Money, Money, Money Makes the Secession Go Round

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

austin870

Private
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
I think it's a little bit revisionist and Lost Causeresque to hang your Confederate sympathies hat on the legal/constitutional peg. When you think you have a point worth dying for you put your gonads on the line and go for it. You wake up and say, "I'm going to go out and rebel today, it's going to be illegal, and if you don't like it you're going to have to stop me. Now bring it."
Well, they did. If you are going to secede, you better succeed.

I have a hard time getting my mind wrapped around why some with Confederate sympathies think it's important to argue that secession was legal or constitutional. Again, if it was that's fine. But if it wasn't isn't that fine too?
:smile:
I have to agree. By the act of secession you are breaking the bonds of the laws of the government, parent corporation or political organization. In the act of secession the laws no longer bind you. You are making all their laws null and void. The problem is with that separation you invite them to force you to stay if it is in their financial interests to keep you. The South owed too much money to the Northern bankers and investors to simply let them go. The fear of the secession was the South would default on nearly $1 billion dollars in Northern loans. Let alone the lopsided amount of taxes paid by the South and incredibly small return they were getting. Secession also invites an open and free competition in the markets not constrained by the Northern parent government. Lots of financial ties in jeopardy with the Southern Succession.

Secession is not about rights but about finances. It is of course very flowery to discuss it in terms of rights but that simply is not the way the world works.
 

BillO

Captain
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Location
Quinton, VA.
I have to agree. By the act of secession you are breaking the bonds of the laws of the government, parent corporation or political organization. In the act of secession the laws no longer bind you. You are making all their laws null and void. The problem is with that separation you invite them to force you to stay if it is in their financial interests to keep you. The South owed too much money to the Northern bankers and investors to simply let them go. The fear of the secession was the South would default on nearly $1 billion dollars in Northern loans. Let alone the lopsided amount of taxes paid by the South and incredibly small return they were getting. Secession also invites an open and free competition in the markets not constrained by the Northern parent government. Lots of financial ties in jeopardy with the Southern Succession.

Secession is not about rights but about finances. It is of course very flowery to discuss it in terms of rights but that simply is not the way the world works.
IMO the northeastern establishment was afraid of the South being successful which would have encouraged the northwestern states to do likewise.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I have to agree. By the act of secession you are breaking the bonds of the laws of the government, parent corporation or political organization. In the act of secession the laws no longer bind you. You are making all their laws null and void.

You were doing so well right up until you took the fork at Fantasy and Myth.

The problem is with that separation you invite them to force you to stay if it is in their financial interests to keep you. The South owed too much money to the Northern bankers and investors to simply let them go. The fear of the secession was the South would default on nearly $1 billion dollars in Northern loans. Let alone the lopsided amount of taxes paid by the South and incredibly small return they were getting. Secession also invites an open and free competition in the markets not constrained by the Northern parent government. Lots of financial ties in jeopardy with the Southern Succession.

So far, you have stated this personal observation two or three times on as many threads on this forum without one historical source to support it. What book, document, website, source, etc., did you see where "Northern bankers and investors" were owed too much money by the South? Where did you learn that the South was paying "a lopsided amount of taxes" and in return were getting an "incredibly small return" in exchange? What source or documents led you to believe that "open and free competition in the markets" was being constrained by the "Northern parent government?" I would really like to see the historical facts you base your view that "Lots of financial ties" were "in jeopardy with the Southern Secession." How about referencing a source or two?

Secession is not about rights but about finances.

The only figure of finance I have ever heard that concerned Southern secession was Four BILLION dollars in slave property. But I'm willing to wait and see if you have ANY historical evidence that supports your yet to be proven theory.

It is of course very flowery to discuss it in terms of rights but that simply is not the way the world works.
Says one man's unproven, unsourced, opinion.

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

austin870

Private
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Says one man's unproven, unsourced, opinion.

Unionblue
We do know that massive wealth redistribution opportunities existed at that time. It is also safe to assume those were heavily discussed and significant motivators at the very least. The debts to the North and value of the human labor of the blacks existed as the largest concentrations of wealth in the country. We know that for fact. We also know for fact much of that value changed hands through violence via the war. To believe some or most of that was not planned and executed is just being naive. We also know all countries/armies etc through history rewrite that period in history to suit their priorities and continued success. Governments are in the self preservation business first and foremost. These are all facts for every war in history. Do you really need sources for this as it is War 101?

Secession of a group from another group be it a state, country or whatever is similar to a young adult leaving his parents. The person/group leaving the unit is no longer obligated to live under the rules of the group when they secede/leave. They can join another group or form one of their own where there was none like the founders. Now the parents/group/government can keep their children/group from leaving via force. This dissolves the unity and sets up a form of mob/class rule. It creates a ruling mob and subjects. This historically leads to the ruling mob forcing their rules onto the other group. This always leads to confiscation of property and extortion via proxy or forced labor or pretty much anything else they desire to enact upon them through force. Do we really need sources on this Secession 101 too?

A group of "free men" held together by force are not free. A "free country" held together by force is not a free country. The Civil War did not create more freedom in the US. It lessened it.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
We do know that massive wealth redistribution opportunities existed at that time. It is also safe to assume those were heavily discussed and significant motivators at the very least. The debts to the North and value of the human labor of the blacks existed as the largest concentrations of wealth in the country. We know that for fact. We also know for fact much of that value changed hands through violence via the war. To believe some or most of that was not planned and executed is just being naive. We also know all countries/armies etc through history rewrite that period in history to suit their priorities and continued success. Governments are in the self preservation business first and foremost. These are all facts for every war in history. Do you really need sources for this as it is War 101?

Secession of a group from another group be it a state, country or whatever is similar to a young adult leaving his parents. The person/group leaving the unit is no longer obligated to live under the rules of the group when they secede/leave. They can join another group or form one of their own where there was none like the founders. Now the parents/group/government can keep their children/group from leaving via force. This dissolves the unity and sets up a form of mob/class rule. It creates a ruling mob and subjects. This historically leads to the ruling mob forcing their rules onto the other group. This always leads to confiscation of property and extortion via proxy or forced labor or pretty much anything else they desire to enact upon them through force. Do we really need sources on this Secession 101 too?

A group of "free men" held together by force are not free. A "free country" held together by force is not a free country. The Civil War did not create more freedom in the US. It lessened it.
Mere assumption, supposition, and opinion. Alternate history.
 

Andersonh1

Major
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
We do know that massive wealth redistribution opportunities existed at that time. It is also safe to assume those were heavily discussed and significant motivators at the very least. The debts to the North and value of the human labor of the blacks existed as the largest concentrations of wealth in the country. We know that for fact. We also know for fact much of that value changed hands through violence via the war. To believe some or most of that was not planned and executed is just being naive. We also know all countries/armies etc through history rewrite that period in history to suit their priorities and continued success. Governments are in the self preservation business first and foremost. These are all facts for every war in history. Do you really need sources for this as it is War 101?

Secession of a group from another group be it a state, country or whatever is similar to a young adult leaving his parents. The person/group leaving the unit is no longer obligated to live under the rules of the group when they secede/leave. They can join another group or form one of their own where there was none like the founders. Now the parents/group/government can keep their children/group from leaving via force. This dissolves the unity and sets up a form of mob/class rule. It creates a ruling mob and subjects. This historically leads to the ruling mob forcing their rules onto the other group. This always leads to confiscation of property and extortion via proxy or forced labor or pretty much anything else they desire to enact upon them through force. Do we really need sources on this Secession 101 too?

A group of "free men" held together by force are not free. A "free country" held together by force is not a free country. The Civil War did not create more freedom in the US. It lessened it.
Great post.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
We do know that massive wealth redistribution opportunities existed at that time.
It does during every war. However, the single greatest redistribution is well known, and was a matter of constitutional amendment. The slaves were freed. If acquisition of wealth was the priority for the northern government, that would have never have happened.

It is also safe to assume those were heavily discussed and significant motivators at the very least.
What's that classic chestnut about assuming?

The debts to the North and value of the human labor of the blacks existed as the largest concentrations of wealth in the country. We know that for fact.
Yes, and the slave labor was freed. Yet you lecture about concentrations of wealth? There are many, many primary sources that show that retaining and expanding slavery for that wealth was the impetus of Southern action.

Can you show anything indicating that it was the northern manufacturers were driving the war effort? Because the primary sources have a lot to say about radical abolitionists, and very little to say about industrialists.

Indeed, the North wanted to expand the Southern railways in reconstruction. It was the Southerners that opposed that as part of the northern agenda.

The rest is just more of the same. Spurious speculation.

A group of "free men" held together by force are not free. A "free country" held together by force is not a free country. The Civil War did not create more freedom in the US. It lessened it.
Yes, it was very unfortunate that the South started firing canon at US soldiers and led to a war they had no hope of winning where income tax was put into place. Very, very stupid.

In the meantime, good did come of it, even if the South spent the next 100 years in Jim Crow. Which again required federal intervention and the strengthening of the government so that the Constitution could apply to all citizens, not just white anglo saxon protestants in that region.

The concept of states rights now will always be tied with slavery, just like the hindu Swastika will never again mean peace and harmony in the West. One of the many sins of the plantation owners.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
We do know that massive wealth redistribution opportunities existed at that time. It is also safe to assume those were heavily discussed and significant motivators at the very least. The debts to the North and value of the human labor of the blacks existed as the largest concentrations of wealth in the country. We know that for fact. We also know for fact much of that value changed hands through violence via the war. To believe some or most of that was not planned and executed is just being naive. We also know all countries/armies etc through history rewrite that period in history to suit their priorities and continued success. Governments are in the self preservation business first and foremost. These are all facts for every war in history. Do you really need sources for this as it is War 101?

Secession of a group from another group be it a state, country or whatever is similar to a young adult leaving his parents. The person/group leaving the unit is no longer obligated to live under the rules of the group when they secede/leave. They can join another group or form one of their own where there was none like the founders. Now the parents/group/government can keep their children/group from leaving via force. This dissolves the unity and sets up a form of mob/class rule. It creates a ruling mob and subjects. This historically leads to the ruling mob forcing their rules onto the other group. This always leads to confiscation of property and extortion via proxy or forced labor or pretty much anything else they desire to enact upon them through force. Do we really need sources on this Secession 101 too?

A group of "free men" held together by force are not free. A "free country" held together by force is not a free country. The Civil War did not create more freedom in the US. It lessened it.
austin870,

You make repeated use of the phrase "we know," "We also know," "It is safe to assume," etc.

You also state, "these are all the facts for every war in history."

The problem is "we" don't know. We have you saying "we" know, but then present no evidence or sources we can view ourselves to determine if your views are correct.

You give a detailed opinion in your post above, but without your sources "on this Secession 101" that's all we have, is your personal opinion.

Until that time,
Unionblue
 
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
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
It does during every war. However, the single greatest redistribution is well known, and was a matter of constitutional amendment. The slaves were freed. If acquisition of wealth was the priority for the northern government, that would have never have happened.

What's that classic chestnut about assuming?



Yes, and the slave labor was freed. Yet you lecture about concentrations of wealth? There are many, many primary sources that show that retaining and expanding slavery for that wealth was the impetus of Southern action.

Can you show anything indicating that it was the northern manufacturers were driving the war effort? Because the primary sources have a lot to say about radical abolitionists, and very little to say about industrialists.

Indeed, the North wanted to expand the Southern railways in reconstruction. It was the Southerners that opposed that as part of the northern agenda.

The rest is just more of the same. Spurious speculation.



Yes, it was very unfortunate that the South started firing canon at US soldiers and led to a war they had no hope of winning where income tax was put into place. Very, very stupid.

In the meantime, good did come of it, even if the South spent the next 100 years in Jim Crow. Which again required federal intervention and the strengthening of the government so that the Constitution could apply to all citizens, not just white anglo saxon protestants in that region.

The concept of states rights now will always be tied with slavery, just like the hindu Swastika will never again mean peace and harmony in the West. One of the many sins of the plantation owners.
Now this is a great post. :smile:
 

austin870

Private
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Mere assumption, supposition, and opinion. Alternate history.
austin870,

You make repeated use of the phrase "we know," "We also know," "It is safe to assume," etc.

You also state, "these are all the facts for every war in history."

The problem is "we" don't know. We have you saying "we" know, but then present no evidence or sources we can view ourselves to determine if your views are correct.

You give a detailed opinion in your post above, but without your sources "on this Secession 101" that's all we have, is your personal opinion.

Until that time,
Unionblue
You really need to study some history. Specifically monetary motivators for war. I am not going to start there with you.

Regarding defining freedom...
It does during every war. However, the single greatest redistribution is well known, and was a matter of constitutional amendment. The slaves were freed. If acquisition of wealth was the priority for the northern government, that would have never have happened.


.
austin870,

You make repeated use of the phrase "we know," "We also know," "It is safe to assume," etc.

You also state, "these are all the facts for every war in history."

The problem is "we" don't know. We have you saying "we" know, but then present no evidence or sources we can view ourselves to determine if your views are correct.

You give a detailed opinion in your post above, but without your sources "on this Secession 101" that's all we have, is your personal opinion.

Until that time,
Unionblue
oppressed and financially
austin870,

You make repeated use of the phrase "we know," "We also know," "It is safe to assume," etc.

You also state, "these are all the facts for every war in history."

The problem is "we" don't know. We have you saying "we" know, but then present no evidence or sources we can view ourselves to determine if your views are correct.

You give a detailed opinion in your post above, but without your sources "on this Secession 101" that's all we have, is your personal opinion.

Until that time,
Unionblue
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

austin870

Private
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
It does during every war. However, the single greatest redistribution is well known, and was a matter of constitutional amendment. The slaves were freed. If acquisition of wealth was the priority for the northern government, that would have never have happened.

What's that classic chestnut about assuming?



Yes, and the slave labor was freed. Yet you lecture about concentrations of wealth? There are many, many primary sources that show that retaining and expanding slavery for that wealth was the impetus of Southern action.

Can you show anything indicating that it was the northern manufacturers were driving the war effort? Because the primary sources have a lot to say about radical abolitionists, and very little to say about industrialists.

Indeed, the North wanted to expand the Southern railways in reconstruction. It was the Southerners that opposed that as part of the northern agenda.

The rest is just more of the same. Spurious speculation.



Yes, it was very unfortunate that the South started firing canon at US soldiers and led to a war they had no hope of winning where income tax was put into place. Very, very stupid.

In the meantime, good did come of it, even if the South spent the next 100 years in Jim Crow. Which again required federal intervention and the strengthening of the government so that the Constitution could apply to all citizens, not just white anglo saxon protestants in that region.

The concept of states rights now will always be tied with slavery, just like the hindu Swastika will never again mean peace and harmony in the West. One of the many sins of the plantation owners.
Been down this rabbit hole before guy and this is not my first rodeo. This is not a structured debate but just people giving opinions. We have to have some ground of common sense and ground or we become nothing but stenographers documenting every word, sentence and point. You can then battle each of those individually forever on semantics and interpretations. Then they don’t like your sources. Someone who does not like what you are saying will tie you up with chasing around trying to meet their "opinion" of validity and is a waste of time.

You failed to meet your own criteria for your opinions above. Saying “primary sources” is not going to hack it. Please define “primary sources” and give all your sources on that. Then give all the sources on each of your opinions stated above. You replied the same way I stated my opinions……….. with no sources backing anything you said. Obviously our common ground will not facilitate a debate on points.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
(First part of post deleted for brevity.)

It is also well documented the North had the fear of losing via default the $3 billion in debts owed. Even a partial default on that much money to the Northern bankers would make the 2008 banking meltdown look like a day at the beach. The Northern bankers were literally shaking in their boots at the thought of a loss of that magnitude. Money was actually backed at that time and it would have wiped out generations of old money wealth accumulation.
austin870,

WHERE has this been "also well documented?"

This didn't come to you in a dream, so you must have read it somewhere.

A source for this view would be nice.

Unionblue
 
Last edited:
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
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Where did Lincoln get his money for the war? Abolitionists?
There was about two hundred thousand dollars in the US Treasury at the start of the Civil War.

Secretary Chase had to first go to Northern bankers for loans to finance the war, then Congress passed a series of increases in the tariff and then finally had to institute income taxes to finance the war.

Source: The book, Greenback: The Almighty Dollar and the Invention of America, by Jason Goodwin.

Check out chapter 12, The Spy, pg. 219.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

19thGeorgia

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
...and the banker, merchant and manufacturing classes were more than ready to buy those bonds.

"Individuals and corporations, private capitalists and the bankers, have thus backed up the government and still stand ready to do it to any extent that may be required."
"The Government Loan," Commercial Advertiser (New York, NY), May 21, 1861
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top