It probably was cotton, after all.

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Status
Not open for further replies.

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
fire on those soldiers
Why did they fire on those soldiers? Could it be that after secession the state of SC believed they had the right to control it's inter coastal water ways..maybe? Since secession was not a settled issue until Chase's opinion in Texas v White, it's not unreasonable to think they believed they had that right
 

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
A bit more research would help you find this historical fact.

I went over to my own library and pulled down the first book I could find, Battle Cry Of Freedom, by James McPherson, and found the following references to withholding cotton.

Page 383:
Cotton was the principal weapon of southern foreign policy. Britain imported three-quarters of it's cotton from the American South. The textile industry dominated the British economy. "What would happen if no cotton was furnished for three years?" asked James Hammond of South Carolina in his famous King Cotton speech of 1858. "England would topple headlong and carry the whole civilized world with her , save the South."...

To ply the lever, southerners decided to embargo cotton exports. "The cards are in our hands," exulted the Charleston Mercury, "and we intend to play them out to the bankruptcy of every cotton factory in Great Britain and France, or the acknowledgment of our independence."

Another reference:

Cotton diplomacy.


Cotton and the Civil War.




Hope that helps,
Unionblue
Well, there ended up being an embargo but not until Oct of 1861. Well after the war. The Europeans again, expedited ships to load up before that date. They had such a surplus it wasnt until late 1862 that they began to feel the pinch. But the union tried to "one up" the southerns states by blockading the south to stop the flow of cotton...the union actually sent soldiers down south to smuggle southern seeds to ship to Europe to help cultivate crops in other cotton growing countries.
 
Last edited:

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
Yet no other Southern State at the time would join South Carolina over that tariff. They instead called South Carolina reckless and unwarranted in it's actions over that tariff.

if not for a military threat by Jackson there most likely would have been....

I am more ofd the opinion that South Carolina knew it would be alone if attempting to secede at that time. Frankly, it knew that unless it found another reason for secession (say slavery) no other Southern State was going to join them in their lone attempt.

which begs to question why Buchanan didn't follow the footsteps of Jackson and prevent the ACW...immediate and decisive military action the week SC seceded would have prevented war.

Maybe, maybe not. Instead of one state seceding, you had seven, with a real potential for more, far more capable of a military response than going it alone. And then you have all those war-like acts of the slaveholding states before the North attempted ANY milirary response. THAT lack of response from Buchanan more than likely prompted further acts of rebellion.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
—That indomitable patriot, President Jackson, had, in his day, to deal with secession. It was then called Nullification ; but it was in its elements secession pure and simple. He designated it by its right name when he denounced it as treason, and he appreciated its nature when he dealt with it as such. Had be been made of different stuff; had he been less imbued with patriotism ; had he lacked courage ; had he been weak of purpose, or imbecile from age ; had he sympathized with their objects, or for years associated with the conspirators, taken them to his counsels, or yielded to their influences ; had he been content with entreaty where he had the right to command ; there would have been rebellion in his time under the auspices of Calhoun and his followers, as we have it now under the guidance of Jeff. Davis and his associates. But a Jack son, and not a Buchanan, was at the head of the State, and he waited not an hour for treason to gather strength. He throttled it at once. The sword and the gallows were waiting the conspirators, and sharp justice was ready with its retribution. Treason shrunk dismayed at these preparations, and the repose of the country was secured by the man who saved it at New Orleans.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,923
Location
Laurinburg NC
Because , they finally thought they could win.

Unionblue
I agree with a version of your conclusions. Neither North nor South were willing to be dominated by the other region. As long as there was a rough alliance between Northern and Southern Democrats the minority South was relatively safe from Northern future and complete domination. The idea of a union was a bad one from the beginning. The North American continent was big enough for one more nation. The South seceded in 1860-1861, not because of slavery, railroads, or tariffs; it seceded because it foresaw total future domination by the North.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,979
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
not necessary, i am not unaware of how partisan they were...there was a bloody war to attest to that after all.
Thats not the point, the "partisan" view reflected what people thought about a myriad of issues facing the era in question in the southern states, that slavery, was not the only issue and other than "partisan" historians (some say revisionists), no one believes this was only a binary issue...slavery or no slavery...thats a myopic view of a complex dynamic.
Then count me in as one of the "myopic" ones. To me, slavery was the only issue that could not be resolved or compromised on.

It was THE issue as far as I amconcerned.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,979
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
A cause? well, it's reflective of a more accurate view of the origins of the ACW than merely slavery to a subset of people...not to say that slavery was not the driving issue to another subset of people. this contemporary account prove this out
It is reflective of one man's opinion when it makes print in a newspaper, not the whole picture.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,979
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
all of the slave states thought that slavery would be more secure in the Union than out...heck they even knew they were getting an unamendable amendment to protect slavery IF they stayed and yet they left anyway, also disingenuous to make the claim they left to protect slavery when offered a guarantee to forever protect it if they stayed...the reasonable inference is that they wanted self governance not protection of slavery...yes yes yes...several states had slavery as their reason for secession...if only in order to fire up the population.

"If the impending war be the most ruthless ever waged, the consciences of our enemies must bear the guilt of the anguish, and misery, and blood. Their course from the beginning of the great movement has been marked by the meanest arts, the hugest falsehoods, the most indecent abuse, the harshest accusations."

"Already ore the Democrats of the North beginning to argue among themselves that a strong central Government is not what they have been advocating. Already are the sympathizers with the South beginning to multiply. Already, before the first battle, are the spirits of the Northerners beginning to sink. Meanwhile, both in the North and the South, republican institutions are failing, and the advocate of a change to a dictatorship, if not to a monarchy, are gaining ground."—N. Y. Illustrated A'cws, July 6.

"they have exhausted their cunning by diplomatic trickery, stultified themselves by absurd reasoning, excited contempt by the long views they have persistently taken of high questions, and envenomed hatred by the cool avowal of purposes as base as they are bloody. The feelings now raging fiercely in the bosom of every Southerner have been blown into a tempest by the untold insults, indignities, and wrongs, inflicted since we severed the ties that bound us to DESPOTISM (emphasis mine) and disgrace."

. New Orleans, May 1. — "We may have many sacrifices to make, much suffering to endure, many precious lives to lose, much pecuniary and commercial distress to encounter, but all this and more will be cheerfully sustained, sooner than surrender our birth right to the DESPOTIC and FANATICAL hosts of the North. Nor must it be imagined that these losses and sacrifices will be confined to us. The North cannot live without Southern TRADE, and this is gone from her forever."

when you consistently run into articles that refer to the Union control as despotic....it opens ones eyes to the real reason for secession.
Despotic?

A federal government that had 16,000 soldiers under it's control, with two/thirds of that army scattered west of the Mississippi combating Indians, a mere handful of federal marshals and a part-time attorney general, whose only daily contact with the population of the entire nation came from the US Post Office.

The only reason unilateral secession was attempted in 1860 was because of a weak, dough faced President, a weak US Army, and because Southern Fire Eaters knew the federal government was so weak, not despotic, but weak enough to get away with rebellion and civil war, hopefully on the cheap and with bluff.

Throw in the fact that it was the slaveholding South that had run the federal government for nearly 60 years prior to Lincoln's election. In the sixty-two years between Washington and the Compromise of 1850, Southern slaveholders controlled the presidency for fifty years, the Speaker's chair for forty-one years, and the chairmanship of House Ways and Means for forty-two years. The only men to be reelected president--Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson--were all slaveholders. The men who sat in the Speaker's chair the longest--Henry Clay, Andrew Stevenson, and Nathaniel Macon--were all slaveholders. Eighteen out of thirty-one Supreme Court Jusctices were slaveholders.

When Lincoln was elected, the White House was finally occupied by a Republican, but the Congress and the Supreme Court was not fully under his control. The South still could defeat and tie up his legislative agenda for his entire term if they had remained.

Hardly despotic, unless you count the grip of the slaveholders on the federal government, finally having to come to terms with a larger, free population.

Unionblue
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,979
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I agree with a version of your conclusions. Neither North nor South were willing to be dominated by the other region. As long as there was a rough alliance between Northern and Southern Democrats the minority South was relatively safe from Northern future and complete domination. The idea of a union was a bad one from the beginning. The North American continent was big enough for one more nation. The South seceded in 1860-1861, not because of slavery, railroads, or tariffs; it seceded because it foresaw total future domination by the North.
Domination?

A federal government that had 16,000 soldiers under it's control, with two/thirds of that army scattered west of the Mississippi combating Indians, a mere handful of federal marshals and a part-time attorney general, whose only daily contact with the population of the entire nation came from the US Post Office.

The only reason unilateral secession was attempted in 1860 was because of a weak, dough faced President, a weak US Army, and because Southern Fire Eaters knew the federal government was so weak, but weak enough to get away with rebellion and civil war, hopefully on the cheap and with bluff.

Throw in the fact that it was the slaveholding South that had run the federal government for nearly 60 years prior to Lincoln's election. In the sixty-two years between Washington and the Compromise of 1850, Southern slaveholders controlled the presidency for fifty years, the Speaker's chair for forty-one years, and the chairmanship of House Ways and Means for forty-two years. The only men to be reelected president--Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson--were all slaveholders. The men who sat in the Speaker's chair the longest--Henry Clay, Andrew Stevenson, and Nathaniel Macon--were all slaveholders. Eighteen out of thirty-one Supreme Court Jusctices were slaveholders.

When Lincoln was elected, the White House was finally occupied by a Republican, but the Congress and the Supreme Court was not fully under his control. The South still could defeat and tie up his legislative agenda for his entire term if they had remained.

Hardly domination, unless you count the domination of the slaveholders on the federal government, finally having to come to terms with a larger, free population.

Unionblue
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,979
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
—That indomitable patriot, President Jackson, had, in his day, to deal with secession. It was then called Nullification ; but it was in its elements secession pure and simple. He designated it by its right name when he denounced it as treason, and he appreciated its nature when he dealt with it as such. Had be been made of different stuff; had he been less imbued with patriotism ; had he lacked courage ; had he been weak of purpose, or imbecile from age ; had he sympathized with their objects, or for years associated with the conspirators, taken them to his counsels, or yielded to their influences ; had he been content with entreaty where he had the right to command ; there would have been rebellion in his time under the auspices of Calhoun and his followers, as we have it now under the guidance of Jeff. Davis and his associates. But a Jack son, and not a Buchanan, was at the head of the State, and he waited not an hour for treason to gather strength. He throttled it at once. The sword and the gallows were waiting the conspirators, and sharp justice was ready with its retribution. Treason shrunk dismayed at these preparations, and the repose of the country was secured by the man who saved it at New Orleans.
Indeed.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,979
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Why did they fire on those soldiers? Could it be that after secession the state of SC believed they had the right to control it's inter coastal water ways..maybe? Since secession was not a settled issue until Chase's opinion in Texas v White, it's not unreasonable to think they believed they had that right
They can believe whatever they like, just as I can in my belief that UFO's are alien spacecraft from another world. But until I have evidence that proves such, no one has to take me seriously or support my belief.

And the fact of the matter is, there were pre-war Supreme Court rulings that came out about a state not having the power to ignore the federal government, the Constitution and the supreme law of the land.

At the expense in 700,000 dead, it was unreasonable for them to believe they had that right on the battlefield. But then, the reason they tried no peaceful,legal means, is because they knew they had no case.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,923
Location
Laurinburg NC
Domination?

A federal government that had 16,000 soldiers under it's control, with two/thirds of that army scattered west of the Mississippi combating Indians, a mere handful of federal marshals and a part-time attorney general, whose only daily contact with the population of the entire nation came from the US Post Office.

The only reason unilateral secession was attempted in 1860 was because of a weak, dough faced President, a weak US Army, and because Southern Fire Eaters knew the federal government was so weak, but weak enough to get away with rebellion and civil war, hopefully on the cheap and with bluff.

Throw in the fact that it was the slaveholding South that had run the federal government for nearly 60 years prior to Lincoln's election. In the sixty-two years between Washington and the Compromise of 1850, Southern slaveholders controlled the presidency for fifty years, the Speaker's chair for forty-one years, and the chairmanship of House Ways and Means for forty-two years. The only men to be reelected president--Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson--were all slaveholders. The men who sat in the Speaker's chair the longest--Henry Clay, Andrew Stevenson, and Nathaniel Macon--were all slaveholders. Eighteen out of thirty-one Supreme Court Jusctices were slaveholders.

When Lincoln was elected, the White House was finally occupied by a Republican, but the Congress and the Supreme Court was not fully under his control. The South still could defeat and tie up his legislative agenda for his entire term if they had remained.

Hardly domination, unless you count the domination of the slaveholders on the federal government, finally having to come to terms with a larger, free population.

Unionblue
The South didn't secede because of a “dough face” Democrat willing to accept the South as an equal partner. The South seceded as a result of the election of a Radical Republican whose party platform endorsed the creation of so-called free states (with two new pro-Northern US senators each) from confiscated western Indian lands. Once that happened, henceforth it was to be the Yankee way or the highway.
 

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
The South didn't secede because of a “dough face” Democrat willing to accept the South as an equal partner. The South seceded as a result of the election of a Radical Republican whose party platform endorsed the creation of so-called free states (with two new pro-Northern US senators each) from confiscated western Indian lands. Once that happened, henceforth it was to be the Yankee way or the highway.
Well said. It's been my contention for years that expansion West and subsequent loss of control of Congress and Lincoln/any Republican elected to office drove the south to Secession. America of the time was fiercely independent.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
And the fact of the matter is, there were pre-war Supreme Court rulings that came out about a state not having the power to ignore the federal government, the Constitution and the supreme law of the land.
While part of said federal government maybe but secession put them outside of that government...and secession itself was a remedy to those decisions. Secession was not a settled issue. The Right or wrong was decided not in a courtroom but a battlefield. Even Chase's opinion provided a remedy to secede. He said there were two ways 1) revolution or 2) consent of the other member states. The southern states actually... according to Chase...had the right to attempt revolution. So the legality of their action was seconded by Texas v White...decided by blood
 
Last edited:

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
At the expense in 700,000 dead, it was unreasonable for them to believe they had that right on the battlefield.
Again, lack of decisive action by the northern states or the Union was the reason war broke out. They should have crushed it immediately as soon as they started talkin about it ,..arrest whoever they needed to arrest ...hang whomever they needed to hang and stop it at its Inception, instead of waiting 7 or 8 months after the first state seceded before going to war.... the blame for the 700,000 dead good men lay at the feet of the indecisive politicians of the North at the time
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
But then, the reason they tried no peaceful,legal means, is because they knew they had no case.
What apparatus existed at the time that would allow them to attempt legal means of secession? If you are talking about a court, There was no pending court case and in order to let it go through the courts you have to have standing in the courts. There was no issue prior to an event that would allow you to go to court. A state needed to secede then the federal government needed to Sue that state to see if it was legal or not. Courts are reactive not proactive
 
Last edited:

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
But then, the reason they tried no peaceful,legal means, is because they knew they had no case.
Oh I wouldn't go that far. The reason Davis was not tried for treason...and trust me if they were willing to forfeit the lives of 700000 men for the concept of treason on the battlefield...they would have at least tried to hang the leader of the treasonous band of traitors. The fact they didn't shows a lack of faith in the illegality of secession. They didn't want to risk losing a court battle because if they did...then they slaughtered 700000 men for no legal reason
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,979
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The South didn't secede because of a “dough face” Democrat willing to accept the South as an equal partner. The South seceded as a result of the election of a Radical Republican whose party platform endorsed the creation of so-called free states (with two new pro-Northern US senators each) from confiscated western Indian lands. Once that happened, henceforth it was to be the Yankee way or the highway.
Bottom line:

They seceded and began a rebellion because they thought they could win.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,979
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The Union by it's inaction, was solely responsible for the ACW.

Nope.

In order for there to be a mugging, there has to be a victim and a mugger.


Had they shown some backbone and fire like Jackson....arrested and hung a few conspiring disunionists immediately...it would have saved 700,000 good brave men...

Now it seems the Free States should have been as paranoid as the South was in fearing some sort of future violent action. Maybe if the South had shown some restraint and some clear thinking without all the fear mongering, it might have found a different path. But that's the problem with what "might have been." All we are left with is history and hindsight.

but the result of that... slavery would have remained.
Hence the reason for unilateral secession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top