The Real Cause of Secession

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

Red Baron

Private
Joined
Nov 12, 2019
Messages
95
Look into the story of Adalecia Atkins, the inspiration for Scarlett O'Hara. She married the Bill Gates of the slave trade when she was a teen & he was fifty, or so. During the war, her new husband died. She managed to get both Confederate & Union officers to assist her in shipping her cotton to market in England. She asked the Rothchild's to hold her gold in trust until the war ended. Even with the not inconsiderable fees, she was the richest woman in the South & perhaps the US in 1865. She was really something. You can visit her summer party mansion Belmont in Nashville. It has been restored & is on the Belmont College campus near downtown. It is on the southern end of 16th Avenue South, Music Row where Elvis & a world of stars have recorded their hits.
The Rothschilds in the other Northern bankers have the slaves blood all over them. Without their need for greed slavery never would have existed. furthermore when Andrew Jackson excommunicated them..
They did not take it lying down. They want the power back and this is why the war was fought. The war was simply about big government big loans, big taxes on one side and small government ,modest loans and only state taxes on the other Side
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,963
Location
Denmark
Ok so you can not admit the fault of the bankers..got it. That is very sad.
I respectfully disagree that the south started the war. Our homeland was invaded due to greed of politicians and industrial business owners. The south tried to peacefully sucede
But Licoln would not even talk...he simply did not wish to loose millions in revenue.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a state may NOT sucede. It is not constitutional to force a sovereign state to stay in a voluntary union. Our Union was formed by the states,not vice versa. States granted a few inumerated powers only, all other powers were to be held by the states.Lincoln reversed this completely and formed a huge bureaucracy with no debt ceiling. So sad.. can you say 22 trillion in debt and no accountability for our congressmen? Thank you Mr Lincoln
More mythmaking and fantasy.
The south decided that they did not accept a legal election. That got nothing to do with anyone in the north, bankers or otherwise.
The south instead of trying to find a solution within the Constitusion, started an armed rebellion by bombarding a federal fort on Federal soil. Nothing peaceful about that.

That resulted in a military reaction by the legal government of the country. That is no invasion. A country can't invade its self.

If you actually read the Constitution you would know that the president can't change what is and is not part of the union. That is up to Congress. Lincoln had no authority to allow any state to leave... even if he had wanted to.
Congress could have passed a bill saying that it accepted that SC was no longer part of the USA... they did not.

And you again claim that is was over money., When I have already prove that the federal government spend more money in the south that was ever collected there.

The states are and where not sovereign. They gave that up when they rectified the Constitution. And South Carolina is competently honest about this, in their declaration of causes

No 13 former colonies form a loose confederacy. Then the people of the US ("we the people") rectified the Constitution turning that loose confederacy into one state with a federal structure. (just like Germany or Brazil are today)

Federal law said that SC was part of the US.
To change that in a legal and constitutional way, you need the right authority to change that law. That authority is Congress. Not a statehouse. This is US civics 101.

And the last part is just pure ignorance. What huge bureaucracy?
This is just another of your modern political myths that Lincoln created this huge federal bureaucracy...

When the historical fact is that after the civil war the federal government mostly when back to its former size.
I have a number of times suggest you look in the book Historical statistics of the United states 1789-1945.
Page 294 give you the total number of federal employees in the executive branch.
(So excluding military personal)
In 1851 it was 33.300.
In 1861 it was 49.200
and in 1871 it was 53.900.

So much for a huge bureaucracy... It got bigger in the 1850ties, than in the 1860ties.


What caused the debt was not Lincoln, but the rebellion. Wars are costly.

And your current problems is modern politics and not allowed on this forum.

And finally, You where not alive back then. If you can't understand that basic fact and keep an emotional distance to the topic, you are never going to be able to judge what happened with any sort of objectivity.
 
Last edited:

GwilymT

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
920
Location
Pittsburgh
The Rothschilds in the other Northern bankers have the slaves blood all over them. Without their need for greed slavery never would have existed. furthermore when Andrew Jackson excommunicated them..
They did not take it lying down. They want the power back and this is why the war was fought. The war was simply about big government big loans, big taxes on one side and small government ,modest loans and only state taxes on the other Side
No evidence has been produced that the Rothschild family had anything to do with the Civil War.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,963
Location
Denmark
The war was simply about big government big loans, big taxes on one side and small government ,modest loans and only state taxes on the other Side
This is putting the cart before the horse.
Without the south starting a Rebellion there would have been no war.

And without the war there would not have been a Income tax.
A tax that only existed for about 15 years. Then it was gone again.
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,774
Location
Georgia
More mythmaking and fantasy.
The south decided that they did not accept a legal election. That got nothing to do with anyone in the north, bankers or otherwise.
The south instead of trying to find a solution within the Constitusion, started an armed rebellion by bombarding a federal fort on Federal soil. Nothing peaceful about that.

That resulted in a military reaction by the legal government of the country. That is no invasion. A country can't invade its self.

If you actually read the Constitution you would know that the president can't change what is and is not part of the union. That is up to Congress. Lincoln had no authority to allow any state to leave... even if he had wanted to.
Congress could have passed a bill saying that it accepted that SC was no longer part of the USA... they did not.

And you again claim that is was over money., When I have already prove that the federal government spend more money in the south that was ever collected there.

The states are and where not sovereign. They gave that up when they rectified the Constitution. And South Carolina is competently honest about this, in their declaration of causes

No 13 former colonies form a loose confederacy. Then the people of the US ("we the people") rectified the Constitution turning that loose confederacy into one state with a federal structure. (just like Germany or Brazil are today)

Federal law said that SC was part of the US.
To change that in a legal and constitutional way, you need the right authority to change that law. That authority is Congress. Not a statehouse. This is US civics 101.

And the last part is just pure ignorance. What huge bureaucracy?
This is just another of your modern political myths that Lincoln created this huge federal bureaucracy...

When the historical fact is that after the civil war the federal government mostly when back to its former size.
I have a number of times suggest you look in the book Historical statistics of the United states 1789-1945.
Page 294 give you the total number of federal employees in the executive branch.
(So excluding military personal)
In 1851 it was 33.300.
In 1861 it was 49.200
and in 1871 it was 53.900.

So much for a huge bureaucracy... It got bigger in the 1850ties, than in the 1860ties.


What caused the debt was not Lincoln, but the rebellion. Wars are costly.

And your current problems is modern politics and not allowed on this forum.

And finally, You where not alive back then. If you can't understand that basic fact and keep an emotional distance to the topic, you are never going to be able to judge what happened with any sort of objectivity.
The different interpretation of the Constitution that existed in the North and South was one of the reasons for secession. The southern states believed in the Compact Theory of the Constitution. The Compact Theory states that the Constitution was a voluntary agreement among the states to create a federal government that is delegated certain powers as their agent. The states still retain their sovereignty and can withdraw from the compact if the federal government abuses the power that is delegated to it. Leading proponents of this view of the U.S. Constitution primarily originated from Virginia and other southern states. The Compact Theory existed before slavery even became a national issue. Some of the early prominent advocates of the Compact Theory included Thomas Jefferson and James Madison which they discussed in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. However, most Northerners saw the Union as something permanent and perpetual in nature. Lincoln denied that the states had ever possessed independent sovereignty as colonies and territories. He claimed that the states had accepted unconditionally the sovereignty of the national government with the ratification of the Constitution.
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,963
Location
Denmark
The different interpretation of the Constitution that existed in the North and South was one of the reasons for secession. The southern states believed in the Compact Theory of the Constitution. The Compact Theory states that the Constitution was a voluntary agreement among the states to create a federal government that is delegated certain powers as their agent. The states still retain their sovereignty and can withdraw from the compact if the federal government abuses the power that is delegated to it. Leading proponents of this view of the U.S. Constitution primarily originated from Virginia and other southern states. The Compact Theory existed before slavery even became a national issue. Some of the early prominent advocates of the Compact Theory included Thomas Jefferson and James Madison which they discussed in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. However, most Northerners saw the Union as something permanent and perpetual in nature. Lincoln denied that the states had ever possessed independent sovereignty as colonies and territories. He claimed that the states had accepted unconditionally the sovereignty of the national government with the ratification of the Constitution.
In that case they should have asked the supreme court to rule on the issue.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,061
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
can you say 22 trillion in debt and no accountability for our congressmen?
@Red Baron ,

"Can you say all talk and no proof?"

Because that's exactly what you are presenting.

No history, no evidence, no sources, just you saying over and over again, "BECAUSE!"

This approach does nothing to convince anyone about what you say because none of what you have posted is nothing more than your personal opinion backed up by NOTHING that can be checked or verified by the members here.

It's time you took some resposibility for your posts, your theories, your personal opinions, by providing something that we here can check.

Until that time, you're wasting bandwidth and your own breath.

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

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
3,121
Location
Austin Texas
The different interpretation of the Constitution that existed in the North and South was one of the reasons for secession. The southern states believed in the Compact Theory of the Constitution. The Compact Theory states that the Constitution was a voluntary agreement among the states to create a federal government that is delegated certain powers as their agent. The states still retain their sovereignty and can withdraw from the compact if the federal government abuses the power that is delegated to it. Leading proponents of this view of the U.S. Constitution primarily originated from Virginia and other southern states. The Compact Theory existed before slavery even became a national issue. Some of the early prominent advocates of the Compact Theory included Thomas Jefferson and James Madison which they discussed in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. However, most Northerners saw the Union as something permanent and perpetual in nature. Lincoln denied that the states had ever possessed independent sovereignty as colonies and territories. He claimed that the states had accepted unconditionally the sovereignty of the national government with the ratification of the Constitution.

Really sounds like the south should have taken their case to court rather than to war.
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
3,121
Location
Austin Texas
The Rothschilds in the other Northern bankers have the slaves blood all over them. Without their need for greed slavery never would have existed. furthermore when Andrew Jackson excommunicated them..
They did not take it lying down. They want the power back and this is why the war was fought. The war was simply about big government big loans, big taxes on one side and small government ,modest loans and only state taxes on the other Side
Surely you can quote from the Several Declarations of causes to show this. I'll help you out:

Mississippi
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."




DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861
A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union.


"The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former as one of the co-equal States thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them? "

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.
"
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

WJC

Major General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,820
Ok so you can not admit the fault of the bankers..got it. That is very sad.
Although you clearly blame the bankers, that is opinion, not fact. There is no fault- unless you can provide convincing evidence to support your opinion. (It is interesting to note that in 1860/61 most of the Northern bankers who held notes for the loans they made Southern planters were opposed to the war.)
 

WJC

Major General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,820
Licoln would not even talk.
As we have discussed numerous times, Lincoln did confer with notable Southerners who were private citizens. And he used unofficial backchannels. But he recognized that the very act of meeting with anyone claiming to be a representative of a newly independent country would amount to tacit recognition of that independence, something he never conceded.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,774
Location
Georgia
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a state may NOT sucede. It is not constitutional to force a sovereign state to stay in a voluntary union. Our Union was formed by the states,not vice versa. States granted a few inumerated powers only, all other powers were to be held by the states.Lincoln reversed this completely and formed a huge bureaucracy with no debt ceiling. Edited Thank you Mr Lincoln
You make a good point because the Constitution doesn't really require a state to remain in the Union. Before the Civil War, the issue of state secession was a gray area. The late Forrest McDonald was a noted History Professor and one of the foremost Constitutional scholars in the country. Professor McDonald argued that after adopting the Constitution "there were no guidelines, either in theory or in history, as to whether the compact could be dissolved and, if so, on what conditions". However, during "the founding era, many a public figure . . . declared that the states could interpose their powers between their citizens and the power of the federal government, and talk of secession was not unknown".
 

Rhea Cole

Corporal
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
350
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
If you want to read what the men who actually voted to secede & gave written explanations had to say for their actions, go to my recent post, 'The First & The Last In Their Own Words On Secession post. Included is Article V dealing with slavery in the Confederate Constitution. There is a link to the Ordinence of Secession & the far more comprehensible documents issued by the states exposing why they had left the union. Also included is the 1860 county by county slave census map. Nobody will ever again ask you for your sources, these are the only ones that matter.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Red Baron

Private
Joined
Nov 12, 2019
Messages
95
More mythmaking and fantasy.
The south decided that they did not accept a legal election. That got nothing to do with anyone in the north, bankers or otherwise.
The south instead of trying to find a solution within the Constitusion, started an armed rebellion by bombarding a federal fort on Federal soil. Nothing peaceful about that.

That resulted in a military reaction by the legal government of the country. That is no invasion. A country can't invade its self.

If you actually read the Constitution you would know that the president can't change what is and is not part of the union. That is up to Congress. Lincoln had no authority to allow any state to leave... even if he had wanted to.
Congress could have passed a bill saying that it accepted that SC was no longer part of the USA... they did not.

And you again claim that is was over money., When I have already prove that the federal government spend more money in the south that was ever collected there.

The states are and where not sovereign. They gave that up when they rectified the Constitution. And South Carolina is competently honest about this, in their declaration of causes

No 13 former colonies form a loose confederacy. Then the people of the US ("we the people") rectified the Constitution turning that loose confederacy into one state with a federal structure. (just like Germany or Brazil are today)

Federal law said that SC was part of the US.
To change that in a legal and constitutional way, you need the right authority to change that law. That authority is Congress. Not a statehouse. This is US civics 101.

And the last part is just pure ignorance. What huge bureaucracy?
This is just another of your modern political myths that Lincoln created this huge federal bureaucracy...

When the historical fact is that after the civil war the federal government mostly when back to its former size.
I have a number of times suggest you look in the book Historical statistics of the United states 1789-1945.
Page 294 give you the total number of federal employees in the executive branch.
(So excluding military personal)
In 1851 it was 33.300.
In 1861 it was 49.200
and in 1871 it was 53.900.

So much for a huge bureaucracy... It got bigger in the 1850ties, than in the 1860ties.


What caused the debt was not Lincoln, but the rebellion. Wars are costly.

And your current problems is modern politics and not allowed on this forum.

And finally, You where not alive back then. If you can't understand that basic fact and keep an emotional distance to the topic, you are never going to be able to judge what happened with any sort of objectivity.
You are wrong on so many levels. Your view are slanted and bigoted. Your post is simply a Hamilton interpretation of the Constitution, mine is a Jeffersonian interpretation...our two opposing views have been a political battle since our country's founding. These two interpretations are exactly why the civil war was fought.
And our bureaucracy has grown tremendously since the end of the war. Furthermore to have a rule on this fourm not to discuss modern politics as relevant it's preposterous and reminds me of a dictatorship where no free speech is allowed. Why would it not be allowed?
Here is a source for you:


Everything You Know About the Civil War is Wrong
1*l0oq5N85AudE3Hy3ZUvx1w.jpg
Jonathan Clark

Nov 1, 2017 · 20 min read
The Civil War is perhaps the most misunderstood event in the history of the United States while ironically, appears to be the single historical event most Americans believe they fully comprehend.
1*i1n1sf2iShNQcxLmELc8vw.jpg

It’s likely difficult for many of us — and nearly impossible for younger generations — to imagine a world without air conditioning, refrigeration, and amply-filled grocery stores. Which is nothing to say of a life without the Internet, smartphones, and Amazon.
Consider for a moment that just over a hundred years ago, many Americans didn’t live to see their fiftieth birthday — and the most common cause of death was dysentery.
Life in 1860 America, the year Abraham Lincoln was elected president, was nothing like it is today.
The Southern states were mostly rural, and agriculture was the primary industry while in the North, the industrial revolution was in its infancy. Few Americans had more than a primary school education, and medicine was one level above medieval.
And yet, too many of us mistakenly believe we can make value judgments about a time of which we know little.
To truly understand any historical event, one must study it within the proper context — what is commonly referred to as “contextualization.” But as generation after generation pass, we internalize notions about why people behaved the way they did in the past.
And often, we interpret stories of events through the lens of popular culture — many of which are not entirely accurate.
The American Civil War is chief among these.
For most of us (including me), we attended public schools where we were provided roughly the same instruction regarding the Civil War: Our country was composed of the North, where people opposed slavery, and the South where slavery was embraced. Abraham Lincoln rose to the presidency and fought against the South to end slavery and saved the Union.
Like most of my high school peers, this story seemed plausible enough to me and after all, it ended happily: Slaves were freed and the Union remained intact.
Plausible enough until I read a couple of books by Charles Adams, a tax historian and author from New England — hardly a Southern extremist with an ax to grind.
In these fascinating books, Adams explores how taxation affected historical events and how the popular interpretation of the Civil War survives in the face of some obvious facts.
I had to revise my thinking.
Consider that throughout the presidential campaign of 1860, then-candidate Abraham Lincoln had all but promised not to interfere with Southern slavery, which he reiterated in his first presidential inaugural address.
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
This seems to run contrary to conventional thinking. Wasn’t he an abolitionist?
Furthermore, Lincoln promised to enforce the fugitive slave laws as president — laws passed by Congress in 1793 and 1850 to provide for the return of slaves who escaped from one state into another state or territory.
Indeed, Southern secession would have made slavery more precarious without the protection of the Constitution and the Supreme Court. From a slave property standpoint, staying in the Union made more sense than leaving.
Adding further confusion are the numerous accounts from contemporary newspapers from the North, South, and Europe — all of which tell the tale of a “tariff war,” not the popularly-held notion that the Civil War was a “war against slavery.
 

Red Baron

Private
Joined
Nov 12, 2019
Messages
95
You are wrong on so many levels. Your view are slanted and bigoted. Your post is simply a Hamilton interpretation of the Constitution, mine is a Jeffersonian interpretation...our two opposing views have been a political battle since our country's founding. These two interpretations are exactly why the civil war was fought.
And our bureaucracy has grown tremendously since the end of the war. Furthermore to have a rule on this fourm not to discuss modern politics as relevant it's preposterous and reminds me of a dictatorship where no free speech is allowed. Why would it not be allowed?
Here is a source for you:


Everything You Know About the Civil War is Wrong
View attachment 336946
Jonathan Clark
Nov 1, 2017 · 20 min read
The Civil War is perhaps the most misunderstood event in the history of the United States while ironically, appears to be the single historical event most Americans believe they fully comprehend.
View attachment 336947
It’s likely difficult for many of us — and nearly impossible for younger generations — to imagine a world without air conditioning, refrigeration, and amply-filled grocery stores. Which is nothing to say of a life without the Internet, smartphones, and Amazon.
Consider for a moment that just over a hundred years ago, many Americans didn’t live to see their fiftieth birthday — and the most common cause of death was dysentery.
Life in 1860 America, the year Abraham Lincoln was elected president, was nothing like it is today.
The Southern states were mostly rural, and agriculture was the primary industry while in the North, the industrial revolution was in its infancy. Few Americans had more than a primary school education, and medicine was one level above medieval.
And yet, too many of us mistakenly believe we can make value judgments about a time of which we know little.
To truly understand any historical event, one must study it within the proper context — what is commonly referred to as “contextualization.” But as generation after generation pass, we internalize notions about why people behaved the way they did in the past.
And often, we interpret stories of events through the lens of popular culture — many of which are not entirely accurate.
The American Civil War is chief among these.
For most of us (including me), we attended public schools where we were provided roughly the same instruction regarding the Civil War: Our country was composed of the North, where people opposed slavery, and the South where slavery was embraced. Abraham Lincoln rose to the presidency and fought against the South to end slavery and saved the Union.
Like most of my high school peers, this story seemed plausible enough to me and after all, it ended happily: Slaves were freed and the Union remained intact.
Plausible enough until I read a couple of books by Charles Adams, a tax historian and author from New England — hardly a Southern extremist with an ax to grind.
In these fascinating books, Adams explores how taxation affected historical events and how the popular interpretation of the Civil War survives in the face of some obvious facts.
I had to revise my thinking.
Consider that throughout the presidential campaign of 1860, then-candidate Abraham Lincoln had all but promised not to interfere with Southern slavery, which he reiterated in his first presidential inaugural address.
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
This seems to run contrary to conventional thinking. Wasn’t he an abolitionist?
Furthermore, Lincoln promised to enforce the fugitive slave laws as president — laws passed by Congress in 1793 and 1850 to provide for the return of slaves who escaped from one state into another state or territory.
Indeed, Southern secession would have made slavery more precarious without the protection of the Constitution and the Supreme Court. From a slave property standpoint, staying in the Union made more sense than leaving.
Adding further confusion are the numerous accounts from contemporary newspapers from the North, South, and Europe — all of which tell the tale of a “tariff war,” not the popularly-held notion that the Civil War was a “war against slavery.
This is just the first part of the article.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top