Two Reasons for Secession from the Union

Tom Hughes

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2019
Location
Mississippi
We all know that there was no simple answer to Southern secession from the Union in 1861. It's not as "black & white" (literally) as one would suspect.
So, when dealing with a complex issue such as this you really need to break it down to two elements:
1. What were the reasons that the Government leaders supported and passed secession from the Union? And I'm sure it was slavery which would be supported by the aristocracy/planter class that had the money and controlled electorates.
2. What were the reasons being supported by the local citizenry? Because most of the white voting population were non-slave holders. So what was there motivation to fight? Seriously, why would a man give his life for a cause in which he had no stake? Either Southerners were completely daft or there were other reasons at play.
I would love to hear responses and opinions on these. Thanks!
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
I think the declarations of causes issued by several states are the most direct and primary sources. For your state and mine:

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
In all the secession conventions, slave owners and particularly owners of many slaves (20 or more) were vastly over-represented. This should not be surprising as they were the wealthiest 1%ers who more or less controlled the state governments. They made great efforts to get and keep the yeomanry on their side. For just one example, and there are many more in this vein, Debow's Review was a widely read and influential Southern publication which in January 1861 issue contained an article entitled "THE NON-SLAVEHOLDERS OF THE SOUTH: THEIR INTEREST IN THE PRESENT SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY IDENTICAL, WITH THAT OF THE SLAVEHOLDERS"


http://www.civilwarcauses.org/debow.htm
 
Last edited:

Irishtom29

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Location
Kent, Washington
2. What were the reasons being supported by the local citizenry? Because most of the white voting population were non-slave holders. So what was there motivation to fight? Seriously, why would a man give his life for a cause in which he had no stake? Either Southerners were completely daft or there were other reasons at play.

Non slaveholding Whites often had a social interest in slavery; even poor white trash had a higher social status than a slave. And many hoped to some day hold slaves, the way a person today hopes to someday own a high status car.

And of course many were simply dupes servilely working in the interests of their "betters". There's nothing novel about that.
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Location
Denmark
Because most of the white voting population were non-slave holders. So what was there motivation to fight?
But about 1/3 of all household owned slaves. Many of the rest benefited directly from it in other ways.
And the entire society in many areas was centered on slavery. It was the cornerstone of the CSA. So anyone interested in preserving things as they where, would have an interest in fighting.
 

Tom Hughes

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2019
Location
Mississippi
But about 1/3 of all household owned slaves. Many of the rest benefited directly from it in other ways.
And the entire society in many areas was centered on slavery. It was the cornerstone of the CSA. So anyone interested in preserving things as they where, would have an interest in fighting.
I agree with your assessment. However, states like Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia were heavily involved in cotton production and hence their dependency on the slave system was stronger than other states. Since each state had its own constitutional convention, the reasons for secession varied with each state.
Secession was more complex than people think. In Mississippi, for instance, some important river port counties (including Warren county where Vicksburg is situated) was opposed to secession from the Union. However, when the state's convention voted to secede, Warren county actually raised more companies for the Confederacy than any other county in the state.
Another complexity is Jones county (also is the heart of Mississippi) ended up seceding from the Confederacy and staying loyal to the Union. Very unusual indeed, but goes to show that the loyalty of secession and the reasons behind secession were not simple.
 

Peace Society

Corporal
Joined
Jun 25, 2019
Location
Ark Mo line
From the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald May 7, 1861



THE REASON FOR SECESSION.​

SOME of our friends abroad are amazingly puzzled to know the cause of this revolution now upon us. A few words will serve to show how the matter stands. When the sun arose on the sixth of November last, it shone upon thirty-three States in union, containing a population of 30,000,000, the most happy and prosperous people on the face of the earth. According to the constitutional requirements, the people of every State (save one) came together, and cast their votes for a chief magistrate. The result showed that Abraham Lincoln was legally chosen President for four years. No one disputed the legality of his election; but thousands in this city and elsewhere regretted it. The people of this city voted against him strong. This we had a right to do; but not one of our respectable citizens regarded his election as a just cause of revolution. Even Mr. Stephens, now vice-president of the confederate States, declared that it was no good cause. South Carolina thought she had a cause, and speedily, without waiting for any overt act -indeed, long before the inauguration of Mr. Lincoln took place - met in convention and voted herself out of the Union. Public confidence began to be disturbed and a speedy downfall of business followed. The other cotton States tied themselves to the tail of South Carolina, and acts of seizure and violence of the most disgraceful character were sanctioned by the State authorities; and even our federal government allowed itself to be driven out of Charleston harbor by the booming of its own cannon in the hands of the State authorities. The insult was borne with patience - insult was added to injury - until "forbearance ceased to be a virtue." The South having lost an election which they went into, and imagining some great wrong, commenced to defy the government which had never injured them in the slightest degree, when, lo and behold, civil war is upon us because we refuse longer to be kicked and cuffed about by them, and are not willing to give up all our forts, and even the federal capital itself, from which they seceded. Jefferson Davis, who has been plotting the overthrow of the government for years, would be perfectly satisfied if we would give up everything, and submit to the degradation of allowing the President of the United States to set up his government on a drum-head. The North cannot, and will not submit to this; and those who have done most, and worked hardest for the South, are first and foremost in arming for the war. In the sixth ward, of this city, where Jefferson Davis has had thousands of friends, a powerful regiment is formed, and now, while we write, are on their way to resist his further encroachments upon the rights of the North. We are no politicians, and have never said or done aught against our Southern brethren. We wish them no harm, and we kindly ask them to pause and think the matter over cooly and calmly, without passion and without prejudice. We war not against them for the sake of blood; but we war against them for the maintenance of the best government that ever existed - for the time-honored flag of our country - a flag that was loved by Washington, Madison, Jackson, Clay, Webster, and every other true patriot in the land, as the "gorgeous ensign of the Republic."

The entire North is aroused, and should it cost her a hundred thousand human lives, and a hundred millions of dollars, the government will be sustained.

The struggle will doubtless be one of the most gigantic and terrific that the world has ever seen. Both sides are amply provided with implements of destruction, they are each composed of millions of brave men, and they are bent upon their opposite purposes with the deepest and most determined earnestness. The great drama is already commenced, and its thrilling scenes, with their noble self-sacrifice, sublime daring, heroic achievements, and grim horrors, are passing in swift succession before us. - Scientific American.
 

Scott1967

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
We all know that there was no simple answer to Southern secession from the Union in 1861. It's not as "black & white" (literally) as one would suspect.
So, when dealing with a complex issue such as this you really need to break it down to two elements:
1. What were the reasons that the Government leaders supported and passed secession from the Union? And I'm sure it was slavery which would be supported by the aristocracy/planter class that had the money and controlled electorates.
2. What were the reasons being supported by the local citizenry? Because most of the white voting population were non-slave holders. So what was there motivation to fight? Seriously, why would a man give his life for a cause in which he had no stake? Either Southerners were completely daft or there were other reasons at play.
I would love to hear responses and opinions on these. Thanks!

Its not complex at all Slavery was worth billions in todays money roughly around 4.2 billion the souths economy was built around it so when a Northerner who has anti slavery sympathies gets voted into the Whitehouse most rich slave holding gentlemen see it as a direct threat to their way of life.

Previous presidents had been southerners and so quietly swept the issue of slavery under the carpet and kept the status quo so to speak.

As to why the common Southern boy fought in the war well pick your reason , Some saw it as their duty to defend their state , Others thought it would a great adventure and some did it out of honour they didn't want to be shamed more so in a small town where everyone knew everyone.

Rich Southerners owned all the newspapers in south they built the churches bought rounds in the local taverns so spreading inflammatory messages and speeches would not be to hard , Many boys were duped into fighting or brainwashed the desertion rate was testimony to this especially when slave holding rich southerners became exempt from the fighting.

No sir most Southern boys saw it as a rich mans war in the end it took em a while to figure it out but when they did especially in 1863-1864 they left in droves , They also found out that rich plantations were not giving out their requisitions to the CSA but poor farmers were being forced too many of whom were family to most of the soldiers.

The war was about the rich Southern Gentlemen wanting to keep their Southern way of life and their profits.

Just my opinion.
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
I genuinely do not understand this fixation on slavery alone, when it's not hard to find the other issues that had been building for decades. Perhaps it's simply the desire to brand the South as the villain in the conflict. Maybe there's just an unwillingness to take the time to look at what else was going on and what men said at the time.

In the documentation of the 1852 Convention and in a series of editorials written about possible secession of SC, further elaboration on what some of these violations were can be found.

https://books.google.com/books?id=g...t8KHUGwDWMQ6AEwAHoECAwQKQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
1 - Unjust and unequal spending and taxation of the South in favor of the North
2 - the South provided more soldiers and spent more money than the North to acquire western territories, but is not allowed to take slavery there
3 - the fugitive slave clause is not being obeyed by fellow states or enforced by the federal government
4 - state sovereignty is being replaced by consolidated, centralized power in Washington, which will put the South completely at the mercy of the more populous North


The question for us to consider, then, is this: are our wrongs of that oppressive and degrading nature, as to submit to which would stain our -character, and destroy our liberty and independence? If they are so deemed by us, then whatever all others may say or do, we should resist them at all hazards, cost what it may. To the people of South Carolina sit is certainly needless to discuss the various wrongs and grievances we have suffered from the General Government. A bare recapitulation of "them will serve our purpose. They are familiar to the minds of all. Their enormity is known and felt by almost every one. I. First, then, since the formation of this government, and especially within the last twenty-five years, the people of the South, have been onerously and unjustly taxed by the people of the North. From the year 1790 to 1840 the South has paid seven-ninths of all the duties under the Government, and has received back only two-ninths i.e. she has paid $711,200,000, while not more than $206,000,000 have been spent in her borders, the other $505,200,000 having been expended at the North. The North has paid meantime only $215,850,097. So that the tax paid "by the South per head within the period specified, has averaged $29.,47 per 10 years, while that of the North has been only $809. In late years the disproportion has been much greater. From 1841 to 1845 the tax : paid by the South per head was $1046: the North $1.99:* making for the South per head nearly ten times more than for the North. This has been in the way of duties alone. But consider the increased price of Northern protected articles, the diminution in price of Southern produce, and the increased price of freights, due to the Tariff and navigation laws, and the South has paid to the Government and to the North from 1790 to 1840, over $1,200,000,000. The one-tenth of this would make for South Carolina, in the same period, $120,000,000. But it has been estimated upon data furnished by the Congressional Documents that the South in various ways now contributes annually to Northern wealth not less than £Allowing one-tenth for South Carolina, her annual contribution to the North is about $5,000,000: being upwards of $17 for every white soul, man, woman and child, among us, while out State tax is little over one dollar to the white inhabitant. What people, claiming to be free, ever endured taxation so unequal, unjust and enormous?
-------------​
So much for the past. What are our prospects for the future? Will not the Government continue to over-tax the South, and distribute the revenues to favor the interests of the North? Will not the most extravagant appropriations still be made for the benefit of the ruling majority in the Union? At the very last session of Congress $50,000,000 were appropriated principally to the North and West, while the Government is indebted to an amount exceeding $100,000,000. Will not this reckless extravagance cause the South to be continually oppressed by taxation?​
Will not the central power at Washington go on increasing, till, utterly destroying State rights and State sovereignty, it will reduce the Southern States to mere dependent provinces, and the Southern people to mere laborers for the North? Will not abolition fanatics still agitate, and invoke all the perverted powers of the Government to effect their hellish purpose of abolishing slavery in the States? So sure as there is a God in Heaven, these things will follow, unless checked by some strong exertion of Southern power. We will know the Government in future only by its burdens and its exactions, and by its distribution of the spoils, which as ill-hoarded wealth, it forces from Southern industry. We can look for nothing but one uninterrupted train of tyrannical and oppressive measures. Banks, Tariffs, internal Improvements, prodigal appropriations of the public lands and moneys, wicked schemes of abolition, and every shameful act of oppression which the genius of despotism can devise, will sweep over these Southern States, like fell besoms of destruction, carrying with them ruin and devastation. The South will be a mere tributary of the North: paying her stipened as regularly as the slave per forms service to his task-master; and suffering impoverishment and ruin amid the most systematic industry and the most fruitful labor on the face of the globe.​


Again, there are more concerns than just slavery.

The other Southern States feel the growing importance of these issues. They know they can never give in to the ascendency of Northern power, without losing their freedom and independence; without giving up their institution of slavery; without subjecting themselves to an odious system of taxation that knows no bounds of exaction, but the measures of production; without, in a word, creating for themselves a wretched state of bondage, that has no parallel except in Russian serfdom, or Mexican peonage. - p 23​
IV. Further. Under the absolute sway of the Northern majority, the sovereignty of the individual States,the great arch-pillar of Southern liberty, is becoming rapidly drawn into a huge consolidated despotism at Washington, which is destined soon to be as irresistible as it is despotic, placing the South completely at the mercy of the North, utterly destroying her equality and liberty, plucking the fruits of her honest labor, and, despite every barrier of the Constitution, subjecting her to a wretched state of slavery, from which she can never be redeemed unless by the ultimate right of revolution; a remedy always difficult to be exercised and often doubtful in its consequences. - p 28​


I can't remember these cover secession itself in any detail, but if you'd like a thorough look at why the common, non-slaveholding Southerner joined the war, I'd recommend two books:

For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War by James McPherson
Reluctant Rebels by Kenneth Noe https://muse.jhu.edu/book/44064
 

Scott1967

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
IV. Further. Under the absolute sway of the Northern majority, the sovereignty of the individual States,the great arch-pillar of Southern liberty, is becoming rapidly drawn into a huge consolidated despotism at Washington, which is destined soon to be as irresistible as it is despotic, placing the South completely at the mercy of the North, utterly destroying her equality and liberty, plucking the fruits of her honest labor, and, despite every barrier of the Constitution, subjecting her to a wretched state of slavery, from which she can never be redeemed unless by the ultimate right of revolution; a remedy always difficult to be exercised and often doubtful in its consequences. - p 28

Hypocrisy at its best these men were living in a time warp.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
The entire population of the US was on the move between 1787 and 1844. The people who supported slavery stayed in the south. People who were not dependent on it moved north or moved west. After 1844 a new wave of immigration swept in from Europe, and the lid on growth in the Midwest and Mid Atlantic states melted away.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
We all know that there was no simple answer to Southern secession from the Union in 1861. It's not as "black & white" (literally) as one would suspect.
So, when dealing with a complex issue such as this you really need to break it down to two elements:
1. What were the reasons that the Government leaders supported and passed secession from the Union? And I'm sure it was slavery which would be supported by the aristocracy/planter class that had the money and controlled electorates.
2. What were the reasons being supported by the local citizenry? Because most of the white voting population were non-slave holders. So what was there motivation to fight? Seriously, why would a man give his life for a cause in which he had no stake? Either Southerners were completely daft or there were other reasons at play.
I would love to hear responses and opinions on these. Thanks!
Slave insurrection was a real threat. That would effect all whites in the South whether they owned slaves or not.

There was also that thing called invasion. The Federals didn't discriminate much in their plundering.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Hypocrisy at its best these men were living in a time warp.
They were fine with national power, when it helped them acquire Texas, and rob the Mexicans of 1/2 their nation. Washington did not seem tyrannical then. But the southerners lost their control of the US government in 3 steps. Population growth slowed in Virginia, due to disease and poor agricultural practices. The state fell behind NY, PA, OH, and eventually even IL. By 1852 no southerner could get elected president, and it stayed that way until Wilson made his way from Virginia to Princeton.
Then, in 1860, the secessionists deliberately broke up the last national political party, and an abolitionist sympathizer was elected president.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Funny how 4 states with the least cotton succeeded last , Virginia , Tennessee , North Carolina , Arkansas.
And four other states, that had more attachments to the Mid-Atlantic states and the Midwest, never completed the secession process.
Cotton produced an ordered way of life with big landowners, like English Dukes and Viscounts, or like Russian aristocrats, in control. Everyone understood how the system worked. The slaves had to stay, and white farmers who were content in that system had stayed in the south. But other southerners moved north or west, searching for cleaner water, less mosquitos, and jobs.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
I genuinely do not understand this fixation on slavery alone, when it's not hard to find the other issues that had been building for decades. Perhaps it's simply the desire to brand the South as the villain in the conflict. Maybe there's just an unwillingness to take the time to look at what else was going on and what men said at the time.

In the documentation of the 1852 Convention and in a series of editorials written about possible secession of SC, further elaboration on what some of these violations were can be found.

https://books.google.com/books?id=g...t8KHUGwDWMQ6AEwAHoECAwQKQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
1 - Unjust and unequal spending and taxation of the South in favor of the North
2 - the South provided more soldiers and spent more money than the North to acquire western territories, but is not allowed to take slavery there
3 - the fugitive slave clause is not being obeyed by fellow states or enforced by the federal government
4 - state sovereignty is being replaced by consolidated, centralized power in Washington, which will put the South completely at the mercy of the more populous North


The question for us to consider, then, is this: are our wrongs of that oppressive and degrading nature, as to submit to which would stain our -character, and destroy our liberty and independence? If they are so deemed by us, then whatever all others may say or do, we should resist them at all hazards, cost what it may. To the people of South Carolina sit is certainly needless to discuss the various wrongs and grievances we have suffered from the General Government. A bare recapitulation of "them will serve our purpose. They are familiar to the minds of all. Their enormity is known and felt by almost every one. I. First, then, since the formation of this government, and especially within the last twenty-five years, the people of the South, have been onerously and unjustly taxed by the people of the North. From the year 1790 to 1840 the South has paid seven-ninths of all the duties under the Government, and has received back only two-ninths i.e. she has paid $711,200,000, while not more than $206,000,000 have been spent in her borders, the other $505,200,000 having been expended at the North. The North has paid meantime only $215,850,097. So that the tax paid "by the South per head within the period specified, has averaged $29.,47 per 10 years, while that of the North has been only $809. In late years the disproportion has been much greater. From 1841 to 1845 the tax : paid by the South per head was $1046: the North $1.99:* making for the South per head nearly ten times more than for the North. This has been in the way of duties alone. But consider the increased price of Northern protected articles, the diminution in price of Southern produce, and the increased price of freights, due to the Tariff and navigation laws, and the South has paid to the Government and to the North from 1790 to 1840, over $1,200,000,000. The one-tenth of this would make for South Carolina, in the same period, $120,000,000. But it has been estimated upon data furnished by the Congressional Documents that the South in various ways now contributes annually to Northern wealth not less than £Allowing one-tenth for South Carolina, her annual contribution to the North is about $5,000,000: being upwards of $17 for every white soul, man, woman and child, among us, while out State tax is little over one dollar to the white inhabitant. What people, claiming to be free, ever endured taxation so unequal, unjust and enormous?
-------------​
So much for the past. What are our prospects for the future? Will not the Government continue to over-tax the South, and distribute the revenues to favor the interests of the North? Will not the most extravagant appropriations still be made for the benefit of the ruling majority in the Union? At the very last session of Congress $50,000,000 were appropriated principally to the North and West, while the Government is indebted to an amount exceeding $100,000,000. Will not this reckless extravagance cause the South to be continually oppressed by taxation?​
Will not the central power at Washington go on increasing, till, utterly destroying State rights and State sovereignty, it will reduce the Southern States to mere dependent provinces, and the Southern people to mere laborers for the North? Will not abolition fanatics still agitate, and invoke all the perverted powers of the Government to effect their hellish purpose of abolishing slavery in the States? So sure as there is a God in Heaven, these things will follow, unless checked by some strong exertion of Southern power. We will know the Government in future only by its burdens and its exactions, and by its distribution of the spoils, which as ill-hoarded wealth, it forces from Southern industry. We can look for nothing but one uninterrupted train of tyrannical and oppressive measures. Banks, Tariffs, internal Improvements, prodigal appropriations of the public lands and moneys, wicked schemes of abolition, and every shameful act of oppression which the genius of despotism can devise, will sweep over these Southern States, like fell besoms of destruction, carrying with them ruin and devastation. The South will be a mere tributary of the North: paying her stipened as regularly as the slave per forms service to his task-master; and suffering impoverishment and ruin amid the most systematic industry and the most fruitful labor on the face of the globe.​


Again, there are more concerns than just slavery.

The other Southern States feel the growing importance of these issues. They know they can never give in to the ascendency of Northern power, without losing their freedom and independence; without giving up their institution of slavery; without subjecting themselves to an odious system of taxation that knows no bounds of exaction, but the measures of production; without, in a word, creating for themselves a wretched state of bondage, that has no parallel except in Russian serfdom, or Mexican peonage. - p 23​
IV. Further. Under the absolute sway of the Northern majority, the sovereignty of the individual States,the great arch-pillar of Southern liberty, is becoming rapidly drawn into a huge consolidated despotism at Washington, which is destined soon to be as irresistible as it is despotic, placing the South completely at the mercy of the North, utterly destroying her equality and liberty, plucking the fruits of her honest labor, and, despite every barrier of the Constitution, subjecting her to a wretched state of slavery, from which she can never be redeemed unless by the ultimate right of revolution; a remedy always difficult to be exercised and often doubtful in its consequences. - p 28​


I can't remember these cover secession itself in any detail, but if you'd like a thorough look at why the common, non-slaveholding Southerner joined the war, I'd recommend two books:

For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War by James McPherson
Reluctant Rebels by Kenneth Noe https://muse.jhu.edu/book/44064
What percentage of the average Southern white towards paying federal taxes in 1861?
In 1861 there was no federal income tax, no social security tax , no tarriff's as long has foreign goods were not bought and if the Southern white drank moonshine then he didn't even pay tax on alcohol.
Also as we know tarriff's were at a historic low and the Confederate Congress imposed tarriff's right after secession so no one was fighting over tarriff's.
Leftyhunter
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
The secessionists had lost political power. Without that power the US was not going to allow slavery to expand, nor was it going to acquire any more subtropical territory, with Hawaii being the exception that proved the rule.
The secessionists thought they could preserve their imitation of noblemen and serfs, based on black slavery.
They failed, utterly. Kansas was admitted as soon as the 14 senators left the Senate. Within 4 months of the start of the shooting, Missouri was occupied by regiments from Iowa and Illinois and the Confederate sympathizing government was expelled.
By October the telegraph wire to CA and NV was connected.
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
In the secession documents of the southern states, there were other reasons for secession that were listed besides slavery. Some of the other reasons for secession unrelated to slavery that are contained in the documents were:
1. States' rights issues - the sovereignty of the states was violated by the federal government
2. The federal tariff system - the tariff system was benefiting the North at the expense of the South
3. Inadequate federal military protection - the federal government was not protecting citizens on the frontier
4. Economic Exploitation - Unfair federal legislation that promoted protectionism and subsidies for northern business interests

These other factors were significant enough for the southern states to include in their articles of secession. In regards to states' rights, I refer in particular to the secession of the states of the Upper South. These states believed that the attempt by the federal government to coerce the other southern states to remain in the Union was a violation of the rights of the states and the Constitution. After Lincoln's call for troops, the states of the Upper South such as Arkansas protested vehemently and then decided to secede. Furthermore, the Ordinance of Secession of Arkansas doesn't actually mention slavery but it does mention federal coercion and state sovereignty.

In regards to tariffs, there had been arguments between the North and South over this issue decades before the Civil War even began. Tariff policy before the Civil War was a product of the need for a federal income source and foreign trade protection and not as a result of slavery. The economic exploitation that I was referring to was in regards to unfair federal subsidies that were provided for industries that were dominated by the Northern states such as the shipping industry. This type of federal protectionism benefited northern commerce at the expense of the southern states. All of these issues are contained in the Articles of Secession of the southern states and are independent from the issue of slavery.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
In the secession documents of the southern states, there were other reasons for secession that were listed besides slavery. Some of the other reasons for secession unrelated to slavery that are contained in the documents were:
1. States' rights issues - the sovereignty of the states was violated by the federal government
2. The federal tariff system - the tariff system was benefiting the North at the expense of the South
3. Inadequate federal military protection - the federal government was not protecting citizens on the frontier
4. Economic Exploitation - Unfair federal legislation that promoted protectionism and subsidies for northern business interests

These other factors were significant enough for the southern states to include in their articles of secession. In regards to states' rights, I refer in particular to the secession of the states of the Upper South. These states believed that the attempt by the federal government to coerce the other southern states to remain in the Union was a violation of the rights of the states and the Constitution. After Lincoln's call for troops, the states of the Upper South such as Arkansas protested vehemently and then decided to secede. Furthermore, the Ordinance of Secession of Arkansas doesn't actually mention slavery but it does mention federal coercion and state sovereignty.

In regards to tariffs, there had been arguments between the North and South over this issue decades before the Civil War even began. Tariff policy before the Civil War was a product of the need for a federal income source and foreign trade protection and not as a result of slavery. The economic exploitation that I was referring to was in regards to unfair federal subsidies that were provided for industries that were dominated by the Northern states such as the shipping industry. This type of federal protectionism benefited northern commerce at the expense of the southern states. All of these issues are contained in the Articles of Secession of the southern states and are independent from the issue of slavery.
Yet we have absolutely no idea what percentage of Southern white income was spent on tarriff's and tarriff's were at a historical low. Southeners didn't object to tarriff's on foreign rice, tabacco and sugar.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
In the secession documents of the southern states, there were other reasons for secession that were listed besides slavery. Some of the other reasons for secession unrelated to slavery that are contained in the documents were:
1. States' rights issues - the sovereignty of the states was violated by the federal government
2. The federal tariff system - the tariff system was benefiting the North at the expense of the South
3. Inadequate federal military protection - the federal government was not protecting citizens on the frontier
4. Economic Exploitation - Unfair federal legislation that promoted protectionism and subsidies for northern business interests

These other factors were significant enough for the southern states to include in their articles of secession. In regards to states' rights, I refer in particular to the secession of the states of the Upper South. These states believed that the attempt by the federal government to coerce the other southern states to remain in the Union was a violation of the rights of the states and the Constitution. After Lincoln's call for troops, the states of the Upper South such as Arkansas protested vehemently and then decided to secede. Furthermore, the Ordinance of Secession of Arkansas doesn't actually mention slavery but it does mention federal coercion and state sovereignty.

In regards to tariffs, there had been arguments between the North and South over this issue decades before the Civil War even began. Tariff policy before the Civil War was a product of the need for a federal income source and foreign trade protection and not as a result of slavery. The economic exploitation that I was referring to was in regards to unfair federal subsidies that were provided for industries that were dominated by the Northern states such as the shipping industry. This type of federal protectionism benefited northern commerce at the expense of the southern states. All of these issues are contained in the Articles of Secession of the southern states and are independent from the issue of slavery.
What exact state sovereignty was violated by the federal government? How is the US government supposed to defend people on the Texas frontier with some way of rasing revenue. @uaskme claims no Southern ever harmed an Indian so why are peaceful Indians upset with Texas settlers?
Leftyhunter
 

Similar threads

Top