The Real Cause of Secession

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
30,327
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Once again, the south did not go to war over tariffs but because it had declared its independence from the Union. War and secession are different things. When the south bombarded Ft. Sumter in April 1861, they did so because they had declared their independence from the Union and demanded that the fort be abandoned which the Union refused. The CSA viewed the occupation of the fort by federal forces to be a violation of sovereignty.
The above is one opinion.

There are others.
 

Rhea Cole

Sergeant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
845
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
I don't think you remotely understand what I previously stated. Not one bit of it. I specifically said there had to be a demand for cotton FIRST, then there was a demand for slavery SECOND. Not vice versa. You specifically stated that the cotton gin created a demand for cotton, and did not. Go re-read my posts, #637 to be exact.

Below is my first paragraph in post #637. Where in the world did get you posted in this post? I specifically stated that the cotton gin increased the demand for slaves. You believe that the cotton gin increased a demand for cotton, and did not.

The demand for cotton increased not because of the cotton gin but because the Brit and northern textile industry. The cotton gin just made cotton production more efficient, it had nothing to do with demand. Textile companies wanted cotton or they didn't want it, in spite of the cotton gin not because of it. You have it backwards, the cotton gin increased the demand for both land and slave labor, not for cotton. All it did was reduce the labor for removing seeds.

Here's what you posted in #635:

The answer to that is very much in the record. Before the cotton gin, it took 8 hours to clean 1 pound of cotton. The blood & tears that my granddaughters shed cleaning enough cotton to stuff two tiny rag dolls left me thinking that 8 hours was optimistic. Mr. Whitney's simple wooden box with a crank outside & a couple of combed wheels inside made cotton a marketable commodity. Demand & production of cotton rose exponentially. The wealth it generated is almost impossible to credit. During the four years of the Civil War, the world market changed forever.

You have it backward. The Brits and northern factories needed and raised the cotton demand because they had a market to distribute cotton made commodities. The cotton gin did not create that market, it made raw cotton producing more efficient. You alluding or just flat out claiming that the cotton gin increased the demand for cotton. That's absurd. I did increase the demand for slaves, like I stated.
All I know is what is in the historical record. I will leave it to you to sort that out.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Rhea Cole

Sergeant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
845
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Yes, opinions vary concerning important historical events and usually the winner gets to write the history.
One thing that historians of all stripes agree on is that firing on Fort Sumpter was a colossal strategic blunder. One of the very worst in recorded history. Why they did it pales into insignificance compared with the effect it had on Northern public opinion.
 
Last edited:

John Fenton

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
533
Location
retired traveling
Markets for cotton and slavery existed before the cotton gin but both were in decline. The gin removed the bottlenecks for both markets an increased demand for lower priced raw cotton. Whitney's gin, resulted in the cotton of upland Georgia selling for half the price of long-staple cotton. There is a direct correlation between increases in slave populations and upland cotton that did not exist before the gin. All of the innovations and inventions in English and New England production made the process more efficient as did the gin. As the gin increased the production of raw cotton it increased the need for more slaves to pick it. The more slaves picked the more new factories wanted it. The gin brought together the forces that increased demand. They were land , slaves, previously unsatisfactory short staple cotton, and invention.
the cotton gin created the cotton boom as it increased demand locally and abroad.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
17,407
Location
los angeles ca
Once again, the south did not go to war over tariffs but because it had declared its independence from the Union. War and secession are different things. When the south bombarded Ft. Sumter in April 1861, they did so because they had declared their independence from the Union and demanded that the fort be abandoned which the Union refused. The CSA viewed the occupation of the fort by federal forces to be a violation of sovereignty.
War and secession are separate things but secession can be done peacefully as in the recent separation of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics. From the very beginning the secessionists in the American South used violence. The rest of the country by the time of Ft.Sumpter decided to fight back.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,825
Location
Georgia
War and secession are separate things but secession can be done peacefully as in the recent separation of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics. From the very beginning the secessionists in the American South used violence. The text of the country by the time of Ft.Sumpter decided to fight back.
Leftyhunter
Yes, with the bombardment of Ft. Sumter, the situation had escalated to the point that it was viewed as an unlawful rebellion or insurrection. Subsequently, public sentiment in the north turned against the south.
 
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
30,327
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
That is not really an excuse but more of a factual statement.
No, it equates to an ongoing excuse, that somehow, the true history of the Civil War and it's cause have somehow been obscured by history and who writes it. The very fact that you can present such an idea excludes it's possibility.
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
4,034
Location
Denmark
Yes, opinions vary concerning important historical events and usually the winner gets to write the history.
Anyone who ever studied the Historiography of the civil war know that this is simply not correct.
The Lost cause have had a huge influence on how the war was understood. And it still do in some ways.

And an organisation like the United Daughters of the Confederacy did a fantastic job at making sure their version was told in schools. Not only in the south.

This is one war where the looser not only was able to give their version of events. They managed to get it to be the main version for much of the last 150 years in much of the country. (And outside it)


And that claim is actually rarely correct when we are talking wars that happened within the last 200 years or so.
And for the next 2000 years going back, the issue is not the winner written the history, but the fact that there are simply few sources available to us)

Basically there will be multiply versions of the story. Each involved "party" will usually have their version.
So If you read about wwii the story will change depending if you are reading US or British or danish or Russian books. And again change if you go to German or Japanese books.

And they change over time.
For one thing books written before the 1970ties simply did not know about the allied codebreaking, so they had to find other explanation for decisions taken based on "Ultra".
And english language books on the Eastfront almost exclusively used German sources before 1990.
(then it got better in the 1990ties and today it is again hard for western historians to get access to Russian archives)

The deciding factor today is actually language. My understanding of the Napoleonic wars is along the lines of the British version, simply because I read English, but not french or German.

So the claim that the winners write the history, is simply naive, when it come to recent history.
 
Last edited:

Rhea Cole

Sergeant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
845
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
I had an interesting experience this morning. My great-granddaughter & I had breakfast at Panera. When I asked her what she was studying in her 4th grade class, she answered,"The industrial revolution."
"Ah... Eli Whitney & the cotton gin, right?"
"Yes, it was a box with a crank on the side. You put the cotton in on the top, turn the handle & clean out the seeds."
"You have that right. Before the cotton gin, it took 8 hours to pick 1 pound of cotton."
"Because of the cotton gin, the number of slaves went from a few hundred thousand to 4,000,000."
"Ya..."
A fourth grader's understanding of how the cotton gin led to a huge demand & the increase in the number of slaves that made it possible became the engine that drove the industrial revolution followed. We have cotton bowls at home left over from our traditional Christmas decorations. So, we rushed our breakfast & ran by the house so she could bring the cotton bowls to school.
If you have never cleaned seeds out of cotton, you haven't missed anything. The seeds, of which there are many, are shiny black with a needle sharp point on one end. It would make a good blood test finger pricker. The cotton, which looks so soft & fluffy, clings like the devil to the seeds. I am not sure that it is possible to comprehend just what the cotton gin ("Gin is short for engine.") meant until you have cleaned a few cotton bowls. It is a lesson literally written in blood.
Here is my point, I don't know how many times slavery as the reason for secession has been dismissed. The invention of the cotton gin & its place in the exponential increase of the cotton supply, numbers of slaves & seminal place in the industrial revolution is dismissed out of hand. In all candor, at times it is difficult not to be dismissive when I see that. I now have to ask myself, 'How can an adult who is interested in the Civil War argue against something that, in Tennessee anyways, every 4th grader knows to be true?'
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
9,150
Location
Denver, CO
And the industrial revolution did not end with power spindles, power looms and cotton gins.
Just about any process, from sewing to wheat harvesting, could be mechanized and hastened. And the people doing the work appreciated that the work was easier and more productive, at the same time.
Railroads were passing out of the experimental stage, and had achieved a scale in which innovation and standardization would be rapid.
Its not hard to understand how the cotton south would desire to stop progress, because they were temporarily sitting on top of industrialized textiles replacing home spun on a world wide basis.
But progress did not stop. Coal was going to replace wood, steel was going to replace iron. Petroleum was going to replace animal fats. Success in speeding up telegraph transmission was going to lead to attempts at voice transmission, and even electric lights.
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,825
Location
Georgia
No, it equates to an ongoing excuse, that somehow, the true history of the Civil War and it's cause have somehow been obscured by history and who writes it. The very fact that you can present such an idea excludes it's possibility.
Anyone who ever studied the Historiography of the civil war know that this is simply not correct.
The Lost cause have had a huge influence on how the war was understood. And it still do in some ways.

And an organisation like the United Daughters of the Confederacy did a fantastic job at making sure their version was told in schools. Not only in the south.

This is one war where the looser not only was able to give their version of events. They managed to get it to be the main version for much of the last 150 years in much of the country. (And outside it)


And that claim is actually rarely correct when we are talking wars that happened within the last 200 years or so.
And for the next 2000 years going back, the issue is not the winner written the history, but the fact that there are simply few sources available to us)

Basically there will be multiply versions of the story. Each involved "party" will usually have their version.
So If you read about wwii the story will change depending if you are reading US or British or danish or Russian books. And again change if you go to German or Japanese books.

And they change over time.
For one thing books written before the 1970ties simply did not know about the allied codebreaking, so they had to find other explanation for decisions taken based on "Ultra".
And english language books on the Eastfront almost exclusively used German sources before 1990.
(then it got better in the 1990ties and today it is again hard for western historians to get access to Russian archives)

The deciding factor today is actually language. My understanding of the Napoleonic wars is along the lines of the British version, simply because I read English, but not french or German.

So the claim that the winners write the history, is simply naive, when it come to recent history.
The interpretation of historical events is influenced by people’s own opinions and prejudices. Winston Churchill once remarked “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” In addition, the great American writer and humorist, Mark Twain once stated “The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice.” Furthermore, the great politician, Prime Minister Nehru of India wrote in 1946 that ‘History is almost always written by the victors and conquerors and gives their view. Or, at any rate, the victors' version is given prominence and holds the field.’ However, the phrase ‘history is written by the victors’ has also been attributed to Winston Churchill.
 

Rhea Cole

Sergeant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
845
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
The interpretation of historical events is influenced by people’s own opinions and prejudices. Winston Churchill once remarked “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” In addition, the great American writer and humorist, Mark Twain once stated “The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice.” Furthermore, the great politician, Prime Minister Nehru of India wrote in 1946 that ‘History is almost always written by the victors and conquerors and gives their view. Or, at any rate, the victors' version is given prominence and holds the field.’ However, the phrase ‘history is written by the victors’ has also been attributed to Winston Churchill.
You have conflated opinion with documentation. The Articles of Secession, the statements of the state Secession Commissioners, the text of the Key Stone speech by Alexander Stephens are not a matter of opinion or interpretation. They are explicit statements that leave no doubt as to their meaning. That is why people who make refer to Lost Cause tropes never, ever, use those seminal documents to supper their arguments. In any case, the Lost Cause disinformation was exposed for what it is 75 years ago.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,825
Location
Georgia
You have conflated opinion with documentation. The Articles of Secession, the statements of the state Secession Commissioners, the text of the Key Stone speech by Alexander Stephens are not a matter of opinion or interpretation. They are explicit statements that leave no doubt as to their meaning. That is why people who make refer to Lost Cause tropes never, ever, use those seminal documents to supper their arguments. In any case, the Lost Cause disinformation was exposed for what it is 75 years ago.
Sorry, but I am not a Lost Causer. For instance, I have always maintained that the preservation and expansion of slavery was the most important issue involved in the initial secession of the southern states.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
30,327
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The interpretation of historical events is influenced by people’s own opinions and prejudices. Winston Churchill once remarked “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” In addition, the great American writer and humorist, Mark Twain once stated “The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice.” Furthermore, the great politician, Prime Minister Nehru of India wrote in 1946 that ‘History is almost always written by the victors and conquerors and gives their view. Or, at any rate, the victors' version is given prominence and holds the field.’ However, the phrase ‘history is written by the victors’ has also been attributed to Winston Churchill.
You have conflated opinion with documentation. The Articles of Secession, the statements of the state Secession Commissioners, the text of the Key Stone speech by Alexander Stephens are not a matter of opinion or interpretation. They are explicit statements that leave no doubt as to their meaning. That is why people who make refer to Lost Cause tropes never, ever, use those seminal documents to supper their arguments. In any case, the Lost Cause disinformation was exposed for what it is 75 years ago.
I tend to agree with @Rhea Cole 's posted reply.

If history was so hopelessly given over to the victor's whims, why the book, The Real Lincoln, or The South Was Right? Why then, do such organizations as the SCV and the UDC permitted to exist? Why the LOS or the Abbeville Institute?

Nope, in my view the real attempts at rewriting history are to be found in those camps and organizations, the smoke so thick and the mirrors so bright as to dazzle anyone searching for actual historical fact.

Like I said, there are too many different sources espousing such to suffer the idea they are suppressed.

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

John Fenton

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
533
Location
retired traveling
I tend to agree with @Rhea Cole 's posted reply.

If history was so hopelessly given over to the victor's whims, why the book, The Real Lincoln, or The South Was Right? Why then, do such organizations as the SCV and the UDC permitted to exist? Why the LOS or the Abbeville Institute?

Nope, in my view the real attempts at rewriting history are to be found in those camps and organizations, the smoke so thick and the mirrors so bright as to dazzle anyone searching for actual historical fact.

Like I said, there are too many different sources espousing such to suffer the idea they are suppressed.

Unionblue
Yes and Pollard started writing before the smoke cleared ,1866.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top