Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,798
Two books I would recommend, but not for buying: At the Precipice: Americans North and South during the Secession Crisis by the late Shearer Davis Bowman and Emotional and Sectional Conflict in the Antebellum United States by Michael E. Woods. These books let us peer into the cultural and social factors that led to the war, and they were essential to me in understanding how sectional animosity was able to erupt in warfare.

These books are written, it seems to me, for graduate level historians and social scientists; they're not for everybody. I'd see if I could get them from a library before buying them.

Why were these books useful to me? I used to be one of those folks who ascribed all of human behavior to economic determinism... the idea that economics and economic relationships are the foundation upon which all other social and political arrangements in society are based. But if that was true, then, for example, religion would not matter... but it does. I still do regard economics as a key force in explaining our actions, but I understand that other forces must be reckoned with.

These books go beyond economic determinism. They helped me to understand the social and even emotional conditions and states of people of the era, which provided an understanding of why people behaved the way they did.

Many people will say that the secessionists left the Union because of slavery. This is a very simplistic, imprecise statement, although, if you wanted to use just one word, that is it. But one word does not suffice.

More precisely, people seceded because they perceived that the Republican Party was pro-abolition, or beholden to abolitionists; and that the Party would enact policies that would ruin slavery, and thus southern society. It was more about a distrust and even hatred for the so-called "Black Republicans" that led to secession.

Recollect that the SC Sec Dec states

On the 4th day of March next, this (Republican) party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

If SC believed that the Republicans were indeed hellbent on waging a war against slavery, their decision to secede makes sense. Why did they feel that way? The books I mention give some insight into why specific southerners felt and believed that Northerners in general and Republicans in general were a threat to their way of life.

- Alan
Good book recommendations. Thank you.
 

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

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,263
I've never understood why the South gave the Yankees control over most of their shipping. Might of made sense at the Founding, but the Grand Bargain began to change early on. South controlled half of the countries exports. Should of had enough clout to have direct shipping to England.
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,798
I've never understood why the South gave the Yankees control over most of their shipping. Might of made sense at the Founding, but the Grand Bargain began to change early on. South controlled half of the countries exports. Should of had enough clout to have direct shipping to England.
One answer I have seen, and it might not be correct but it sounds good, is because after ships sailed from Charleston, the Europeans could not fill them back up and sell a boatload of exports in Charleston. But they sure could in NYC where there were many more buyers.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,263
One answer I have seen, and it might not be correct but it sounds good, is because after ships sailed from Charleston, the Europeans could not fill them back up and sell a boatload of exports in Charleston. But they sure could in NYC where there were many more buyers.
I have heard that. Some Cotton was shipped directly from New Orleans. Also Yankee Ports were deeper. Whatever the case, Southerners handed the Yankee a lot of money.

All of these grand plans of the South might have worked if they had of started them 10 years prior. Can you tells us why they didn’t do that?

I’ve ordered Russels book and some others you have mentioned. Will get yours. Thanks for elevating the discussion on these many subjects.
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,788
Location
los angeles ca
I have read in places that taxation was a part of the problem. That it was unfair to the southern states, but none of that was disclosed by the declaration. Perhaps I missed it as I minutes ago read the entire declaration for the first time. This is great I am learning a lot. Thank all of you for your posts. Please continue.
What taxation would that specifically be? There was no federal income tax. There was no federal value added tax. Southern whites bought few if any imported goods and until Secession tariffs were at a historic low.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,788
Location
los angeles ca
I have heard that. Some Cotton was shipped directly from New Orleans. Also Yankee Ports were deeper. Whatever the case, Southerners handed the Yankee a lot of money.

All of these grand plans of the South might have worked if they had of started them 10 years prior. Can you tells us why they didn’t do that?

I’ve ordered Russels book and some others you have mentioned. Will get yours. Thanks for elevating the discussion on these many subjects.
So despite the fact that the majority of Southern whites bought few if any imported goods and tariffs were at a historic low before Secession nonetheless Southern whites were eager to fight and die to pay less tariffs?
Leftyhunter
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,798
I have heard that. Some Cotton was shipped directly from New Orleans. Also Yankee Ports were deeper. Whatever the case, Southerners handed the Yankee a lot of money.

All of these grand plans of the South might have worked if they had of started them 10 years prior. Can you tells us why they didn’t do that?

I’ve ordered Russels book and some others you have mentioned. Will get yours. Thanks for elevating the discussion on these many subjects.
Actually, they did start earlier. Charlestonians were hard at it by the mid 1830s. By then it was catching on big time all over. When Asa Whitney, a distant cousin of Eli and a successful China trader, submitted his proposal to Congress in January 1845, all rail broke loose. South Carolina's soil was already wearing out in the 1830s and these people knew they had to do or die.

If you don't like Russel's book, I'll buy your lunch. It revolutionized my perspective and tied together a lot of loose ends.
 

Virginia Dave

Corporal
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
499
Location
Waynesboro, Virginia
What taxation would that specifically be? There was no federal income tax. There was no federal value added tax. Southern whites bought few if any imported goods and until Secession tariffs were at a historic low.
Leftyhunter
By Roger K. Broxton

Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year.
 

Andersonh1

Major
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,963
Location
South Carolina
So despite the fact that the majority of Southern whites bought few if any imported goods and tariffs were at a historic low before Secession nonetheless Southern whites were eager to fight and die to pay less tariffs?
Leftyhunter
The anger over tariffs and federal spending went back at least three decades. You cannot narrow their feelings down to the immediate time period around secession and be historically accurate. Secession was the end of a long chain of events, not a spur of the moment decision based on the immediate political and financial environment.

By 1860 the damage was done.
 
Last edited:

Virginia Dave

Corporal
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
499
Location
Waynesboro, Virginia
Two books I would recommend, but not for buying: At the Precipice: Americans North and South during the Secession Crisis by the late Shearer Davis Bowman and Emotional and Sectional Conflict in the Antebellum United States by Michael E. Woods. These books let us peer into the cultural and social factors that led to the war, and they were essential to me in understanding how sectional animosity was able to erupt in warfare.

These books are written, it seems to me, for graduate level historians and social scientists; they're not for everybody. I'd see if I could get them from a library before buying them.

Why were these books useful to me? I used to be one of those folks who ascribed all of human behavior to economic determinism... the idea that economics and economic relationships are the foundation upon which all other social and political arrangements in society are based. But if that was true, then, for example, religion would not matter... but it does. I still do regard economics as a key force in explaining our actions, but I understand that other forces must be reckoned with.

These books go beyond economic determinism. They helped me to understand the social and even emotional conditions and states of people of the era, which provided an understanding of why people behaved the way they did.

Many people will say that the secessionists left the Union because of slavery. This is a very simplistic, imprecise statement, although, if you wanted to use just one word, that is it. But one word does not suffice.

More precisely, people seceded because they perceived that the Republican Party was pro-abolition, or beholden to abolitionists; and that the Party would enact policies that would ruin slavery, and thus southern society. It was more about a distrust and even hatred for the so-called "Black Republicans" that led to secession.

Recollect that the SC Sec Dec states

On the 4th day of March next, this (Republican) party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

If SC believed that the Republicans were indeed hellbent on waging a war against slavery, their decision to secede makes sense. Why did they feel that way? The books I mention give some insight into why specific southerners felt and believed that Northerners in general and Republicans in general were a threat to their way of life.

- Alan
Thank you I will see if the local libraries have these. I live in a small town so they may not.
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,788
Location
los angeles ca
The anger over tariffs and federal spending went back at least three decades. You cannot narrow their feelings down to the immediate time period around secession and be historically accurate. Secession was the end of a long chain of events, not a spur of the moment decision based on the immediate political and financial environment.

By 1860 the damage was done.
Why would tens of thousands of Southerners be willing to fight and die over tariffs?
What exact products were so vital that were made to expensive by tariffs especially considering that tariffs were at a historic low before Secession?
Leftyhunter
 

Andersonh1

Major
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,963
Location
South Carolina
Why would tens of thousands of Southerners be willing to fight and die over tariffs?
What exact products were so vital that were made to expensive by tariffs especially considering that tariffs were at a historic low before Secession?
Leftyhunter
It wasn't just tariffs, it was money collected in the South being spent for the benefit of Northern interests. That's what they said, in very clear language.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/address-of-south-carolina-to-slaveholding-states/

"And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue–to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures. "
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,788
Location
los angeles ca
By Roger K. Broxton

Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year.
That is true that Lincoln was not originally going to interfere with slavery in states that already had it. Lincoln acknowledged that Slavery was protected both by the US Constitution and case law. On the other hand as the President of the United States Lincoln had a duty to enforce federal laws including the tariff. Lincoln had a constitutional duty to crush any Rebellion has spelled out in the Constitution.
Not seeing what Lincoln did that was wrong.
However no one is going to fight and die over the issue if tariffs especially when tariffs were at a historic low and there were domestic alternatives to imported goods.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,788
Location
los angeles ca
It wasn't just tariffs, it was money collected in the South being spent for the benefit of Northern interests. That's what they said, in very clear language.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/address-of-south-carolina-to-slaveholding-states/

"And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue–to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures. "
Other then tariffs what exact taxes did Southerners pay to the North? After all there was no federal income tax of National Value Added Tax. There was a tax on Whiskey but not enough federal agents to check for every little still.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,788
Location
los angeles ca
It wasn't just tariffs, it was money collected in the South being spent for the benefit of Northern interests. That's what they said, in very clear language.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/address-of-south-carolina-to-slaveholding-states/

"And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue–to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures. "
And what exactly was preventing the South from building their own factories. The Tredgar Iron Works was successful and just before the ACW exported Cannon's to Russia?
Leftyhunter
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,798
All interesting, but are we a bit off post? Can someone tie all of these posts together for me into a connection to the truthfulness or lack thereof in the Secession declarations?

I am still working on grading the Secesh Declarations which I just might expand into an article entitled:

South Carolina's Secession Declarations: No Solution and an A-plus Exercise in Non Sequiturs.

Edited.
james
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,371
Georgia Southern University
Digital Commons@Georgia Southern
Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies, Jack N. Averitt College
Summer 2006

Secession Diplomacy: A Study of Thomas Butler King, Commissioner of Georgia to Europe, 1861
by Mary Pinckney Kearns

Georgia Southern University
This thesis (open access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies, Jack N. Averitt College of at Digital Commons@GeorgiaSouthern. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@GeorgiaSouthern. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@georgiasouthern.edu.

ABSTRACT
The objective of this thesis is to determine the function and effectiveness of state diplomats in the Confederate cause abroad by examining the mission of Thomas Butler King to the courts of Europe for the state of Georgia within the context of the international dimensions of the first year of the Civil War. The work will address the various Confederate arguments for recognition through the examination of propaganda documents published by King and their effect on French and British policies. The work will further investigate the direct trade movement of the 1850s and its effects on the southern diplomatic effort.

https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1587&context=etd
587

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,411
All interesting, but are we a bit off post? Can someone tie all of these posts together for me into a connection to the truthfulness or lack thereof in the Secession declarations?
I am still working on grading the Secesh Declarations which I just might expand into an article entitled:
South Carolina's Secession Declarations: No Solution and an A-plus Exercise in Non Sequiturs.
Edited. james
Is any part of the SC Declaration of Causes... Not True? Loyal Unionists, at that time, would say, it was packed with lies, or, at least, half truths.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


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