Tariffs


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

MattL

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
2,965
Location
SF Bay Area
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.
Wait... so if "secession was the cause of the war"

then you said

"Lincoln cared less about slavery in the South"

I didn't realize Lincoln seceded? If secession caused the war then the cause of secession was ultimately the cause of war and has nothing to do with Lincoln since he didn't secede. At least according to your first sentence.

People completely understand the South seceded after Lincoln's election to protect slavery and this caused the war. Secession is just an action though, when considering an active you consider motive. In a murder case for example... you always consider motive. People often sum up the chain of action that happened so immediately and directly upon each other.

This is common practice in many things. The most immediate example I come across in my genealogical work and ran into today. The "chain of title" listed in a land deed. Often the actual land deeds themselves identify the land itself via the chain of title. This gave a lot of info on what specific land they were talking about and became part of the identify of the land itself, a major reason creeks and roads contained names of much older settlers who were sometimes long gone when the creek or road might have been referred to as them, there names were preserved in these land this. The one I was lookin gat today is just south of Batesburg South Carolina where apparently an ancestor of mine had some land, this is actually the text from a map referring to the chain of title on the deed (though the deeds themselves had htis information in a similar format. It's referring to how a Duncan Creek got it's name on the map

----
Duncan Creek was named for the early settler John Duncan. A deed dated 21 August 1808 from John Duncan to William, John and Stephen Duncan for 308 acres recorded in Lexington District Deed Book F at page 82 gives a chain of title back to a grant to James Johnston dated 4 Feb 1788 and a grant to Izum Langley for 420 [sic] acres.
----

"Izum Langley" being Isham Langley Sr, my 5th great grandfather born in North Carolina and lived for quite a while in South Carolina (possibly dying there).

So when talking about the cause of war it's no different. Saying due to Secession is without useful context. It's like saying why didn't you come into work, because you were tired. Well you were tired because you were sick with the flu and didn't get much sleep. The cause of the war was secession over slavery. It wasn't just the Lincoln election either but decades of heated dispute and actions like the Compromise of 1850 that delayed things.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
387
Just did. Articles of secession, minutes of secession conventions, secession commissioners, founding fathers of the confederacy speeches, laws asked to stay in the US, Confederate Congress. All made it really clear it was about protecting and expanding slavery.

I mean wow. Just reading through Georgia's minutes from their secession convention. Slavery pops up 214 times there. 214 times. No wonder it seems so repetitive today. 214 times bringing up that slavery is the reason is a LOT of times. Talk about an incessant drone. Slavery slavery slavery 214 times is exactly what I'd call that too.

So happy they wrote down our history so we can go straight to the source on it and see it there as clear as can be.
 
Last edited:

wbull1

Corporal
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
410
How important were tariffs versus slavery? Let's hear from the man who started the "nullification" crisis supposedly over a tariff

Calhoun himself, as revealed in a private letter to Virgil Maxy written in 1830, said:

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 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 institutions exhausted by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves & children reduced to wretchedness. Thus situatied [sic], the denial of the right of the state to interfere constitutionally in the last resort, more alarms the thinking than all other causes. The "peculiar domestick institution" was, as we all know, slavery.
 

wbull1

Corporal
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
410
Additional information tariffs versus slavery


Additionally, at the secession convention, South Carolina fire-eater Laurence Keitt explicitly addressed the tariff question to the members of the assembly:

But the Tariff is not the question which brought the people up to their present attitude. We are to give a summary of our causes to the world, but mainly to the other Southern States, whose co-action we wish, and we must not make a fight on the Tariff question. ...

African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism. . . . The anti-slavery party contend that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States.
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,400
Location
Corona, California
I do not dismiss there being financial causes in addition to constitutional causes. We need to keep in mind that the North and South differed a bit in terms of finance and constitutional interpretations. I do recall have encountered Southern and Northern newspapers online that seem to mention tariffs or financial policies and all. Again not dismissing a certain institution's role in the conflict just giving my opinion.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
902
Unfortunately that drone comes from the Founding Fathers of the Confederacy when explaining why they wanted to secede. Only way to get away from it would be to choose a topic that wasn't related to secession by the south.
Sigh. . . . Big heaving sigh. . . . You folks just refuse to address the fact that secession and the war were two different events. Secession did not need to lead to war. The North could have allowed the Deep South to leave in peace. They had that option. Aside from a relative handful of unauthorized seizures of federal forts, etc., secession was a peaceful, democratic act. The CSA offered to pay the Deep South's share of the national debt and to pay compensation for federal installations in its territory. Confederate records make it clear that CSA leaders did not want war and hoped to avoid it--they hoped the federal government would eventually decide to accept the CSA's offer of peaceful coexistence and most-favored-nation trading status.

The war was fought over Southern independence, just as the War of Independence was fought over American independence. No Patriot thought he was fighting for taxation with representation. The Patriots believed they were fighting to resist an "unjust, unholy" attempt by the British to force the colonies to remain under British control against their will. Secession was mainly over slavery, but the war was over Southern independence.

And you can deny all day that the tariff was a major factor in secession, but the evidence of this fact is undeniable. One merely has to muster enough objectivity to acknowledge it. The tariff was not the main cause of secession, but it was a major cause for many Southerners.

The Tariff and Secession
http://miketgriffith.com/files/tariffandsecession.htm
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,463
Location
Texas
Sigh...AGAIN, someone explain to me what it was that our Confederate ancestors were importing so much of, that cost them so much, bankrupt them so much, to go to war, and KILL over tariffs?

Kevin Dally
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
9,586
You folks just refuse to address the fact that secession and the war were two different events. Secession did not need to lead to war.
Yes, they were two different but not unrelated events. And yes, looking forward as secession was taking place, it COULD have been peaceful. ("Woulda, coulda....),
But it wasn't!
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
9,586
Aside from a relative handful of unauthorized seizures of federal forts, etc., secession was a peaceful, democratic act.
I don't characterize forcible seizure of over fifty Federal installations as "peaceful".
A threatening, knife-wielding thug who forces someone to surrender their money is not "peaceful" even if they are unharmed.
 

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,366
Location
Georgia
Sigh...AGAIN, someone explain to me what it was that our Confederate ancestors were importing so much of, that cost them so much, bankrupt them so much, to go to war, and KILL over tariffs?

Kevin Dally
It's not that the Confederates wanted to kill people over tariffs. It really was an issue in regards to fiscal and trade policies between the North and South. The economy of the southern states depended on foreign trade and they advocated a free trade policy. Because of their small manufacturing sector, they were forced to purchase most manufactured goods from either Europe or the northern states. A protectionist tariff as advocated by the Republicans raised the price of virtually all of the manufactured goods purchased by the southern states. In addition, the southern states believed most of the federal tax revenue generated from the tariffs was being spent in the north. The tariff had been a point of contention between the North & South for years before the Civil War even began. The secession of the southern states and subsequent independence from the Union was a way in which the south would be able to avoid the economic exploitation by the North.
 

DaveBrt

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
2,006
Location
Charlotte, NC
The tariff had been a point of contention between the North & South for years before the Civil War even began. The secession of the southern states and subsequent independence from the Union was a way in which the south would be able to avoid the economic exploitation by the North.
Do your really believe that Jeff Davis would have called all the farming men and boys of the South to a war just so that he could pay a bit less on the goods he bought? If he called, would they have come just to save a little on the price of purchased goods?

Rebellions, like the Revolution, the CW, the French, the Russian, the Chinese, are fought to change or preserve a society's structure. Who ruled -- the King or the people? Were slaves property or not? Was the Union indivisible? For these questions, people would fight --- but to save a few dollars on their purchases?
 

Similar threads




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