Slavery; THE Cause?

Status
Not open for further replies.

cedarstripper

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
1,275
Location
western New York
Mobile:
So why wouldn't the North let the South go.Obviously because the North would have been worse off economically.Otherwise why didn't the powers that be leave the Confederacy alone.
I'll take a stab at a couple of reasons:

1) To accept secession is to legitimize it. A contract that can be unilaterally voided is not a contract, and a Union in which any State may unilaterally leave is not a Union at all, let alone a more perfect Union. To accept secession is to dissolve the very notion of Union. Stephen Douglas pondered that were secession legitimate and, had the US bought Cuba for $300 million, then the day after the purchase, Cuba could secede and return to Spain, to be sold the next day to the next bidder.
2) The nasty little bloody wars that chronically plagued Europe would have their rebirth in America.
3) As Minnesota noted in Resolution #7, the Union could never tolerate foreign control of any part of the Mississippi River for reason ranging from economic concerns to defense. Do you think the CSA would have ever waved good-bye and allowed Lousiana to secede and gain a monopoly of control of the Mississippi delta?
4) Secessionists made no bones about their intentions to attract the western states into the southern Confederacy. US territories in the Southwest would have been costly to keep. Americans outside the deep South fought for and paid for those lands too.

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems clear that it would have damaged the North financially in 1861 and thus the North invaded.
Much is often made about the diversion of commerce and shipping to southern ports due to lower duties. While there would have undoubtedly been a short-lived loss of New England market share of the southern market due to bald hatred for Yankees, it was not necessary to secede to accomplish that. For imported goods destined for a northern market, I see no advantage at all to their shipping to a Southern port first. There certainly would have been a reduction in federal revenues due to the loss of duties collected on goods consumed in the southern market, but that comparatively small loss would have been offset by the reduction in federal expenditures in the South. I know there are a handful of editorials out there that cry that the sky will fall on the North if the South secedes, but I don't give them much weight. There's an editorial for every point of view out there, true or not.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
397
Location
Mobile,Al
Hey good post.I'm definitely on the Southern side of the argument but I firmly believe secession under the constitution was illegal.I don't subscribe to the belief as some Confederate lovers in what if thinking that the North would have been bankrupt and an impoverished country.I think for a few years yea the economy would be worse off but there was too many smart businessmen and brains in general for the North to not eventually make up the money elsewhere.I think for the remainder of the 19th century the South would have been wealthier and much better off without the North.And yea Cuba one way or another would be a part of the Confederacy.Once you get into the 20th century I think the power of the Confederacy would decline as would If the Confederacy wouldn't have somehow gotten the New Mexico and Arizona territories then you're right bleeding Kansas multiplied and more war.If they got those territories I don't think the North and South fight again.I read once where Lincoln was talking about the war and he expressed his view that this war would prevent future wars between the two sections of the country.I do totally see the point about if the South were allowed to secede then maybe other parts of the remaining Union may have done so in the future.I don't think that the Confederacy would have had a problem with secession I say the North invaded the South because they did andI really don't think they were worried about the South trying to invade New York if they let the Confederacy go.The South lost political power in my opinion and felt that the Northern states could simply outvote them and that to me was a critical issue.I do have this conspiracy theory that maybe wrong but I believe ardent secessionist purposely got Lincoln elected so the South would secede.I think it was a calculated move on their part.I don't like Lincoln at all but if his plan for Reconstruction had been carried out maybe I would have a different opinion of him.I do believe that in 1861 the North needed the South more than the South needed the North.The South didn't need Northern manufactures when they could get them cheaper from Europe.After war yea there would be a huge backlash against anything Northern.I think the Southern market would be totally lost in the aftermath of the war.I've never heard any knowledgable person claim that in 1861 the Confederacy wouldn't have been wealthier independent than they were as part of the Union.That's where I base my premise that the war from the Northern perspective was based on economic domination of the South.To me that's what it was mainly about.Thanks for the feedback.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
MobileBoy said:
The South didn't need Northern manufactures when they could get them cheaper from Europe.After war yea there would be a huge backlash against anything Northern.I think the Southern market would be totally lost in the aftermath of the war.I've never heard any knowledgable person claim that in 1861 the Confederacy wouldn't have been wealthier independent than they were as part of the Union.That's where I base my premise that the war from the Northern perspective was based on economic domination of the South.To me that's what it was mainly about.

-------------
I refer you back to my post #550 in this thread and this quotation:

"There were difficulties to be overcome before direct importations could be established other than deficiency of capital and credit, the long credit system, or the absence of a thoroughly Southern mercantile class. One lay in the comparatively small amounts of foreign goods consumed in the South. There is no way of calculating accurately the value of the foreign imports consumed in territory naturally tributary to Southern seaports; but the probabilities are that it did not so greatly exceed the direct importations as Southerners generally supposed. Some Southern writers made the palpably untenable assumption that the Southern population consumed foreign goods equal in value to their exports to foreign countries, that is about two-thirds or three-fourths of the nation's exports or imports. More reasonable was the assumption that the per capita consumption of imported goods in the South was equal to that of the North; but even that would seem to have been too liberal. A much higher percentage of the Northern population was urban; and the per capita consumption of articles of commerce by an urban population is greater than the per capita consumption by a rural population. Southern writers made much of the number of rich families in the South who bought articles of luxury imported from abroad; but there is no doubt that the number of families who lived in luxury was exaggerated. That the slaves consumed comparatively small quantities of foreign goods requires no demonstration. Their clothing and rough shoes were manufactured either in the North or at home. Their chief articles of food (corn and bacon) were produced at home or in the West. The large poor white element in the population consumed few articles of commerce, either domestic or foreign. The same is true of the rather large mountaineer element, because if for no other reason, they lived beyond the routes of trade. Olmstead had these classes in mind when he wrote: 'I have never seen reason to believe that with absolute free trade the cotton States would take a tenth part of the value of our present importations.' One of the fairest of the many English travelers wrote: 'But the truth is, there are few imports required, for every Southern town tells the same tale.' " [Robert R. Russel, Economic Aspects of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861, pp. 107-108]

The true fact of the matter is that southerners bought from the North because Northern goods were cheaper and because they didn't use foreign goods. The tariff in 1860 was at its lowest point in 50 years, so it was not the reason Northern goods were cheaper. Southerners didn't use many foreign goods. There had been at least two attempts at establishing direct imports into the south, the last in the 1850s. Those attempts were monumental failures because southerners just didn't use enough foreign goods to make it worthwhile. Anytime any economic analysis is made that goes to more depth than just scratching the surface, it's shown again and again that the so-called "economic domination of the south" had very little to nothing to do with the war. The only economics that mattered regarding this war was the economics of slavery.

Regards,
Cash
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
669
Location
New York City
It seems to me that we're talking at cross purposes because there are in fact different questions. For example

* What were the reasons for the growing tensions between the North and the South during the period 1820-1860?

* What were the reasons that southern states decided to secede in 1860-1861?

* What were the reasons that the North decided not to acquiesce in the decision(s) by southern states to secede?

It is not at all inconsistent to argue that the answers to nos. 1 and 2 are different from the answer to no. 3. The evidence appears overwhelming to me that the primary cause of tensions that intensified over the decades, culminating in secession, was slavery.

On the other hand, I don't think that, at the outset, the North decided not to let the southern states go because the North desired to eliminate slavery. Nor do I think that the primary motivation was some crass calculation of economic benefit. In my view, the primary motivation was far more primal. Andrew Jackson's response to the Nullification controversy demonstrates that almost 30 years before the War the notion was taking hold that the United States was [although Jackson would have said "were"] one country. In the following decades, that concept took deep roots. By 1861, large numbers of northerners simply found it unthinkable that the southern states would be allowed to destroy what they perceived to be the most perfect nation attainable in an imperfect world. Pure love of country can be a powerful thing.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
397
Location
Mobile,Al
No I totally think that without slavery there never is NO Civil War.I'm just not buying that the Northern politicians brought about this conflict to end slavery.Most of the Northern population was racist as he-- too.I mean the reason the North wouldn't let the South go to me was based on economics.

Cash my point is that northern goods were cheaper because of the tarrif. A foreign car today would be much cheaper to us without a tarrif.The money does come out of my pocket even if I buy an American vehicle(which I always do) because the foreign car is no longer the price it would have been.That's why a tarrif was protectionist in nature it made European goods more expensive to buy.I'm in agreement with you Northern goods were cheaper and that Southern states didn't buy that many European manufactures.I'm saying the tarrif had something to do with that.I have read different books with different coclusions on the tarrif issue.I think it's effect was exagerrated but I think it was an issue.Didn't southern newspapers have a long history of complaining about the tarrif.Those views were for sure slanted but without the TV or radio how much were they believed.I don't have any knowledge of the other information you're talking about.I trust you I just don't know enough about those specifics to have any opinion.Appreciate the feedback.
Elektratig I agree with you that slavery was the primary cause.I don't think the common Union soldier fought for economic domination of the South .Nor do I think the majority of Union soldiers fought for slavery.Ulysses S. Grant stated that if he thought this war was fought about the negroe he would hand in his sword and fight for the other side.That was a good point you made about keeping America together.I don't dispute that was a major reason many volunteered for the war.If either that alone or slavery later on had been that passionate of an issue why did the North have to have a draft.Wouldn't there have been enough volunteers.Why have black military units if most Union men were willing to fight for the Union.They should've had plenty of soldiers considering how many more poeple lived in the North.I realize you could ask me the same thing about the Confederate draft I just wanted you to think about it.Sorry for ADD but I meant the politicians and not every Northener.Obviously the North stood to lose by an independent Confederacy and not the other way around.The politicians of the North weren't all idiots and I'm sure economics factored into their thinking.I think the South would have been better off financially as an independent nation and the Union worse off at that time.I don't hear anybody disputing that so it stands to reason politicians at that time with much more insight than us felt that way as well.Lincoln did mention continuing to collect duties in Southern ports so it was obviously heavy on his mind at the beginning as well.From a Southern perspective the South didn't want to impose its will on the Northern states.The South wanted to not have the North dictate its will apon them.To me its a situation of might makes right.It is funny to me how the South lost the war and comes across looking more heroic than the North.I don't see that as being accurate but history did throw the confederacy that bone.In conclusion I don't think the normal foot soldier in the Confederacy fought for slavery and I don't think the Union footsoldier fought with economic domination of the South in mind.I do think politicians in the North had economics on their mind like Southern politicians had slavery and economics on theirs.Thanks for any input.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
my point is that northern goods were cheaper because of the tarrif.That's why a tarrif was protectionist in nature it made European goods more expensive to buy.I'm in agreement with you Northern goods were cheaper and that Southern states didn't buy that many European manufactures.I'm saying the tarrif had something to do with that.
--------------------

Like I said, though, the tariff in place was the lowest it had been in 50 years. Northern goods weren't cheaper because of the tariff. They were cheaper to start with. The Walker Tariff was the tariff in place. It was a revenue tariff, not a protectionist tariff.




I have read different books with different coclusions on the tarrif issue.I think it's effect was exagerrated but I think it was an issue.
----------------------
Only for a small minority. The vast majority recognized, along with Congressman Keitt, that it was not an issue.




Didn't southern newspapers have a long history of complaining about the tarrif.
-----------------------
Some did, some didn't. But by 1860 the tariff that was in place was not a protectionist tariff, so most of them didn't complain about it. The Morrill Tariff was in Congress and was a protectionist tariff, but it could never pass the Senate unless it had southern support. It was only the secession of the cotton states that took most of the opposition away and allowed it to pass.


Nor do I think the majority of Union soldiers fought for slavery.
--------------
Not at first, but they changed their minds. In the last half of the war the majority of Union soldiers wanted to destroy slavery.



Ulysses S. Grant stated that if he thought this war was fought about the negroe he would hand in his sword and fight for the other side.
-----------------
No, he never, ever said that. The claim he did was a fabrication.

Grant saw from the beginning the war would end slavery. He even wrote to his father-in-law, "In all this I can but see the doom of Slavery."

Not only do we have the letter from Grant to Col. Dent, but we also have Grant's letter to his father in which he said, "Whatever may have been my political opinions before I have but one sentiment now. That is we have a Government, and laws and a flag and they must all be sustained. There are but two parties now, Traitors and Patriots and I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter, and I trust, the stronger party." [U.S. Grant to his father, Jesse Grant, 21 Apr 1861] In another letter to his father, Grant wrote, "My inclination is to whip the rebellion into submission, preserving all constitutional rights. If it cannot be whipped in any other way than through a war against slavery, let it come to that legitimately. If it is necessary that slavery should fall that the Republic may continue its existence, let slavery go. But that portion of the press that advocates the beginning of such a war now, are as great enemies to their country as if they were open and avowed secessionists." [U.S. Grant to his father, Jesse, 27 Nov 1861] Grant was certainly willing to wage a war against slavery if it came to that, even though in late 1861 he didn't believe the time had come for it. In this he was in complete accord with Lincoln. Later, after the Final Emancipation Proclamation was issued and the war transformed from a war for Union on the Federal side to a war for Union and against slavery, Grant not only did not offer his sword to the other side but he executed increased responsibility to successfully wage this war.

In August of 1863, Grant wrote to Elihu Washburne, "it became patent in my mind early in the rebellion that the North & South could never live at peace with each other except as one nation, and that without Slavery. As anxious as I am to see peace reestablished I would not therefore be willing to see any settlement until this question is forever settled." [U.S. Grant to Elihu Washburne, 30 Aug 1863]




The politicians of the North weren't all idiots and I'm sure economics factored into their thinking.
---------------------
You've been given direct evidence that it had little if any effect on their thinking.



I think the South would have been better off financially as an independent nation and the Union worse off at that time.I don't hear anybody disputing that so it stands to reason politicians at that time with much more insight than us felt that way as well.Lincoln did mention continuing to collect duties in Southern ports so it was obviously heavy on his mind at the beginning as well.
--------------------
That was his sworn duty as President of the United States, to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. Revenue laws were part of that. The amount of revenue collected at southern ports, though, was a mere pittance. The vast majority of the tariff revenue was collected in Northern ports.




From a Southern perspective the South didn't want to impose its will on the Northern states.
-----------------------
That's absolutely false. They sure did want to impose their will on the Northern states. They demanded that Northern states repeal their personal liberty laws. They demanded that every Northerner become a slave catcher. They demanded the right to travel in Northern states with their slaves, flaunting the free state laws against slavery. They demanded the right to kidnap any black citizen of any Northern state they wished and bring him south into slavery.



The South wanted to not have the North dictate its will apon them.To me its a situation of might makes right.
-------------------
Other way around. As Lincoln said, "Right makes might."



It is funny to me how the South lost the war and comes across looking more heroic than the North.
---------------------
The confederacy had some very heroic people. But I for one don't see them as more heroic than the Federals. I see the two as equally heroic when it comes to deeds done in battle.



I don't see that as being accurate but history did throw the confederacy that bone.In conclusion I don't think the normal foot soldier in the Confederacy fought for slavery
-------------------
About 20% of them specifically stated they were fighting for slavery. The rest of them had no problem with slavery and accepted the fact that slavery was one of the rights for which they were fighting. That doesn't mean it was their motivation.




and I don't think the Union footsoldier fought with economic domination of the South in mind.I do think politicians in the North had economics on their mind like Southern politicians had slavery and economics on theirs.
------------------
Can you support that? You've been shown specific examples where Northern politicians gave their reasons and they didn't have anything to do with economics.

Regards,
Cash
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
397
Location
Mobile,Al
Cash thanks.I wouldn't say you've given evidence that Northern politicians weren't concerned with economics.Quoting politicians proves things right.Okay Clinton didn't do anything with his intern and Bush went to war over weapons of mass destruction.I just proved it to you because I quoted them.Give me a break buddy.I can quote Southern politicians who claim slavery wasn't an issue but I'm not so narrow minded that I blindly believe them when common sense tells me better.You never disputed that Abe Lincoln talked about collecting duties in Southern ports.Wasn't he a politician?By your logic from the head Union man I just proved to you that economics were a factor.Are you now telling me that by quoting some politicians you can read there minds and know they didn't have economics on it.Please give me your opinion yes or no.Would the North have been weaker economically in 1861 without the Confederacy?That answer is obvious ,but you somehow think that in no way economics had anything to do with it.Are you afraid of feeling guilty that this was not a holy war.I feel guilty about slavery I just don't justify it.I think it is being real ridiculous to assume that economics had nothing to do with it.Also on the racial issue in how many Northern states were blacks allowed to vote in?I guess the blacks lynched in the New York riots were future soldiers showing how devoted they were to the blessed Northern cause.Please don't pretend that the North was the ambivalent friend of the negroe.I never said Grant fought for the Confederacy so it was silly to bring that up.I can't prove what men 100 years ago were thinking.Nor can you prove they didn't by quoting politicians. It's pretty sad when quoting a politician is proof.Are you telling me that you really believe economics weren't a factor at all.If so I've got a flooded house in Cypress Shores from Katrina that maybe you might want to buy.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
MobileBoy said:
Cash thanks.I wouldn't say you've given evidence that Northern politicians weren't concerned with economics.Quoting politicians proves things right.Okay Clinton didn't do anything with his intern and Bush went to war over weapons of mass destruction.I just proved it to you because I quoted them.Give me a break buddy.
----------------
I quoted the resolutions passed by the Legislatures before the war, not justifications used after-the-fact.



MobileBoy said:
I can quote Southern politicians who claim slavery wasn't an issue but I'm not so narrow minded that I blindly believe them when common sense tells me better.
Like I said, there were a few for whom slavery was not an issue, and you can find quotes from them prior to the war. The vast majority, however, saw slavery as the issue, and you will not find the quotes from before the war that will dispute that. However, what I provided was not just politicians trying to make excuses for actions. What I quoted was resolutions by states giving their reasons for opposing secession. If you have anything substantive to impeach their credibility, I'd like to see it.



MobileBoy said:
You never disputed that Abe Lincoln talked about collecting duties in Southern ports.Wasn't he a politician?By your logic from the head Union man I just proved to you that economics were a factor.
Wrong again. I gave the reason why he said that, and that is taking one statement of his out of context. If you can provide statements from Northern politicians saying that economics was their driving concern, then please do so.



MobileBoy said:
Are you now telling me that by quoting some politicians you can read there minds and know they didn't have economics on it.
Resolutions from State Legislatures are pretty authoritative as to the opinions of the legislatures and probably their constituents. I don't have to read their minds. They were very clear in what they said.


MobileBoy said:
Please give me your opinion yes or no.Would the North have been weaker economically in 1861 without the Confederacy?That answer is obvious ,but you somehow think that in no way economics had anything to do with it.Are you afraid of feeling guilty that this was not a holy war.I feel guilty about slavery I just don't justify it.
The nation as a whole would have been weaker in all ways, militarily, economically, and socially without 1/3 of the country. Claiming economics was their concern is no more valid than claiming they wanted to keep the Union together because they wanted to continue to have a diverse society or that they liked having people with southern accents in Congress, especially when the resolutions from the various states clearly show what their motivation was.



MobileBoy said:
I think it is being real ridiculous to assume that economics had nothing to do with it.
I think it is ridiculous to continue to make an unsupported claim that is nothing more than an assumption in the face of clear, hard evidence to the contrary.



MobileBoy said:
Also on the racial issue in how many Northern states were blacks allowed to vote in?
New England.


MobileBoy said:
I guess the blacks lynched in the New York riots were future soldiers showing how devoted they were to the blessed Northern cause.Please don't pretend that the North was the ambivalent friend of the negroe.
What does this have to do with the discussion?


MobileBoy said:
I never said Grant fought for the Confederacy so it was silly to bring that up.
Please read what I posted again. You made the false claim that Grant had said if the war became a war against slavery he would offer his sword to the other side. That is a fabrication. So far I have been able to trace the fabrication to Margaret Rutherford, but it might have started before her. I showed where Grant said and did the exact opposite of that fabricated quote.



MobileBoy said:
I can't prove what men 100 years ago were thinking.Nor can you prove they didn't by quoting politicians. It's pretty sad when quoting a politician is proof.Are you telling me that you really believe economics weren't a factor at all.If so I've got a flooded house in Cypress Shores from Katrina that maybe you might want to buy.
Since you've provided no evidence for your claims I'll simply ignore the hot air until you provide the evidence to back up your assumptions.

Regards,
Cash
 

cedarstripper

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
1,275
Location
western New York
I wouldn't say you've given evidence that Northern politicians weren't concerned with economics.
We carelessly mix two different statements together in these discussions - what was the primary reason for the deep South's secession, and what was the primary reason for the Union to not capitulate.

Noting that you still have the feeling that tariffs must have been a substantial cause for southern discord, in addition to what has already been offered to you, I'd ask you to consider that no southern political campaign made a repeal of tariffs its goal, no platform of any southern convention made a repeal of tariffs one of it's planks, tariffs were not the subject of any of the Lincoln - Douglas debates, and tariffs were not an ingredient in any of the social uproars tearing at the seems of the US. Consider that secession as the remedy to hostility over slavery would have been exercised in 1856 had Fremont won the election, and there was no agitation over tariffs then. If tariffs were truly a cause for disunion, then it was the best kept secret in 1860.

If you think Billy Bob would be better off economically in the CSA, then I'd be interested exactly why you think that would be. Remembering that he bought most of his items from domestic sources in the North, and remembering that the CSA instituted a tariff systems quite similar to the US, with ad valorem rates a bit lower that the US, Billy Bob's purchases of goods made in the US which were previously free of duty would now have a CSA duty attached. How does that help Billy Bob economically?

If you want to argue that Billy Bob could now buy his goods cheaper from Europe, explain how, since the tariff still was in place on European goods. (and note that by the 1850s, domestic production as a whole was not inferior to European)

If you want to argue that prices on US goods would not rise, because in order to compete with European and CSA goods, US producers would have been forced to lower their prices to compete in the CSA market duty-added, then you have to concede that European producers had had to do the same to sell in the US market all along.

If you want to argue that due to the tariffs placed on US goods, southern industry would rise to supply the market, then you have to concede that the South was applying protectionism, which has been accused all along of being harmful to consumers. So....how is it that Billy Bob is better off?

To the latter question of the federal government's determination to preserve the Union, several here have demonstrated that with commonness, secession was considered a treasonous rebellion to be thwarted, one that had been rumbled as a threat for years. The political notion that at any time, by the mere announcement of its independence, a state could exit the Union, received wholesale rejection outside the South. The breakup of the Union presented many potential harms to the health and prosperity of the future US. You repeat over and over that economics had to have been a factor. I'd agree that in the big picture, economics as a component of the overall prosperity of the US were a consideration of maintaining the Union. But as a specific and immediate fear, especially as a loss of tariff revenue, they had to have been almost non-existent compared to the cost and disruption of production and commerce that would surely be the result of having to endure civil war.

Undoubtedly there were concerns for the disruption in trade and shipping that might occur, although I'd argue that the editorials you might read grossly exaggerated the situation (geez, it's not like a newspaper man to do that!). If you think the North would be hurt economically by the breakup of the Union, then I'd be interested on exactly how they would have suffered enough to want to preserve the Union at the cost of war.

If the market for foreign goods was relative to the size of the free marketplace, then the states outside what would become the CSA were the destination for about 70% of imports. Contrary to what many claim, these goods could not enter the US market and avoid a US tariff by shipping to Charleston, Mobile, or New Orleans first. They still would then meet a US Custom-house up-river at the new border to the US, where they would be assessed with a US tariff. So its easy to see that the majority of transAtlantic shipping destined for northern markets would continue to dock in NYC and Boston.

Imported goods destined for southern consumers would still have docked in these northern ports, where they would have been trans-shipped with cargoes of US made goods. These shipments would then head for a southern ports where the entire shipment would be assessed appropriately with a CSA tariff before entering the CSA market. Aside from a slight lowering of tariffs on little bought European goods, and the addition of new tariffs on commonly used US goods, little has changed, except that Billy Bob now can't seem to buy much of anything that hasn't been taxed.

So where is the huge disruption in shipping? Where is the huge loss of market for northern manufacturers? I just don't see it. Stability is what the home market wanted, and war does not bring stability.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
397
Location
Mobile,Al
Thanks for the response Cash it has been educational.You do a nice job of sighting sources it's just that there are sources for every side of the Civil War argument.I didn't dispute that Grant actually said that because I don't know.I believe you're right about that quote being traced to Margaret Rutherford but as to whether she's a liar or not I don't know.I don't condemn you for believing she is.Abe Lincoln talked about collecting duties in the South so how did I take that out of context.I'm not claiming that was all he said but that would seem to indicate he was aware of the revenue that would be lost.As I've said before there were some astute minds North of Dixie so I believe it played a role.Do you really think the Northern legislatures would go on the record and say that that the South was being invaded for the purpose of subjugation.That's not realistic. Thanks for ignoring my hot air as you say.If I was offensive I apologize.That wasn't my intent.Like I said no I can't prove that economics were a factor , neither can you by quoting some politicians prove that economics played no role.I don't see how you can't consider the possibility that economic considerations played any part in the war.Respectfully we'll have to agree to disagree.In my college courses my teacher's would never accept quotes as proof.Like they always said it's not like human beings are 100% honest all the time.We were taught to question everything to the 9th degree.Not saying my teacher's were perfect ,but I would have gotten thrown out of class for proposing what you have shown is proof. Thanks again for the feedback.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
MobileBoy said:
Thanks for the response Cash it has been educational.You do a nice job of sighting sources it's just that there are sources for every side of the Civil War argument.
Some of them have value, some don't. I think citing the person's own words, which can be verified through his papers in the case of Grant, has value. The fact that he actually said and did things that were directly opposite to what was claimed and the fact that the quotation attributed to him appears nowhere in any collection of his writings and speeches, and we can find no witnesses at all to attest to him having spoken those words means they were fabricated.



MobileBoy said:
I didn't dispute that Grant actually said that because I don't know.I believe you're right about that quote being traced to Margaret Rutherford but as to whether she's a liar or not I don't know.I don't condemn you for believing she is.
I don't know that she is. I've only been able to trace the fabrication to her so far. She may have gotten it from someone else. I'm trying to get my hands on her book so I can try to trace it from there.



MobileBoy said:
Abe Lincoln talked about collecting duties in the South so how did I take that out of context.I'm not claiming that was all he said but that would seem to indicate he was aware of the revenue that would be lost.
He talked about collecting duties in his First Inaugural. He also talked about holding the forts and other government property, yet you ignore that and claim it was the revenue. And the revenue lost from southern ports was miniscule anyway.


MobileBoy said:
As I've said before there were some astute minds North of Dixie so I believe it played a role.Do you really think the Northern legislatures would go on the record and say that that the South was being invaded for the purpose of subjugation.That's not realistic.
If they had economic reasons for opposing secession they could have spelled them out in terms that would not equal subjugation.

In any event, the burden of proof is on those who make the positive assertion. You've asserted they opposed secession so they could subjugate the south. The burden is on you to provide evidence to support your contention.


MobileBoy said:
Like I said no I can't prove that economics were a factor , neither can you by quoting some politicians prove that economics played no role.
The resolutions of the state legislatures, which were signed by the governors of those states, are more than quoting some politicians. They are authoritative statements of the positions of those states and were backed up after Fort Sumter by the hundreds of thousands who enlisted to fight for the Union. Show me a letter by a soldier who said he was fighting to ensure the economic subjugation of the south, then. You can't.

Did you notice what Grant said to his father? "Whatever may have been my political opinions before I have but one sentiment now. That is we have a Government, and laws and a flag and they must all be sustained. There are but two parties now, Traitors and Patriots and I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter, and I trust, the stronger party." [U.S. Grant to his father, Jesse Grant, 21 Apr 1861]

Nothing about economic subjugation of the south there.



MobileBoy said:
I don't see how you can't consider the possibility that economic considerations played any part in the war.
As it's nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion it deserves far less consideration than I've given it. Give me some evidence and I will consider the evidence.



MobileBoy said:
In my college courses my teacher's would never accept quotes as proof.Like they always said it's not like human beings are 100% honest all the time.We were taught to question everything to the 9th degree.Not saying my teacher's were perfect ,but I would have gotten thrown out of class for proposing what you have shown is proof. Thanks again for the feedback.
I submit you misunderstand what they were getting at. A person's statements are evidence of what he believes. In order to impeach that evidence you have to have evidence to the contrary, which you have failed to provide.

Regards,
Cash
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
397
Location
Mobile,Al
Hey Cedar Stripper,
I don't believe that economics was the only factor in why the North invaded the South.I do believe that they did play a role.For most Union troops I really don't think it was much of a factor.I meant some Northern politicians.

This is what I thought was an interesting tidbit..I read letters from my friend's family who lived at the time of the Civil War.In the letter he complains of exactly that the tarrif.He doesn't call it a tarrif.He does talk about thanks to the Yankee bastards in Congress the prices for his farm tools are higher.He makes reference to the fact that he could buy them cheaper from Britain.He was from Frisco City,Alabama.I'm not arguing about whether his perception was based on reality.If he felt that way then obviously , it contributed in his case to a willingness to secede.I'm not saying it was the only factor either.How many others felt that way I don't know.I have never claimed that due to tarrifs the South seceded.I would say slavery and states rights were far bigger issues.If you could please post what the actual tarrifs were for the Confederacy in 1861 and the Union in 1861 I'd appreciate it.Newspapers did bring up the tarrif issue so it wasn't something nobody ever discussed.Considering the newspaper was the major way some rural communities got news from the outside world , of course those articles had an impact on some of its readers.Showing all the tables and everything in the world doesn't tell me how Southerners felt about the tarrif issue.I can post several quotes from some Confederate politicians on the issue if you would like . South Carolina did threaten secession over the issue 30 years earlier so the idea isn't without merit that it was a factor.I'm not saying you're wrong ,but there are oodles of sources from a different perspective.Do you personally think cedarstripper that to some Southerners it was an issue?I think it was an issue but not nearly as important as slavery.I'll appreciate your honest answer.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
MobileBoy said:
South Carolina did threaten secession over the issue 30 years earlier so the idea isn't without merit that it was a factor.
Not according to the architect of nullification, His Satanic Majesty, John C. Calhoun, himself:

"I consider the Tariff, but as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick [sic] institutions of the Southern States, and the consequent direction which that and her soil and climate have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriation in opposite relation to the majority of the Union; against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states, they must in the end be forced to rebel, or submit to have . . . their domestick [sic] institutions exhausted by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves & children reduced to wretchedness. Thus situated, the denial of the right of the state to interfere constitutionally in the last resort, more alarms the thinking than all other causes." [John C. Calhoun to Virgil Maxcy, 11 September 1830]

And in fact the so-called "Tariff of Abominations" was fashioned in part by none other than His Satanic Majesty, John C. Calhoun, and his henchmen, after which he cynically began to denounce his own creation. "The tariff of 1828 was the law of the land, and South Carolinians were the authors of its worst abominations." [William W. Freehling, Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836, p. 137]

The Nullification Controversy was more about protecting slavery than anything else:

"The same doctrines 'of the general welfare' which enable the general government to tax our industry for the benefit of the industries of other sections of this Union, and to appropriate the common treasure to make roads and canals for them, would authorize the federal government to erect the peaceful standard of servile revolt, by establishing colonization offices in our State, to give the bounties for emancipation here, and transportation to Liberia afterwards. The last question follows our giving up the battle on the other two, as inevitably as light flows from the sun." [James Hamilton to John Taylor, 14 Sep 1830]

Regards,
Cash
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
566
Greetings Cash:

Quote from Cash, post #573
"the burden is on you to provide evidence to support your contention." (a statement to Mobile Boy)

Quote from Cash, post #575
"Not according to the architect of nullification, His Satanic Majesty, John C. Calhoun, himself." (aother statement to Mobile Boy)
-----------------------------------------------------------

Cash, I was unaware that John C. Calhoun was a member of Satan's Church or was a 'Satanic worshipper.' I did a quick google on the subject to hand and was unable to substantiate your statement. The burden is therefore on you to provide evidence to support you conention of John C. Calhoun being a "Satanic Majesty." Please provide the evidence.

Regards,
Rob Adams
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
397
Location
Mobile,Al
Cash you're ignoring my point.It is a common known fact that South Carolina feared becoming poor due to the tarrif.Calhoun wasn't always a supporter of state's rights he changed his views as I'm well aware and most literate Southerners are.Why did Andrew Jackson lower the tarrif if he didn't want to give some relief to the Southern states.Let me guess the fact that the tarrif was reduced is irrelevant to you because in your mind it wasn't an issue. Clearly from your quote it was an issue.I never said it was the one and only issue.Yes with no tarrif issue I'm saying they don't secede.Were there other factors? Of course there were. Duh .I'm starting to fear that you just enjoy arguing no matter what is said.I do enjoy your replies though.How can you call John Calhoun the devil.I guess to you a politician representing the interest of the state he was elected from is satanic.When you vote do you not want your politician to represent your community's needs.How many South Carolinians voted for the tarrif of abominations.Please put that up.There's no way the majority of them casted a positive vote for it.That my friend is fact that they did not.Do you care to make a wager on that?Of course not because I am correct.If you want to bet I'll take it whenever you accept it.So to pretend that the tarrif had no impact on South Carolina's decision to secede is really not worth discussing further.I love how you quote saying South Carolinians were the authors of some of its worst abominations.What were they the authors of ?You leave that out.That quote is totally irrelevant because South Carolina didn't support the tarrif.That is fact noone can contradict.
Have a good one.
 

cedarstripper

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
1,275
Location
western New York
I love how you quote saying South Carolinians were the authors of some of its worst abominations.What were they the authors of ?You leave that out.That quote is totally irrelevant because South Carolina didn't support the tarrif.That is fact noone can contradict.
From Tariff History of the United States, Frank Taussig, p.88:


"But the policy of delay, if such in fact had been entertained by the opposition, was abandoned. On January 31st, the committee presented a report and a draft of a tariff bill, which showed that they had determined on a new plan, and an ingenious one. What that plan was, Calhoun explained very frankly nine years later, in a speech reviewing the events of 1828 and defending the course taken by himself and his Southern fellow-members.


A high-tariff bill was to be laid before the House. It was to contain not only a high general range of duties, but duties especially high on those raw materials on which New England wanted the duties to be low. It was to satisfy the protective demands of the Western and Middle States, and at the same time to be obnoxious to the New England members. The Jackson men of all shades, the protectionists from the North and the free-traders from (p.89) the South, were to unite in preventing any amendments; that bill, and no other, was to be voted on. When the final vote came, the Southern men were to turn around and vote against their own measure. The New England men, and the Adams men in general, would be unable to swallow it, and would also vote against it. Combined, they would prevent its passage, even though the Jackson men from the North voted for it. The result expected was that no tariff bill at all would be passed during the session, which was the object of the Southern wing of the opposition. On the other hand, the obloquy of defeating it would be cast on the Adams party, which was the object of the Jacksonians of the North. The tariff bill would be defeated, and yet the Jackson men would be able to parade as the true "friends of domestic industry."

The bill by which this ingenious solution of the difficulties of the opposition was to be reached, was reported to the House on January 31st by the committee on manufactures.79 To the surprise of its authors, it was eventually passed both by House and Senate, and became, with a few unessential changes, the tariff act of 1828."

Why did Andrew Jackson lower the tarrif if he didn't want to give some relief to the Southern states.

Tariff rates are affixed by Congress, not by the President. The above account admitted by Calhoun was a political scheme which backfired. The abominable tariff rates that Taussig points out were especially burdensome on New England textiles and shipbuilding, not South Carolinians. South Carolina (Calhoun) just squawked the loudest. Because Calhoun threatened secession, it is assumed that the tariffs were especially harmful to S.C., but that's not necessarily true.

It is a common known fact that South Carolina feared becoming poor due to the tarrif.
Please explain how the folks in South Carolina paid any higher prices for imported or domestic goods than anyone else. How were they affected differently than, say, the folks in Iowa or Ohio? Is it a common known fact that South Carolina rice growers enjoyed protectionism on their rice crop?




 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
Alabaman said:
Greetings Cash:

Quote from Cash, post #573
"the burden is on you to provide evidence to support your contention." (a statement to Mobile Boy)

Quote from Cash, post #575
"Not according to the architect of nullification, His Satanic Majesty, John C. Calhoun, himself." (aother statement to Mobile Boy)
-----------------------------------------------------------

Cash, I was unaware that John C. Calhoun was a member of Satan's Church or was a 'Satanic worshipper.' I did a quick google on the subject to hand and was unable to substantiate your statement. The burden is therefore on you to provide evidence to support you conention of John C. Calhoun being a "Satanic Majesty." Please provide the evidence.

Regards,
Rob Adams
-----------
Rob,

I didn't say he was a Satan worshipper. I say that today he resides at Satan's right hand.

The evidence is his development of the extreme state rights philosophy that led to secession and a bloody war in order to protect the institution of slavery. As the quote I provided shows, his goal through all of this was the protection and perpetuation of slavery. A story is told of Andrew Jackson who was asked what his one regret in life was, and he is said to have replied that his one big regret was he didn't hang John C. Calhoun. Calhoun manufactured the nullification crisis just so he could give his extreme state rights theory a test run. Calhoun served an evil agenda and richly deserves the sobriquet "His Satanic Majesty."

Regards,
Cash
 
Status
Not open for further replies.



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top