The Non-Gadsden Purchase: A Major Cause of the Civil War

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

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,610
If you think my estimate of the economic condition of the South is overstated, read Helper and consult his economic tables --ironically, tables made possible by the #1 fire-eater, James D. B. De Bow!!!!
So, in a word, debt repudiation is a good and workable. Not so chivalrous, as the South always claimed to be.

James
[/QUOTE]






I would be the last to be found arguing against the idea of the economic limitations of the South's dependence on their 'King Cotton; economy. But, such arguments do not, IMO, meet the historical evidence of the times.

The sad Financial and economic plight of the South in general, and SC in particular, argues against independence, when they would need federal monies(the moniey of all the peoples of the Union) to finance such an enormous undertaking of their TRR, as was required by actual TRR.

SC, et. al., tried the economic card in 1830, to justify disunion. With its failure, the two leading antagonists over interposition, John Calhoun and Andrew Jackson, Both, agreed the real cause for the crisis was Slavery, not Tariffs.

South already had the land for a Southern TRR all it neededwas a formal survey of the route, and financing. With their control of the majority party in Congress, it should not have proven too difficult to get both, after all the southern route would be the easier route as to convenience(less natural obstacles to overcome) even if a little longer.

Instead the South(not SC) provokea a National crisis in Kansas, over slavery and the abrogation of the Mo. Compromise.

Without slavery there would have been no sectionalism that needed protection of any kind, Federal or State.
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,816
If you think my estimate of the economic condition of the South is overstated, read Helper and consult his economic tables --ironically, tables made possible by the #1 fire-eater, James D. B. De Bow!!!!
So, in a word, debt repudiation is a good and workable. Not so chivalrous, as the South always claimed to be.

James





I would be the last to be found arguing against the idea of the economic limitations of the South's dependence on their 'King Cotton; economy. But, such arguments do not, IMO, meet the historical evidence of the times.

The sad Financial and economic plight of the South in general, and SC in particular, argues against independence, when they would need federal monies(the moniey of all the peoples of the Union) to finance such an enormous undertaking of their TRR, as was required by actual TRR.

SC, et. al., tried the economic card in 1830, to justify disunion. With its failure, the two leading antagonists over interposition, John Calhoun and Andrew Jackson, Both, agreed the real cause for the crisis was Slavery, not Tariffs.

South already had the land for a Southern TRR all it neededwas a formal survey of the route, and financing. With their control of the majority party in Congress, it should not have proven too difficult to get both, after all the southern route would be the easier route as to convenience(less natural obstacles to overcome) even if a little longer.

Instead the South(not SC) provokea a National crisis in Kansas, over slavery and the abrogation of the Mo. Compromise.

Without slavery there would have been no sectionalism that needed protection of any kind, Federal or State.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your post.

A couple of things:

1. Yes, the South needed money, no question. But did they need FEDERAL money or just money? Weren't they fishing for money from France and other European countries? Yes they were, just as they were during the war.

2. I don't know about Calhoun, but I do know that Jackson prophesied circa 1833 that the next time the South bid for INDEPENDENCE, it would use SLAVERY as a PRETEXT. Not a subtext, not a text, but a PRETEXT. Here is one of those rare cases where PRETEXT is synonymous with BALONEY. If the south was interested in preserving slavery, they sure went about it in the wrong way. And they ever went after western land in the wrong way, though there were plenty of precedents for just a few soldiers capturing large swaths of land. The Texas Revolution comes readily to mind: 1,000 vs. 5,000, and 250,000+ square miles of land changes hands. It didn't take much.

3. I beg to differ re: Kansas. The South didn't give a rip about taking slaves to Kansas or Nebraska. What the South wanted were the congressional votes attendant to those piece of real estate. Kansas and Nebraska and all the rest of thee incoming votes of the free states spelled doom for the South in Congress. Southerners were NOT going to transport their slaves to the Midwest.

That's how I see it.

James
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
3,250
Location
Use-ta be: Zinn-zä-nätti o-HI-o The BIG city.
the preface only tells us that the southern section wanted independence, nothing about a TRR or independence without slavery. it is fairly ambigious which you fit into your narrative.
try reading pages 11 and 12 in letter II in which he plainly and directly says why the southern section wanted independence which is , of course, slavery.
i can not copy and paste it so to paraphrase it says that in EVERY matter in which the two sections differ , opposition and hostility to slavery is the common denominator.
I have found the book at Internet Archive, pgs. 10, 11 & 12:

anticipationsfu00ruffgoog_0024.jpg

anticipationsfu00ruffgoog_0025.jpg

anticipationsfu00ruffgoog_0026.jpg

https://archive.org/details/anticipationsfu00ruffgoog/page/n23
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,816
Fellow Posters,

FYI, in sentence number one in letter number one in a book published in June 1860, Ruffin posits that the South got the TRR footprint; and in sentence number three he posits that Sonora became a new state.

James
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
3,250
Location
Use-ta be: Zinn-zä-nätti o-HI-o The BIG city.

John Fenton

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
533
Location
retired traveling
Fellow Posters,

FYI, in sentence number one in letter number one in a book published in June 1860, Ruffin posits that the South got the TRR footprint; and in sentence number three he posits that Sonora became a new state.

James
Edited by Moderator.
Ruffin was wrong as in almost everything. That footprint would have been in tehauntepec mexico and sonora was never American territory or a state. if he was refering to the gadsden purchase as "sonora" he was still wrong. fiction does not make very good evidence and , again, you only use the same radical views as evidence of what were the primary southern interests. Edited by Moderator.
Yes, the South needed money, no question. But did they need FEDERAL money or just money? Weren't they fishing for money from France and other European countries? Yes they were, just as they were during the war.
"Nor, alternatively, was the South sufficiently self-sufficient to be an independent nation, charting its own traditionalist, anti-government course. As Schermerhorn concludes, “secessionists strained and broke the supply chains that sustained their fortunes and spurned a federal republic that had supported their interests for seven decades.” Slaveholding secessionists “ignored the fact that cotton fortunes ran through banks and warehouses in places like New york City… The South’s self-sufficient localism was a fiction belied by connections forged in the slavery business.”
https://ethikapolitika.org/2018/02/20/false-cause-finding-capitalism-big-government-antebellum-south

What the South wanted were the congressional votes attendant to those piece of real estate.
and how to do that ? by bringing slavery to kansas. those wanted congressional votes would be determined by slavery.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,816
What Ruffin's fictional work PROVES is that the TRR was very much on the mind of a MAJOR rabid fire-eater on the eve of Secession and War --and especially the secession of SC, where Ruffin played a pivotal role. Same with Sonora, a total Mexican state and a chunk of WESTERN land (the kind of WESTERN land about which four of the Secession Declarations scream bloody murder). And speaking of western land, it is difficult to get any further west than Tehuantepec. I find it very interesting and suggestive that such a pro-slavery advocate as Ruffin not only invokes these two topics in his work of fiction but that he does so in the very first and third sentences of his book, not in the middle of it by which time some readers lose interest. That first place means among other things that every rabid fire-eater who read his book encountered these themes right up front and could easily calculate the significance of their being mentioned even though most Civil War historians have not grasped that significance with 160 years to think about it. As Robert Russel so correctly said, "Slavery has had far too much emphasis to the exclusion of other antebellum sectionalizing factors." That's not verbatim but the thought is verbatim. That out-of-focus viewpoint will never go away, of course. But some will eventually get the point, and that is the purpose of these posts. The TRR trumped slavery as a factor by wide margins. The evidence screams that. All I have done is to try to point out where the screaming is coming from.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,951
... And speaking of western land, it is difficult to get any further west than Tehuantepec. ...
Tehuatepec is a little to the East of Dallas and a little to the West of Houston. San Diego, California is 1315 miles West of Tehuatepec. If you would prefer to stay within Mexico, Tijuana is 1305 miles West of Tehuatepec.

In a direct line, Tehuatepec is 1775 miles from San Diego, California.
 
Last edited:

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,816
Tehuatepec is a little to the East of Dallas and a little to the West of Houston. San Diego, California is 1315 miles West of Tehuatepec. If you would prefer to stay within Mexico, Tijuana is 1305 miles West of Tehuatepec.

In a direct line, Tehuatepec is 1775 miles from San Diego, California.
Thanks for your post. Agreed. But as I use Tehunatepec, I intend it, as did Ruffin, as the western terminus of the TRR, i.e., the isthmus of Tehuantepec. Shorthand and synonym for "Pacific Ocean" and thus a route to China.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,610
Thanks for your post.
A couple of things:
1. Yes, the South needed money, no question. But did they need FEDERAL money or just money? Weren't they fishing for money from France and other European countries? Yes they were, just as they were during the war.
2. I don't know about Calhoun, but I do know that Jackson prophesied circa 1833 that the next time the South bid for INDEPENDENCE, it would use SLAVERY as a PRETEXT. Not a subtext, not a text, but a PRETEXT. Here is one of those rare cases where PRETEXT is synonymous with BALONEY. If the south was interested in preserving slavery, they sure went about it in the wrong way. And they ever went after western land in the wrong way, though there were plenty of precedents for just a few soldiers capturing large swaths of land. The Texas Revolution comes readily to mind: 1,000 vs. 5,000, and 250,000+ square miles of land changes hands. It didn't take much.

3. I beg to differ re: Kansas. The South didn't give a rip about taking slaves to Kansas or Nebraska. What the South wanted were the congressional votes attendant to those piece of real estate. Kansas and Nebraska and all the rest of thee incoming votes of the free states spelled doom for the South in Congress. Southerners were NOT going to transport their slaves to the Midwest.
That's how I see it.
James





Why not look for the funding as a friend of the Union,in NY; rather than as an enemy of the Union, in Europe?

The pretext for independence in both cases (1830/1860)argues that Slavery was the cause for Indpendence, both cases.

You are, IMO, exactly right,to note that the South was more concerned with their representation in Congress, to the exclusion of all other matter of their interests, i.e., a Southern TRR.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,951
Thanks for your post. Agreed. But as I use Tehunatepec, I intend it, as did Ruffin, as the western terminus of the TRR, i.e., the isthmus of Tehuantepec. Shorthand and synonym for "Pacific Ocean" and thus a route to China.
Back before the Civil War, the Tehuatepec route was regarded as the anti-TRR. It was favored by interests in New Orleans and New York. The Louisiana people supported it as an alternative to the TRR because they did not want anyone to mess with their control of the Mississippi River traffic and saw any TRR that connected the new western territory to the rest of the country without passing through New Orleans as a Bad Thing. It was never considered as part of the instructions to James Gadsden in 1853.
 

John Fenton

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
533
Location
retired traveling
What Ruffin's fictional work PROVES is that the TRR was very much on the mind of a MAJOR rabid fire-eater on the eve of Secession and War --and especially the secession of SC, where Ruffin played a pivotal role. Same with Sonora, a total Mexican state and a chunk of WESTERN land (the kind of WESTERN land about which four of the Secession Declarations scream bloody murder). And speaking of western land, it is difficult to get any further west than Tehuantepec. I find it very interesting and suggestive that such a pro-slavery advocate as Ruffin not only invokes these two topics in his work of fiction but that he does so in the very first and third sentences of his book, not in the middle of it by which time some readers lose interest. That first place means among other things that every rabid fire-eater who read his book encountered these themes right up front and could easily calculate the significance of their being mentioned even though most Civil War historians have not grasped that significance with 160 years to think about it. As Robert Russel so correctly said, "Slavery has had far too much emphasis to the exclusion of other antebellum sectionalizing factors." That's not verbatim but the thought is verbatim. That out-of-focus viewpoint will never go away, of course. But some will eventually get the point, and that is the purpose of these posts. The TRR trumped slavery as a factor by wide margins. The evidence screams that. All I have done is to try to point out where the screaming is coming from.
that is simply wrong. ruffin does not mention a TRR but a telegraph [that did not exist before the first US transcontinental telegraph, which Ruffin did not predict] along the tehauntepec route. that route runs east and west, and gets it's name from the isthmus it traverses , well south of the mexican/us border even including the gadsden purchase. in some of the evidence that has come up here it is mentioned that the courier , i don't remember his name, that relayed gadsdens instructions also represented the american interests in the tehauntepec route. that route and the american investments represent an anti-TRR interest.
ruffin also mentions "sonora" as the last purchase of the US of mexican territory. that would be the gadsden purchase that only included a small part of the mexican state of Sonora. it was not a pacific state or a state at all but was divided among other states and territories, one being texas. it had no pacific access, no RR, and no telegraph. nor was it free as part of the new mexican territory.
what the evidence screams is that Ruffin was off his rocker as demonstrated by his suicide. he also plainly states, as i have said and documented three times, that his interest was in slavery and it's expansion.
 
Last edited:

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,610
Historically, it seems that a majority of the Southern Congressmen and majority of Northern Congressmen, were opposed to the Compromiseof 1850. It passed only through legislative ledgerdermaine(sic), with both sides opposing it, mostly maintained their ranks.

When the compromise had been passed, Lincoln, although dissatisfed with it, believed that the issue of the expansion of slavery had been addressed and retired from public liefe to build up his privage career. But, the Anti-slavery hard liners saw the comprromise as a threat of further wars of aggression by the South in the cause of slavery expansion. One of their number, I believe it might have been Seward himself, claim the legislation opened the way to the South to continuing wars as the South would try to expand their peculiar institution, from the Rio Grande, to Terra del Fuego and, from Ruffin's writings, et. al., he might not have been too far wrong.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top