1. Welcome to the CivilWarTalk, a forum for questions and discussions about the American Civil War! Become a member today for full access to all of our resources, it's fast, simple, and absolutely free!
Dismiss Notice
Join and Become a Patron at CivilWarTalk!
Support this site with a monthly or yearly subscription! Active Patrons get to browse the site Ad free!
START BY JOINING NOW!

What the Confederate States Constitution says about slavery

Discussion in 'Civil War History - Secession and Politics' started by Zeeboe, May 14, 2012.

  1. 1SGDan

    1SGDan Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Messages:
    6,415
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    The constitutional arrangement was entered into freely by these states. The checks and balances for the legislative branch exists in the judiciary and executive branches neither found cause to question these laws.
     

  2. (Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
  3. Red Harvest

    Red Harvest 2nd Lieutenant Trivia Game Winner

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,959
    But they wanted Poland's Golden Veto! Well, not all of them, but South Carolina surely did...that or disunion in some sort of grandiose self glorification that seems so characteristic. And how did Southerner Andrew Jackson (born somewhere in the region) react to this idea? He was ready to strike it down with the full force of the Federal govt. Jackson surely isn't my favorite figure, but I can't ignore how he shaped the nation and how he dealt with Southern regionalism.
     
  4. wilber6150

    wilber6150 Brev. Brig. Gen'l Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    19,232
    Location:
    deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
    Except the majority of Northerners still lived on small farms and didn't work in any sort of manufacturing capacit and they outnumbered the amount of small farmers in the South.. And the hundreds of thousands of Southerners that worked in a manufacturing setting seemed to be being overlooked here...What about the workers in the border states of Maryland and Virginia?
     
  5. KeyserSoze

    KeyserSoze Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Kansas City
    How so?
     
  6. KeyserSoze

    KeyserSoze Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Kansas City
    So how did those farmers pay more? And how do you justify your vision of those 2000 farmers deciding what's best for the 200,000 city dwellers? If you truly want minority rule then how do you decide which minority gets all the power?
     
  7. wilber6150

    wilber6150 Brev. Brig. Gen'l Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    19,232
    Location:
    deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
    Factory workers voted themselves a nice raise due to tarriffs ?
     
  8. unionblue

    unionblue Brev. Brig. Gen'l Member of the Year

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    24,841
    Location:
    Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
    The simple fact of the matter is the tariff did not bring on the Civil War.

    Yet the topic of this thread shows that cause clearly and without confusion in the Confederate constitution, in which it clearly states that slavery is to be protected and expanded, even if individual states do not desire to do such.

    Its all there, plain and simple, for all to see.

    Unionblue
     
  9. dvrmte

    dvrmte Major

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    9,944
    Location:
    South Carolina
    You'll find the percent of Southerners farming or either working on farms higher than in the North. Just about the entire South was involved in farming, in one way or another. What were all those Southerners manufacturing that was on the protected list? You seem to be dying to tell me.

    Now let's look at what the farmers grew and who they sold it to. Very few Northern farmers depended on an export market. They were dependent on regional markets such as found around densely populated manufacturing areas. The more people in manufacturing jobs, along with their higher the pay, the more the farmer profited. So nearly everyone in manufacturing regions, farmer or greasy mechanic, benefited from protective tariffs. That would include most of the Northeast, the most densely populated region of the country. Wheat farmers in the Northwest, looking forward to exporting their crop, began to side with the South on the tariff issue.

    The story of farming in the South is much different. Like the North during the early antebellum period, most were sustenance farmers. By 1840, just about every yeoman farmer grew one or two bales of cotton in areas suitable for that crop. So you have this huge, lightly populated area involved in export farming. Those people were born into their situation, they didn't choose it. If they wanted to rise above sustenance farming, they had to grow a cash crop and cotton was usually the most marketable. There were no big population centers to sell vegetables to. When yields were good and prices high, life was good and vice versa. When cotton prices fell, they blamed the tariff. When consumer prices rose, they blamed it on the tariff. Due to the ever changing amount of the duties and the items protected, as well as other variables, the effects of the tariff on the Southern economy are difficult to measure. However it is safe to say, agriculture export farmers are harmed by protective tariffs, either through higher production costs or reduced foreign trade.
     
  10. dvrmte

    dvrmte Major

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    9,944
    Location:
    South Carolina
    The tariffs weren't paid directly to manufacturers. The tariffs were placed on imported goods when they entered the country, in order to raise their price, which allowed domestic manufacturers to raise their price. So it didn't matter where the product was manufactured, you paid a price increase.
     
  11. dvrmte

    dvrmte Major

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    9,944
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Slavery could unite the South, the tariff couldn't, especially with the lower pre-war duties and steadily increasing manufacturing across the South. They really wanted a country of their own.

    Here's a little gem that I wish could be read in entirety. It's just an editorial but it's interesting.
    http://www.tias.com/517/PictPage/3923864140.html
    The Pennsylvania Election: the following is a brief quote from this article. "from all the indications it would appear that Pennsylvania has gone for Curtin, the Black Republican candidate for Governor. The effect of this can hardly be over estimated. We hardly think that the majority of the voters of Pennsylvania care much about the negro. We rather think they don't. They don't care to interfere with us just now in that way. Perhaps they would be willing to let us alone, on condition of our paying them Black Mail. The protection which the tariff now gives to iron is some 24 per cent. It is, near as may be, a bonus of 24 per cent, given to the Pennsylvania iron maker. We have railroads to build, ploughs to make, horses to shoe- a thousand useful and necessary things to do with iron; then why should we be made to pay tribute to our railroads- our agriculture- our machinery, simply that Pennsylvania Iron Masters may get rich at our expense?They buy our cotton, our rice, our turpentine, at its original market price, unprotected and unenhanced by any tariff.....If the demand for tribute on one hand, and submission to its payments on the other, be the condition of Union, what, may we ask, is that Union worth? Is it a Union of equals? Or is it a Union of masters and slaves? Surely our fellow citizens of Pennsylvania must be very confident of their own strength- very certain of our weakness and imbecility when they deliberately and undisguisedly make this issue. In good highway phrase it is, "Your money or your life." They think like the shoe and bootmakers of Massachusetts that the North cannot make boots enough to kick us out of the Union; for we have heard this very thing said by men who made and make goods for the Southern market." The article closes with some other strong comments...."we would teach them the South, and particularly the State of North Carolina, is not quite at their mercy. We trust that the coming session of our Legislature will at least use all its constitutional powers in this direction, if in none other. However for North Carolina goes, we go with her." (More content. One can certainly see how the tensions were rising between North and South as is evidenced in this article, and in 6 months, the country would be embroiled in civil war!
     
  12. dvrmte

    dvrmte Major

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    9,944
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Would you not think they voted for candidates in favor of protective tariffs?
     
  13. KeyserSoze

    KeyserSoze Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Kansas City
    And what items did the South buy in such quantities that they were impacted so badly? I think you mentioned plows somewhere. I wasn't aware there was such a big plow import market.

    And as someone else has pointed out the tariff hit all equally, North as well as South. You act like it was the South alone that bore the burden.
     
    Red Harvest likes this.
  14. KeyserSoze

    KeyserSoze Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Kansas City
    [
    So what you are saying is slavery, which you all claim impacted a tiny percent of the Southern population, could unite the people into rebellion but taxes, which you claim impacted all Southerners, couldn't?
     
    Red Harvest likes this.
  15. dvrmte

    dvrmte Major

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    9,944
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Leaving the South was a survival measure, was it? I can easily understand that. I guess with all that hatred for the South and her people, you'll be posting Sambo jokes next.
     
  16. dvrmte

    dvrmte Major

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    9,944
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Read my response to Wilber.
     
  17. Red Harvest

    Red Harvest 2nd Lieutenant Trivia Game Winner

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,959
    No, it was a sanity measure. We wearied of the insanity surrounding us. Didn't seem the appropriate place to raise kids.

    To each their own.
     
  18. dvrmte

    dvrmte Major

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    9,944
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Oh, I see you just want me to post something so you can dishonestly twist my words. Bite me! :byebye:
     
  19. OpnCoronet

    OpnCoronet Major

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    8,947
    The csa Constitution is clearly intent on guaranteeing slavery in every state of the confederacy(then and in the future) even if any particular state votes emancipation.(Jefferson Davis explained why secession was necessary, in his farewell address to the Senate in 1861 and it was not tariffs)
     
  20. KeyserSoze

    KeyserSoze Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Not that old canard that high tariffs on U.S. imports led to high tariffs on European imports? So what was the British tariff on raw cotton anyway?
     
  21. KeyserSoze

    KeyserSoze Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Kansas City
    I'd need to find my microscope first.

    But I'll notice you didn't answer the question. Why couldn't taxes unite the Southern population if, as you claim, they impacted all those millions of poor Southern farmers.
     

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

Share This Page


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