Civil war refresher

Status
Not open for further replies.

Majicmike

Overweight lover
Benefactor
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
8,558
Location
Angier/Coats
Rating - 100%
62   0   0
Great write-up on the truth behind what started the Civil War.

by David John Marotta & Megan Russell | 06-23-2013


Although they opposed permanent tariffs, political expedience in spite of sound economics prompted the Founding Fathers to pass the first U.S. tariff act . For 72 years, Northern special interest groups used these protective tariffs to exploit the South for their own benefit. Finally in 1861, the oppression of those import duties started the Civil War.

In addition to generating revenue, a tariff hurts the ability of foreigners to sell in domestic markets. An affordable or high-quality foreign good is dangerous competition for an expensive or low-quality domestic one. But when a tariff bumps up the price of the foreign good, it gives the domestic one a price advantage. The rate of the tariff varies by industry.

If the tariff is high enough, even an inefficient domestic company can compete with a vastly superior foreign company. It is the industry's consumers who ultimately pay this tax and the industry's producers who benefit in profits.

The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.

As early as the Revolutionary War, the South primarily produced cotton, rice, sugar, indigo and tobacco. The North purchased these raw materials and turned them into manufactured goods. By 1828, foreign manufactured goods faced high import taxes. Foreign raw materials, however, were free of tariffs.

Thus the domestic manufacturing industries of the North benefited twice, once as the producers enjoying the protection of high manufacturing tariffs and once as consumers with a free raw materials market. The raw materials industries of the South were left to struggle against foreign competition.

Because manufactured goods were not produced in the South, they had to either be imported or shipped down from the North. Either way, a large expense, be it shipping fees or the federal tariff, was added to the price of manufactured goods only for Southerners. Because importation was often cheaper than shipping from the North, the South paid most of the federal tariffs.

Much of the tariff revenue collected from Southern consumers was used to build railroads and canals in the North. Between 1830 and 1850, 30,000 miles of track was laid. At its best, these tracks benefited the North. Much of it had no economic effect at all. Many of the schemes to lay track were simply a way to get government subsidies. Fraud and corruption were rampant.

With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in the North, the South rightly felt exploited. At the time, 90% of the federal government's annual revenue came from these taxes on imports.

Domestic Tariffs at the South's Expense
Historians Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffer found that a few common factors increase the likelihood of secession in a region: lower wages, an economy based on raw materials and external exploitation. Although popular movies emphasize slavery as a cause of the Civil War, the war best fits a psycho-historical model of the South rebelling against Northern exploitation.

Many Americans do not understand this fact. A non-slave-owning Southern merchant angered over yet another proposed tariff act does not make a compelling scene in a movie. However, that would be closer to the original cause of the Civil War than any scene of slaves picking cotton.

Slavery was actually on the wane. Slaves visiting England were free according to the courts in 1569. France, Russia, Spain and Portugal had outlawed slavery. Slavery had been abolished everywhere in the British Empire 27 years earlier thanks to William Wilberforce. In the United States, the transport of slaves had been outlawed 53 years earlier by Thomas Jefferson in the Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves (1807) and the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in England (1807). Slavery was a dying and repugnant institution.

The rewritten history of the Civil War began with Lincoln as a brilliant political tactic to rally public opinion. The issue of slavery provided sentimental leverage, whereas oppressing the South with hurtful tariffs did not. Outrage against the greater evil of slavery served to mask the economic harm the North was doing to the South.

The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.

Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause.

The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional.

The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.

In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries like Lincoln's favorite, Pennsylvania steel.

The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.

The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.

Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.
 
I think that it was a bit more complicated. Alexander Stephens, vice president of the new Confederate States, said, in what is known as his Cornerstone Speech delivered in Savannah, GA on 21 March 1861 said, speaking of the goal and purpose of secession:

"Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Yes, economics played a large part. Slaves, as property, represented enormous wealth, but the causes of secession were numerous and not entirely economic.
 
It is true that slavery was a cause of secession, but it is an out right LIE to say that slavery was a cause of the war. Secession does not cause war. Brutal dictators and power hungry sociopaths cause war. And Lincoln certainly falls into those categories.

Lincoln had no love or interest in black folks and merely used them as political pawns when the north was losing the war. He is quoted as saying, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery.” Look up the Corwin amendment, which Lincoln supported. He was willing to enshrine slavery within the constitution itself, if the southern states would only rejoin the union. He wanted the union preserved and didn't care how it had to be done.

You can then look to that supposedly great document, The Emancipation Proclamation. Pop quiz; How many slaves did the Emancipation Proclamation free? Anyone...? The answer is ZERO. It freed not one single slave. Lincoln only "freed" slaves he had no power over. He refused to free any slaves held in Union states. That would be like me issuing a decree that all political prisoners in China are henceforth free. It's a nice thought, but I have absolutely no power to bring it about. So it does't do anyone any good and is really just a waste of time. He was mocked by Americans on both sides of the war and the Europeans because this was so obviously a completely empty political stunt.

Here's a good article from the Abbeville Institute that covers this topic in more detail. There is a wealth of information out there but you have to do some digging as it does not fit the now accepted narrative of The War to Prevent Southern Independence.
 
Last edited:
Please explain the following, written by southerners at the time of their secession, in light of the silliness I just read.
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
Based on this and other "points" you've made on the subject, I'd say it's probably and simply confirmation bias. Nothing in the OP should be considered "silly" except by someone with a need to dismiss it.

Nota Bene #1, Of the five you present in the tl;dr article you draw as an opposing argument, Virginia (conspicuously positioned last) references slavery exactly once. And only to differentiate "Slave-states" from non-slave-states
Nota Bene #2, The five trotted out is exactly what percentage of the whole?
 
We can argue what is and what isn't but unless we do it from the perspective of 1860 men then we are nothing more than arguing they rose colored glasses. Slavey is wrong now, and we all know that but in 1860 it was a way of life. It was not "wrong" in the same sense it is now.
 
We can argue what is and what isn't but unless we do it from the perspective of 1860 men then we are nothing more than arguing they rose colored glasses. Slavey is wrong now, and we all know that but in 1860 it was a way of life. It was not "wrong" in the same sense it is now.
And it's also worth noting, along those lines, that the average Southern farmer (majority of populace) was perhaps competing economically with the slave-owning plantations (minority), if you believe that slave-labor presented an overwhelming economic benefit to anyone. So, to believe that HE endorsed those five declarations based on the value of holding slaves is, well, silly.
 
And it's also worth noting, along those lines, that the average Southern farmer (majority of populace) was perhaps competing economically with the slave-owning plantations (minority), if you believe that slave-labor presented an overwhelming economic benefit to anyone. So, to believe that HE endorsed those five declarations based on the value of holding slaves is, well, silly.
Lets look at this staement in terms of North Carolina in 1861. Approximately 3/4 of the white population were non-slaveholding subsistence farmers providing only enough food for their families with a little left over to barter for goods and services. Take into account tradesmen - blacksmiths, teamsters, etc you hardly have anyone who could even remotely be considered "competition" for plantation based agriculture. A primary reason NC was the last state to succeed and did so with little popular support is for exactly those reasons - the vast majority of the population had no stake in either slavery nor products under tariff.

Plantations worked because of slave labor and collapsed w/o it. To make an argument that preserving slavery wasn't a prime reason for southern secession is ludicrous. No ... Lincoln did not call for an end to slavery until 1863, but anyone even remotely familiar with US history can see that the primary national debate from 1895 until the war was the existence and expansion of slavery.

The problem for all the poor bastards who were conscripted - or who enlisted under the threat of conscription - was that the Confederacy was controlled by the planter elite. Lots of folks in NC figured this out and said hell no, I ain't gonna go or go back.
 
You're kidding, right? They tell us in so many words and you say it's my confirmation bias?

It is exactly that. No, and politely, I am not kidding.

It's a rational and lucid article, which you reject as being silly. To admit this (or even consider it on its merits) might shake the foundation of something in which you feel strongly. In other words, you seem to want to believe something that defies logic, romantic as it might well be.
 
Speaking of ludicrous, how the heck did Schittwater get six likes? Must be those "teamsters".
 
On topic, with gusto (double posting). See if the lyricist says anything about the war being over slavery.



In defense of this land, and the Word of the Lord.
 
None of the union saving, Constitution-damaging war powers, or abolitionist nonsense would have been required had the South not been willing to unilaterally get a divorce and go to war to preserve slavery.

The south went to war because they were invaded by a hostile foreign force. They did nothing wrong or illegal. Secession was an accepted part of the constitution and Abraham Lincoln himself endorsed it before he became a power mad tyrant;

“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements.” ~ Lincoln January 12 1848

Southerners merely wanted to be left alone as Jefferson Davis repeatedly said. There is very good reason no Southerner was ever tried for treason after the war. And it wasn't to encourage national healing or any such nonsense. If any "rebel" had been tried, he would have been exonerated based on the Constitution and Lincoln's entire premise for plunging the country into the deadliest conflict the world had ever known would have been shown for the fraud it was.
 
None of the union saving, Constitution-damaging war powers, or abolitionist nonsense would have been required had the South not been willing to unilaterally get a divorce and go to war to preserve slavery.

So you have no problem with a majority exercising absolute control over a minority and would even deny the minority the right to disassociate itself from the abusive majority.
 
If the south had let the majority vote in the antebellum period, slavery would have fixed itself. In fact, slavery was probably the absolute control of the minority. So... who's the abuser?

Your bias is forcing you to try to skip away from a topic that does not "fit" your narrative.

The northern states were dictating to the southern states because they had a slim majority in Congress. You either approve of that form of absolute majority control or you do not.
 
Lots of folks in NC figured this out and said hell no, I ain't gonna go or go back.


NC lost approximate 40K men during the war. The most of any state. And more men from NC served in the Southern cause than any other state except Va.
 
Last edited:
The war was basically fought because the folks in the north were telling the folks in the south what the heck they wanted done. The south said we don't agree and to be left alone or we leave. They left the union and the North invaded.

The whole premise was they didn't want a man in New York in a suit telling the man in NC farming his 40 acres with a mule how to live and farm. It's no different than not wanting to be told what to do by a king or queen in England.
 
Last edited:
The problem for all the poor bastards who were conscripted - or who enlisted under the threat of conscription - was that the Confederacy was controlled by the planter elite. Lots of folks in NC figured this out and said hell no, I ain't gonna go or go back.

My brothers here in NC gave more blood to the cause than any other state by far. Your assertion is ludicrous.

Also if you look solely at the numbers the southern fighting man was far superior to the northern soldier. The south had far less than half the manpower as the north and killed 16, 000 more of the enemy.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates:

Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease, etc.: 250,152
Total 360,222

The Confederate strength, known less accurately because of missing records, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Its estimated losses:

Battle deaths: 94,000
Disease, etc.: 164,000
Total 258,000


Confederate Battlefield losses by states, in dead and wounded only, and with many records missing (especially those of Alabama):

North Carolina 20,602

Virginia 6,947
Mississippi 6,807
South Carolina 4,760
Arkansas 3,782
Georgia 3,702
Tennessee 3,425
Louisiana 3,059
Texas 1,260
Florida 1,047
Alabama 724
 
Last edited:
I agree I have a strong bid toward individual rights. A government that fails to attempt to move toward them is not legitimate. We kicked out the British for far less. Your argument for "states rights" isn't valid unless states are more important than individuals.

What 'individual rights' do you refer to? If more than the few specifically enumerated in the Constitution, you must mean the privileges bestowed through laws by the majority. At one time, the states and 'states rights' were the refuge for minorities who wished to escape the tyranny of the majority.
 
NC lost approximate 40K men during the war. The most of any state. And more men from NC served in the Southern cause than any other state except Va.

Damn right....

First at Bethel, farthest at Gettysburg, last at Appomattox
 
The right to your rights, regardless of your color. There were some 3M slaves in the south in 1860, according to the census. NONE of these were allowed to vote. So the "states" represented not people, but only those who gave themselves power to vote. It had always been so since the founding of the USA, which of course was the great flaw in our Constitution. In fact, these "small government" southerners were POed also becuase the north wasn't enforcing their fugitive slave laws.



"Wrong as we think Slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States?" Abraham Lincoln, March 1860​
Of course they wouldn't be allowed to vote! They didn't own property. Allowing people without skin in the game to vote has been a disaster.
 
Again in 1860 slaves were viewed as property and not voting citizens of society. Yes it sucks to say that in 2017 but in 1860 that was normal. You can not Grade a paper on a 2017 scale when it was written on an 1860 rubric. It's gotta be apples to apples guys.
 
Last edited:
That's the whole point! They didn't have money or means to buy property so they don't qualify to vote. The same bunch shouldn't be voting today. And I include all colors of non property owning & non taxpaying people.
So if one does not own property one should not be required to pay taxes correct? Otherwise you would be taxing someone without giving them any say in how those taxes were allocated. That doesn't seem right. Now as far as non-taxpayers being allowed to vote, I'm right there with you.
 
Your argument for "states rights" isn't valid unless states are more important than individuals.
I think that's rather silly, in a false dichotomy kinda way.

For the record, I could live with a federal government IF their guns were ONLY pointed outward, protecting their constituent states. Likewise, I could endorse my state's government so long as its guns were pointed out, defending its counties and cities. Same thing for my county: its job is to kick out or keep out the riffraff. Kind of an inversion to the whole "supremacy" BS.

The greater power the central power has, the less anyone's vote matters.

I also think that it's silly to presume all of those slaves would've "voted" the straight party ballot.
 
Last edited:
I could live in the FedGov you describe as well. I agree small central government is good. My point is that a government that holds men and women in slavery is illegitimate. Governments are rightly insituted only to protect individual rights (Jefferson paraphrase).

It would have been hard to have slaves vote a 'straight republican ticket' I agree - because slaves weren't allowed to learn to read for the most part and Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in most of the states they were held in.

Again in 1860 that was the normal thing. Many countries had started to out law slavery but as of yet we had not as a country. Slaves were property and property and the wife didn't get a vote. I am not saying it was right but that's how things were back then.
 
My point is that a government that holds men and women in slavery is illegitimate. Governments are rightly insituted only to protect individual rights (Jefferson paraphrase).
I wholeheartedly agree. And if the War For Southern Independence was over slavery, it was this slavery intended by our northern masters. If they'd have only let us go...

If they would only NOW let us go...
 
There was one color of enslaved people in the US.
Not entirely so, even in 1861.

Aside: How many have heard/read about the story of "honest" Abe Lincoln being born right here in NC? Whose mother was at the time of his birth an indentured (slave) servant, sold into servitude by her own mother?
 
But it was a KNOWN wrong, even then. The founders knew it. There were multiple "compromises" to try to stave off the union breaking up prior to1860. They KNEW Lincoln was coming for slavery (see some of his speeches from 58-60). And so while it may have been a "normal thing" in the south, it was not up north and it was not in Western Europe. So to go to great lengths to secede from teh US and set up a new government with essentially the same constitution plus slavery was wrong.

No in fact it was not wrong at the time. It was frowned upon by those that did not have slaves but slaves were the money makers for the plantation and it was ok in that time frame to own slaves. I don't argue knowing what we know now that it was wrong. The reason the south left the Union was because they were tired of people telling them how to run their business and individual states from up North. It's all about government and the intrusion of big federal government. Slavery was one of those issues but not the only one that led to the southern secession.
 
Furthermore the south stood up to and tried to exit from the federal government and their over reach. This is very item is what many fuss about here everyday. The south did it, and this is part of why the left hates having CSA monuments around because as long as they stand, they are reminders of when men stood up to and flipped off the Federal government. The left and Antifi are using smoke and mirror of slavery and racism as the reason which is A BS
 
So if one does not own property one should not be required to pay taxes correct? Otherwise you would be taxing someone without giving them any say in how those taxes were allocated. That doesn't seem right. Now as far as non-taxpayers being allowed to vote, I'm right there with you.
Property owners are paying taxes so therefore they are taxpayers.
 
There was one color of enslaved people in the US. The reason they could not have property was because they were held as chattel by the same folks who wrote the secession documents.

The "same bunch" doesnt exist because everyone who was alive in 1860 is now long dead. There have always been poor of various stripes. What you describe could be solved simply by passing an amendment that says people who are on the government dole don't get to vote, or more simply that the FEdGov may not participate in charitable welfare payments.
Which was perfectly legal at that time. Same bunch as in same people generationally have been poor & mostly likely stay poor because they don't try to better themselves. And yes all .gov welfare should be stopped.
 
No in fact it was not wrong at the time. It was frowned upon by those that did not have slaves but slaves were the money makers for the plantation and it was ok in that time frame to own slaves. I don't argue knowing what we know now that it was wrong. The reason the south left the Union was because they were tired of people telling them how to run their business and individual states from up North. It's all about government and the intrusion of big federal government. Slavery was one of those issues but not the only one that led to the southern secession.
Correctomundo, Fonzi.

The cultural inferiority was almost universally (in the several states and territories, I mean) recognized then, even within the black heart of "honest" Abe. Arguably, their status wouldn't have been much more pleasant (perhaps even worse) had they been magically star-trek hyperspaced back to Africa in 1860. This may seem insensitive, but I think it's just objective reality.
 
It WAS wrong. The US was a Johnny-come-lately to the party in emancipation and illegalizing slavery. By the late-1700s the founders knew there was going to be a collision course, and even they had a hard time reconciling the economic necessity of having slaves with the immorality of owning them.

Emancipation was going to happen sooner or later for the entirety of the US.
 
That's the whole point! They didn't have money or means to buy property so they don't qualify to vote. The same bunch shouldn't be voting today. And I include all colors of non property owning & non taxpaying people.

I pay taxes, we own property - I don't qualify to vote...

It's never as black & white as we'd like it to be.

I wholeheartedly agree that you cannot look back on history and apply current views/ethics - what happened in the past may not stand judgment by today's standards but just how long do you think the apologist era should last?
You have to accept, acknowledge, learn and move on at some point.
 
Here is what I find interesting. There has never been a war fought, in the history of mankind, that wasn't, at its root, about money.

Both sides of a war always dress up what they say to rally the troops and supporters, but it is never about that issue.

Did we invade Iraq to free the Iraqi peoples? We said that's what we were doing, but it's funny how oil prices stabilized huh.

Even our own revolution was originally pushed and instigated by merchants that were tired of paying tariffs. There were certainly other issues but money was the root cause as it always has been.

Slavery was not illegal when the south seceded from the union, and there were far to many political contributors making boat loads of money off of their importation and sale. Was it an issue? Yes, but not for the reason most people think. The anti slave people were about the same size proportionally as the antifa crowd is today. There was no institutional push to end slavery. The northern states made their living off of the raw materials farmed and mined by slaves as well, why would they end that?

The issue was money and the continuing control of it. With the invention of the Mason Dixon line, the northern controlled congress insured that agricultural states would remain small in number and not be able to wrestle control away from them, thus insuring a continued raping of the south.

One thing the OP's article did not address in the tariffs was a heavy export tax on raw materials as well, insuring the southern states could only sell to them at the price they wanted.

So given the history of every war or conflict ever fought, to say that just this one war was about a single issue is a bit polyanna and defies all logic.

The south was no more altruistic in its secession than the north was in its invasion. The south simply wanted to decide for itself how to go about its livelihood without having to pay fealty to the crown of the northern controlled congress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom