctrine of the right of secession.

Another was the preservation of the so-called "equilibrium" between the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding
States.

Another was the doctrine that the Constitution of the United States protected the slaveholder in his right to take his slaves into the new Territories and to keep them there so long as such Territories remained in a territorial condition, and that neither Congress nor the territorial legislatures had any power to prohibit him from so doing.
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
Talking about it is light years away from doing it. In 1860-61 no issue other than slavery carried enough weight to get enough people to agree to secession.

I think all the issues were cumulative, and slavery was the final trigger for secession. I don't think the decades of back and forth between the two sections on other issues can be discounted, nor do I think we can say secession would never have happened in the absence of slavery. But I continue to read up on the subject.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I think all the issues were cumulative, and slavery was the final trigger for secession. I don't think the decades of back and forth between the two sections on other issues can be discounted, nor do I think we can say secession would never have happened in the absence of slavery. But I continue to read up on the subject.
What other issues were sectional?
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
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.

It's a good thing when any war ends, but an unfortunate consequence was that the War of 1812 ended thoughts of secession by New England and ere long the former “Blue Light Federalists” were happily back to trading with the English. :frown:
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
Specific and sectional.

I can break it down. It's only a paragraph, and it seemed pretty plainly stated to me.

- From the formation of the government , the North had continually gained while the South had lost in commercial prosperity. The foreign imports that in colonial times went largely to Charleston began going to New York and other Northern cities.
- The North was increasing far more rapidly than the South in manufactures and in wealth. It was claimed by the Southern political leaders that this gain had been brought about largely by unequal legislation, tariff and other laws which, it was asserted, in their practical operations worked chiefly for the benefit of North and to the detriment of the South
 

Greywolf

First Sergeant
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
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.
And I see lots of the same by modern Northerners ramming it down hard when the Northerners in that time could care less about a slave and were fighting by a vast majority to preserve the union, then after the fighting ended, pretty much washing their hands of the whole mess. Ok, we're pretty much done if you will. Interesting that many Northerners today would be branded Abolitionists back in that day, yet if they were born in that day they likely would not have been. That's the great thing about being able to look back on history. We see what we are, what we were, and what we could have been.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
I can break it down. It's only a paragraph, and it seemed pretty plainly stated to me.

- From the formation of the government , the North had continually gained while the South had lost in commercial prosperity. The foreign imports that in colonial times went largely to Charleston began going to New York and other Northern cities.
- The North was increasing far more rapidly than the South in manufactures and in wealth. It was claimed by the Southern political leaders that this gain had been brought about largely by unequal legislation, tariff and other laws which, it was asserted, in their practical operations worked chiefly for the benefit of North and to the detriment of the South

Except in reality the other parts of the country paid much more of the tariff than southerners paid, and the tariff seems to be mostly missing from secession Declarations of Causes.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
And I see lots of the same by modern Northerners ramming it down hard when the Northerners in that time could care less about a slave and were fighting by a vast majority to preserve the union, then after the fighting ended, pretty much washing their hands of the whole mess. Ok, we're pretty much done if you will. Interesting that many Northerners today would be branded Abolitionists back in that day, yet if they were born in that day they likely would not have been. That's the great thing about being able to look back on history. We see what we are, what we were, and what we could have been.

The problem is that the other issue the Northerners of the day had, was treason. So do we discuss that instead?
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I can break it down. It's only a paragraph, and it seemed pretty plainly stated to me.

- From the formation of the government , the North had continually gained while the South had lost in commercial prosperity. The foreign imports that in colonial times went largely to Charleston began going to New York and other Northern cities.
- The North was increasing far more rapidly than the South in manufactures and in wealth. It was claimed by the Southern political leaders that this gain had been brought about largely by unequal legislation, tariff and other laws which, it was asserted, in their practical operations worked chiefly for the benefit of North and to the detriment of the South
How many paragraphs are in the book?
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
And I see lots of the same by modern Northerners ramming it down hard when the Northerners in that time could care less about a slave and were fighting by a vast majority to preserve the union, then after the fighting ended, pretty much washing their hands of the whole mess. Ok, we're pretty much done if you will. Interesting that many Northerners today would be branded Abolitionists back in that day, yet if they were born in that day they likely would not have been. That's the great thing about being able to look back on history. We see what we are, what we were, and what we could have been.
If you want to avoid discussing slavery, then do not discuss causes of the Civil War, because slavery was the motivation. It will poke its head out in everything political. There is no way to put lipstick on that pig.

Stick with military tactics, discussion of battles, weapons, ships and so on. But once motivation or politics is mentioned.... We have a saying here on CWT.
rabbit hole2.jpg


That picture is 4 years old and based on even older pictures based on a old CWT saying.
 

Greywolf

First Sergeant
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
If you want to avoid discussing slavery, then do not discuss causes of the Civil War, because slavery was the motivation. It will poke its head out in everything political. There is no way to put lipstick on that pig.

Stick with military tactics, discussion of battles, weapons, ships and so on. But once motivation or politics is mentioned.... We have a saying here on CWT.
View attachment 148629

That picture is 4 years old and based on even older pictures based on a old CWT saying.
I've made my feelings known on slavery here several times and I agree it was the major cause of the war. Yes, that pony might not be big enough, maybe a Clydesdale would be more appropriate:smile:. I enjoy trying to get folks to think, it's good to consider other points of view instead of a narrow, dogmatic point of view. We all have much to learn.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I've made my feelings known on slavery here several times and I agree it was the major cause of the war. Yes, that pony might not be big enough, maybe a Clydesdale would be more appropriate:smile:. I enjoy trying to get folks to think, it's good to consider other points of view instead of a narrow, dogmatic point of view. We all have much to learn.
IMHO if everyone stopped arguing if it was slavery, then everyone would get bored and discuss the nuances. There are a lot of nuances.

Hard enough to get a pony down a rabbit hole.
 

civilken

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 25, 2013
no without slavery there would have been no civil war. I'm sure someone somewhere will come up with a different idea but I don't buy it if there was no slavery there would have never been civil war.
 

Mike Griffith

Sergeant
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
No, I do not think secession would have occurred if slavery had not existed. The trick is to remember that secession and the war were two different, separate events. The democratic secession of the Southern states should not have led to a Northern invasion anymore than the issuance of the Declaration of Independence should have led to a British invasion.

Also, on a point of logic, just because the absence of slavery would have resulted in no Civil War (since there would have been no secession) does not mean the war was fought over slavery. Similarly, it is entirely true that if there had been no Rawala oil fields, there would have been no Gulf War I, yet few people argue that the war was fought over oil.
 

Similar threads

Top