Legislation passed during Civil War and other issues than slavery causing war

Mosby

Private
Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
43
Before the start of fighting, after 7 states had left the Union, Congress passed a tariff increase. There were additional increases during the war, partly to raise revenue. During the war, Congress passed the Homestead Act. This had been blocked by southern Congressmen, who wanted land sold in large tracts for farms with slaves. Congress also passed the land grant college bill. This had also been blocked by southern delegation, which were controlled by planters who didn't want education for the masses. The transcontinental railroad passed and construction was started despite the war. This had also been blocked by southern delegations that wanted a southern route.

So even if slavery was the main motivation for the south, is it possible that southern representatives were in conflict with northern business interests and the interests of ordinary northerners, and that is part of the cause of the war.
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Old_Glory

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
2,937
Location
NC
There was always going to be "conflict, but slavery was the issue they chose to break up the country over.

Kevin Dally
I agree that is one version of the story, but only a single, inaccurate, version.

The accurate version states that numerous causes ultimately started the War. Tariffs, railroads, cotton profits, senate seats, Supreme Court rulings, New Englanders settling in Kansas, and more than could be mentioned in a single post.
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I agree that is one version of the story, but only a single, inaccurate, version.

The accurate version states that numerous causes ultimately started the War. Tariffs, railroads, cotton profits, senate seats, Supreme Court rulings, New Englanders settling in Kansas, and more than could be mentioned in a single post.
And you agree that slavery was at the bottom of each of these rabbit holes.
Edited.
 

Tin cup

Captain
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,888
Location
Texas
I agree that is one version of the story, but only a single, inaccurate, version.

The accurate version states that numerous causes ultimately started the War. Tariffs, railroads, cotton profits, senate seats, Supreme Court rulings, New Englanders settling in Kansas, and more than could be mentioned in a single post.
It's an accurate part enough, they were driven by slavery, not railroads, tariffs, sectionalism, States Rights...slavery was what drove them over the edge.

Kevin Dally
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,125
Before the start of fighting, after 7 states had left the Union, Congress passed a tariff increase. There were additional increases during the war, partly to raise revenue. During the war, Congress passed the Homestead Act. This had been blocked by southern Congressmen, who wanted land sold in large tracts for farms with slaves. Congress also passed the land grant college bill. This had also been blocked by southern delegation, which were controlled by planters who didn't want education for the masses. The transcontinental railroad passed and construction was started despite the war. This had also been blocked by southern delegations that wanted a southern route.
As you point out, there was indeed conflict between North and South on many business-related fronts. The secessionists were most certainly aware of this, yet the desire to protect and expand the slave economy was more important than the influencing or stopping tariff, the Homestead Act, Land Grant colleges, and the route of the transcontinental railroad. After all, their strong opposition to each of these would have continued to block them or at least win desirable compromise favoring Southern interests. They traded their opposition for the prospect security for their beloved "peculiar institution".
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,125
So even if slavery was the main motivation for the south, is it possible that southern representatives were in conflict with northern business interests and the interests of ordinary northerners, and that is part of the cause of the war.
No one denies that there were other factors causing secession, rebellion and war.
But these were trivial (as can be seen by the way they were ignored and conceded by the secessionists themselves) in comparison to the single, root cause of the conflict: slavery.
 
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
6,763
Location
About 47 miles Northwest of the Canadian border
Yes, the other issues were not so important from the southern point of view. However, from the northern point of view, they may have helped the Republican Party get votes and financing. Northerners didn't care that much about slavery, but wanted homesteads,tariffs, etc.
But the Northern states didn't secede.
Edit to add: The 1860 Republican platform stated that they would use legislation to overturn slavery (the Dred Scott decision) in the Territories as a way to limit slavery.
 
Last edited:

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,125
The "Beloved Institution" was legal in America at that time in history under what it was call "The Fugitive Slave Act" voted on by the North and South.
Thanks for your response.
No one is disputing that.
It makes it even more baffling that the secessionists, acting solely out of fear that the law might change, thought protecting and expanding the slave economy was more important than influencing or stopping tariff, the Homestead Act, Land Grant colleges, and the route of the transcontinental railroad. After all, we are often told each of these was 'the true cause of secession'. Apparently not to the Secessionists themselves.
 

Old_Glory

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
2,937
Location
NC
The "Beloved Institution" was legal in America at that time in history under what it was call "The Fugitive Slave Act" voted on by the North and South.
It was also protected under the Dred Scott ruling. Both which the North rejected because it cost them political power, not because slavery was immoral.

They were ignoring a passed law and a Supreme Court ruling. That certainly takes far more precedence. If the North was able to ignore these laws and rulings with slavery, they could do it with anything giving them supreme power even over the Constitution itself.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,125
It was also protected under the Dred Scott ruling. Both which the North rejected because it cost them political power, not because slavery was immoral.

They were ignoring a passed law and a Supreme Court ruling. That certainly takes far more precedence. If the North was able to ignore these laws and rulings with slavery, they could do it with anything giving them supreme power even over the Constitution itself.
You may recall that in the instances where Northern states passed laws in opposition to the fugitive slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott v Sandford decision they did so claiming a usurpation by the Federal government of States' Rights.
Sounds familiar, except the roles were reversed from the usual narrative.
States like Wisconsin did not deny the right of citizens of 'slave states' to own slaves; they simply wanted the same logic to apply to the right of citizens in 'free states' to refuse to allow slavery within their borders.
 

wbull1

First Sergeant
Official Vendor
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
1,044
It was also protected under the Dred Scott ruling. Both which the North rejected because it cost them political power, not because slavery was immoral.

They were ignoring a passed law and a Supreme Court ruling. That certainly takes far more precedence. If the North was able to ignore these laws and rulings with slavery, they could do it with anything giving them supreme power even over the Constitution itself.
At that time the Supreme Court did not have the respect it has today. Andrew Jackson ignored a Supreme Court ruling and nobody got too riled up about it. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates when Douglas pointed out that Lincoln wanted to ignore the Dred Scott decision, Lincoln pointed to the decisions Douglas ignored and called his reaction "an astonisher." (Douglas's "popular sovereignty" ignored the Dred Scott decision too.) State court did not automatically accept Supreme Court rulings immediately.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,607
Location
Midwest
The Dred Scott Decision itself only established that one man, Dred Scott, could not bring a lawsuit for his freedom because he was not a U.S. citizen. Everything else was optional legal opinion written into the case, but not binding. After all appeals had run course, only Dred Scott was mandated from bringing further suit.

So the supposition that some Northern states or men were "breaking Federal statute" by ignoring or resisting the DSD is wrong.

What Northern states and men were so strongly reacting to was the precedent set by the decision, which could be used to back up a new law that would apply to more than just one man (in fact any slave anywhere in the U.S.!) If that kind of law passed it would effectively mean that slavery would once again be legal anywhere in the U.S. (including the territories) since no slave or their legal representative could even bring a law suit to prevent it (because they were not U.S. citizens).

What further upset everybody in the free states were Taney's optional legal opinions that were so much broader than the decision itself ("blacks had no rights white men were bound to respect") and that foreboded an even bigger assault on states' rights than the Fugitive Slave Law.
 
Last edited:


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top