Tariffs

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,091
WHO was agitating over the slavery issue? I don't think it was southern states attempting to go up north and tell them how to conduct their business until abolitionists in the north had been pushing the south for a few decades. Then when the South finally pushed back, it was somehow their fault?
Well, actually, there was a lot of that on the "Southern" side.

Back when he was in Congress, for example, Robert Barnwell Rhett of South Carolina and the Charleston Mercury, a noted pro-slavery man and Fire-Eater, voted against the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 because he thought it was unconstitutional and a major violation of "state's rights". In truth, it probably was the greatest violation of the concept of "state's rights" since the Alien & Sedition Acts of the Thomas Jefferson administration -- but Southerners pushed it because it favored them and it was not their "state's rights" that would be violated.

The Chief Justice Taney's Opinion in the Dred Scott decision was more of the same. If followed, his opinion would shove slavery down the throat of every state in the Union, forever.

But all this seems to be drifting far away from the topic of the thread. Maybe we should get back to Tariffs.
 

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

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
18,128
Location
Laurinburg NC
Again: This did not happen. No one was "occupying" any land they did not own -- except the secessionists. Facts remain facts, no matter what you say about them.
Yes the secessionists and they didn't take kindly to unwelcome
Sorry, that is just 'spin.'

The South couldn't leave the slavery issue alone and hadn't been able to do so for decades before their war like acts, before Sumter, and right up until they fired on that US fort in the defense of slavery.

It's all there in the historical record. Trying to spin factual history so that portions of it fade and myths take center stage is at the very heart of such spin.
Spin it all you like, the factual history is nobody went to war over slavery in April 1861.:spin:
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
18,128
Location
Laurinburg NC
No, they simply didn't like the idea of actually being forced to participate in a free and fair election and democratic principles concerning such. I liken their actions at being upset at the final score of a baseball game and attempting to upset that score by taking the ball, the bats, the gloves of all the players and then taking the field too.
The factual history is they didn't like the idea of Northern domination.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,091
The factual history is they didn't like the idea of Northern domination.
So? The factual history is that they did not own the US property they wanted to take. Saying "didn't like" some fear they had does not justify their attempt to take property by armed assault.

How about we get back to the topic of the thread, Tariffs?
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
27,968
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Yes the secessionists and they didn't take kindly to unwelcome

Spin it all you like, the factual history is nobody went to war over slavery in April 1861.:spin:
That is to call every Southern leader a liar and the history leading up to the war a lie.

The plain fact is that NO Southern slaveholding State seceded over the tariff.

The tariff is a modern-day excuse to cover up the horrible idea that our ancestors saw no problem seceding over the idea that human beings could be bought, sold, and treated like cattle. It's no spin to say that, as historical documentation of the period clearly states this was the cause of the war.

No amount of denial (or spin) is going to relieve us here in the present of that historical fact. The truth is too plain and the words recorded are simply too obvious to deny. Why this is still argued in the face of this mountain of historical documentation is a mystery to me and always will be. To ignore the words, the letters, the ordinances, speeches and declarations is to willfully maim history, to distort all out of recognition, to deny it's ability for us to learn from past mistakes.

To use the tariff as a tool to distort history, to deny the actual cause of the war, strikes me as self-mutilation, a willful infliction of blindness, for what?

To defend an idea that all find repulsive in our time, a country defined by the people it enslaved? To defend ancestors long gone and uncaring about our opinions and views of them in the 21st century?

I don't think so.

I don't think there are any here who really wish the Confederacy had succeeded in it's bid to become a slaveholding republic or wish that it survived into the present. At least, I hope not.

In the meantime, I'll stick around, argue, debate, converse and contemplate.

Until our next post,

The tariff was NOT a cause of the war, even a minor one.

For anyone stumbling across this thread, read the entire thread from the beginning, then decide based on the evidence presented and then go read for yourself, in books and articles and historical publications.

Decide for yourself based on fact, not faith, not doctrine, but the best evidence.

Enjoy the ride,
Unionblue
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,091
The desire to have gold IS the cause of robbery and the desire to have slaves WAS the cause of succession.
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJV) "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

Tariffs are just the list of taxes to be charged, and so are about money. In 1860, the US Tariff schedule was very, very low -- the lowest since the current Tariff system had been set up in 1816 (backed by Henry Clay of Kentucky and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, among others, at the time). It is generally considered to be the lowest of the major nations in the world at the time.

Faced with a financial disaster after four years of the Buchanan administration, a higher Tariff was proposed and passed the House in 1860, but tabled by political maneuvering in the Senate (where R. M. T. "Run Mad Tom" Hunter of Virginia, the architect of the Tariff of 1857, led the fight against a higher Tariff).

This forced it to become a political issue in the 1860 Election -- but discussions and arguments over Tariffs were nothing new under the Sun. Generally, just like Northerners and Westerners, Southerners wanted Tariffs that favored them and opposed those they thought might favor someone else. The real problem was that Southerners had dominated the Buchanan Administration, run up a big deficit and emptied the Treasury. Now they didn't want to pay to fix the problem they created.
 
Last edited:

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
18,128
Location
Laurinburg NC
That is to call every Southern leader a liar and the history leading up to the war a lie.

The plain fact is that NO Southern slaveholding State seceded over the tariff.

The tariff is a modern-day excuse to cover up the horrible idea that our ancestors saw no problem seceding over the idea that human beings could be bought, sold, and treated like cattle. It's no spin to say that, as historical documentation of the period clearly states this was the cause of the war.

No amount of denial (or spin) is going to relieve us here in the present of that historical fact. The truth is too plain and the words recorded are simply too obvious to deny. Why this is still argued in the face of this mountain of historical documentation is a mystery to me and always will be. To ignore the words, the letters, the ordinances, speeches and declarations is to willfully maim history, to distort all out of recognition, to deny it's ability for us to learn from past mistakes.

To use the tariff as a tool to distort history, to deny the actual cause of the war, strikes me as self-mutilation, a willful infliction of blindness, for what?

To defend an idea that all find repulsive in our time, a country defined by the people it enslaved? To defend ancestors long gone and uncaring about our opinions and views of them in the 21st century?

I don't think so.

I don't think there are any here who really wish the Confederacy had succeeded in it's bid to become a slaveholding republic or wish that it survived into the present. At least, I hope not.

In the meantime, I'll stick around, argue, debate, converse and contemplate.

Until our next post,

The tariff was NOT a cause of the war, even a minor one.

For anyone stumbling across this thread, read the entire thread from the beginning, then decide based on the evidence presented and then go read for yourself, in books and articles and historical publications.

Decide for yourself based on fact, not faith, not doctrine, but the best evidence.

Enjoy the ride,
Unionblue
I don't know how many times I have to say it, but once again, secession was the cause of the war. Lincoln cared less about slavery in the South than losing the South, he was willing to go to war if necessary to prevent Southern independence. It is important to understand the reasons for secession and the reasons for war and the difference between the two.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
18,128
Location
Laurinburg NC
So? The factual history is that they did not own the US property they wanted to take. Saying "didn't like" some fear they had does not justify their attempt to take property by armed assault.

How about we get back to the topic of the thread, Tariffs?
Which had nothing to do with the tariff.
Neither is the incessant drone of slavery, slavery, slavery.
 

MattL

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
2,964
Location
SF Bay Area
WHO was agitating over the slavery issue? I don't think it was southern states attempting to go up north and tell them how to conduct their business until abolitionists in the north had been pushing the south for a few decades. Then when the South finally pushed back, it was somehow their fault?
... except for those fugitive slave laws. Forcing people in a State that abolished slavery and considered it morally unethical to then have to go hunt down slaves and return them. They were precisely telling them how to conduct their business.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,433
Location
Denver, CO
One way to settle tariff issues is to show up and vote. At that time both northern parties supported fixing the tariff and making the government solvent. They wanted to argue about what was taxed and how much, but that is what politicians do.
A national government has to have revenue. One way to shut down the national government is to eliminate taxes.
So tariffs were a big issue, related to slavery. One part of the United States was concerned that the national government would do something against its interest. They wanted to United States to go bankrupt, like some states already had.
Funny thing about secessionists, they formed a government which had no hesitation about imposing a 10% in kind tax. I don't if the tax was imposed on cotton production.
 

MattL

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
2,964
Location
SF Bay Area
Just in case it matters, not one of my ancestors was even on the continent at the time of the American Civil War. :smile:
Very interesting :smile: Are you American or a foreigner interested in the US Civil War? If American did you ancestors come in a later German or Irish wave (I know there were plenty of other waves, though those were some of the biggest so figured I'd guess one of those too)?

If you don't mind me asking of course, everyones ancestry interests me! Just can't help it.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,091
Very interesting :smile: Are you American or a foreigner interested in the US Civil War? If American did you ancestors come in a later German or Irish wave (I know there were plenty of other waves, though those were some of the biggest so figured I'd guess one of those too)?

If you don't mind me asking of course, everyones ancestry interests me! Just can't help it.
Seven of my great-grandparents were born in Ireland (one in what would be called Northern Ireland today). The eighth was an English soldier on garrison duty -- he took great-grandma back to England with him after they married. My grandparents all moved here before they met, my father's side in New York, my mother's side in San Francisco (although they were both from the same county back in Ireland). Those four were all here and married before WWI, all naturalized citizens.

My wife's family is much the same, but they came from northern Italy and a little later.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
27,968
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I don't know how many times I have to say it, but once again, secession was the cause of the war.

And you continue to leave out the reason for secession, slavery.

Lincoln cared less about slavery in the South than losing the South,

And the South cared more about slavery than any tariff in US history and feared slavery would not be secure under Lincoln.

he was willing to go to war if necessary to prevent Southern independence.

Granted and the South was willing to go to war to ensure the protection of slavery.

It is important to understand the reasons for secession

Slavery.

and the reasons for war

Secession which was caused over the issue of slavery.

and the difference between the two.
Slavery=secession=war.
 

Similar threads




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