Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually look at American politics between 1812 and 1861 and you'll see that slavery was one of several issues. Again, politics are about power and power issues are never simple. The Southern states were steadily losing power on the federal level as Northern states became more urban. And it wasn't until the 1780's that we the United States actually had an organized federal government, so 60 years later wasn't that long a period for some of the states to decide that this wasn't going to work for them, especially since during that 60 year period states there was still considerable debate about just how powerful the federal government should be. A debate, frankly, that still isn't over since conflicts between the federal government's authority and the individual state's authority are still arising.
Actually look at American politics between 1812 and 1861 and you'll see that slavery was one of several issues. Again, politics are about power and power issues are never simple. The Southern states were steadily losing power on the federal level as Northern states became more urban. And it wasn't until the 1780's that we the United States actually had an organized federal government, so 60 years later wasn't that long a period for some of the states to decide that this wasn't going to work for them, especially since during that 60 year period states there was still considerable debate about just how powerful the federal government should be. A debate, frankly, that still isn't over since conflicts between the federal government's authority and the individual state's authority are still arising.
Yeah, I know there were other issues.
Slavery determined southern political and economic policy, were there no slavery the Mississippi valley states might've aligned together against eastern interests. The southerners had a window of opprotunity to ally with the Old Northwest before it became tied to the Northeast by the Erie Canal and then railroads. But slavery prevented such an alliance and in the end it was the men of the Old Northwest (Lincoln, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan and the Army of the Cumberland and the Army of the Tennessee) that crushed the south. They and the loyal Virginian George Thomas, the Rock of Chickamauga and Hammer of Nashville.
Yes, there are still conflicts between local and Federal interests but I think we've put the issues of secession and rebellion to bed.
You can over-simplify the differences between the North and the South all day and all night. The fact remains that there were profound differences between the cultures of the North and the South based on the cultural differences between the people who settled in the South and those who settled in the North, and how those cultures developed. Slavery was certainly a factor, but the majority of those Confederate soldiers didn't have slaves or any hopes of ever having slaves. As for a window of opportunity for Southern states to ally themselves with the upper midwest, it never existed. The fact that states and the federal government continue to battle over power today can only indicate how fundamental and intense the struggle had to be prior to the Civil War when the federal government was only beginning to consolidate power. One of the things the federal government had to do at that time was fund itself, and the best means at the time was tariffs. The South's production of cotton and tobacco which were exported made taxing those commodities particularly attractive. The tariffs were simple and lucrative, and the South's representation in the government (fewer states, lower populations) made it easier to pass tariffs against those products than passing tariffs against manufactured merchandise produced in the North. As for putting secession to bed, even this summer there were movements in various states advocating secession.
Tariffs are a tax on imports not exports. I'm unaware of exports of tobacco and cotton from The United States being taxed by The United States. Indeed, as it was only with difficulty that imports were taxed because of southern resistance to tariffs I doubt VERY much that exports were taxed.
Tariffs were actually lowered in 1857, 3 years before the outbreak of rebellion, to less than they'd been previously under the Walker Tariff of 1846. The tariff was lowered by an alliance of southern and northern Democrats. So much for congress not addressing southern needs.
Note that one needn't have owned slaves in order to have a stake in protecting slavery. Slavery put even the most base white on a higher level than the slave and non slave owning whites usually had ambitions of owning slaves. One can also make the argument that non slave owning whites were simply duped into fighting to protect the interests of the southern elite. Surely commoners being duped by clever elites is no unusual thing.
Note too that the fact that areas of the south where there was little slavery had strong Unionist feelings. East Tennessee, where there was little slavery, supplied about 30,000 white soldiers to the Union.
Modern people favoring secession are cranks. No matter how odd the cause there's someone to advocate it.
Irishtom, I apologize for not getting back to you sooner, had a lot going on last night. The South did indeed oppose higher tariffs as their economy was an agrarian one, not a manufacturing one; they were much more dependent on imports, both from abroad and from the North. The North tended to support higher tariffs since the imports directly competed with their manufactured goods. I haven't time to check it, but the lowered tariffs you are discussing about in 1857 I think applied to specific goods, and the fact that it took Northern support to achieve the lowering of the tax tends to support my argument that Northern interests garnered better federal response than Southern interests. Moreover, it might have been that since Northern ships transported cotton and tobacco (which represented more than 3/4 of the United States' exports at the time), the alliance was one of financial necessity and financial necessity only.
Non slave-owning whites were not "simply" duped into fighting to protect the interests of the southern elite. Southerners are not a region of gullible yahoos who are too stupid to think for themselves. You are talking about millions of people, who fought for their homes and for their way of life. Some of these people actually opposed slavery, but they wanted the each state to have the authority within its own borders to decide on the slavery issue and on every other issue that affected its citizens. There is a profound conflict between urban and rural interests, even today. In any sort of democratic system, rural populations are sorely outnumbered by urban populations. It is clearly in the interests of rural populations to have government be as locally responsive as possible, which is why it is rural areas that support states' rights and more urban areas that support more centralized governments.
I know this discussion and grow tired of it. What I do know is to simply say, "The South fought to keep their slaves" is a gross over-simplification.
Bottom line is that it was about self-determination and preserving their way of life, of which slavery was certainly a large part of, and to determine their own economics.
The North piggy-backed on the Southern cotton trade. There's no two ways about it. They benefitted almost as much from slavery indirectly as the South did directly. What does this have to do with anything you ask???
Quite a lot when you break down the economics and realize that the tariffs that the North imposed were strikingly similar to those that Great Britain imposed on the colonists decades earlier.
Yet then it was a reason to rebel, but in the middle of the 19th century, if you were to listen to those that clamour about slavery being the sole purpose of the Confederacy's existence, suddenly it was no longer a valid reason.
Irishtom, you're confounding the reason for rebellion... It's about a central government over-stepping it's authority and favoring one region over another. One doesn't have to look too deep into the founding documents of the United States to find where they almost INSIST that when the central government is guilty of that type of encroachment that it is your right...... nay...... your DUTY to take up arms against said government.....
"Yeah, but they did it because of slavery..." ??? Yeah, to a large extent the preservation of slavery was the key, but insisting on flip-flopping which is the forest (Federal Government's enfringement of rights or regional favoritism) and which are the trees (slavery, tariffs, state's rights) isn't fair when examining the causes of war.
And if you want to take it a step further, we can say that slavery may have been the primary cause of SECESSION, but what brought war about is an entirely different discussion..... When we journey down that road we begin to discover that the WAR was ENTIRELY about economics.
.... When we journey down that road we begin to discover that the WAR was ENTIRELY about economics.
No doubt of that, what with slavery being essential to the southern economy. It's not as though people held slaves as a hobby.
That southerners weren't enterprising enough to turn their own cotton into finished goods and New Englanders were hardly justified rebellion. But that wasn't really what southerners were mad about, they were mad because they feared losing their slaves.
Had there been no slavery there would have been no rebellion, had there been no rebellion there wouldn't have been a war. Pretty simple. Sometimes things are simple but those with an interest in obfuscation claim things are complex, the reason being in order to deflect attention from the truth. Talk of tariffs and agrarian society vs. industrial is a smoke screen to cover the one essential difference between north and south---slavery.
And the truth is that any sectional differences EXCEPT SLAVERY could've been compromised and dealt with, just as all other issues have been and continue to be.
No doubt of that, what with slavery being essential to the southern economy. It's not as though people held slaves as a hobby.
That southerners weren't enterprising enough to turn their own cotton into finished goods and New Englanders were hardly justified rebellion. But that wasn't really what southerners were mad about, they were mad because they feared losing their slaves.
LOL!!!! You really haven't done much research on how much the north benefited from this have you??? An unnecessary triangle trade, tariffs, etc.... The South could have SO easily cut the North out of the cotton trade entirely as they didn't have a monopoly on milling cotton nor were they the only one's who demanded it HEAVILY and the North knew it.......
Ever wonder why the North cared so much about the South's wish to leave the Union???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom
Had there been no slavery there would have been no rebellion, had there been no rebellion there wouldn't have been a war. Pretty simple. Sometimes things are simple but those with an interest in obfuscation claim things are complex, the reason being in order to deflect attention from the truth. Talk of tariffs and agrarian society vs. industrial is a smoke screen to cover the one essential difference between north and south---slavery.
That's the great thing about the victor writing history isn't it??? Funny they don't teach us in our schools too much about wage slavery in Northern industries at the time and such...
Obfuscation??? The wool has been pulled over American eyes for over a century based on the SIMPLE fact that the North was politically squeezing the South on MANY fronts....... The South decided it wanted no further part of the Federal Government. The North refused to let them go.... And there you have it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom
And the truth is that any sectional differences EXCEPT SLAVERY could've been compromised and dealt with, just as all other issues have been and continue to be.
Regards
Apparrently you aren't familiar with the Tariff of Abominations, the Force Act and the FACT that we narrowly averted secession 30 years prior to the Civil War for reasons having ZERO to do with slavery, but whatever, go on.... Tell us how it was ALL about slavery.
OOO, and don't forget to mention how the New England states had almost seceded prior to the War of 1812 while trying to tell us in the same breath that slavery was the only divisive issue that could drive this country toward secession...
Anyway, forgive my tone.... I get riled up with this discussion.
It's always some implication that the North rode in on their white horse to free the black man and the image disgusts me since, not only were they not the friend of the black man, they pushed the war for purely economic reasons. (not saying that you have ever claimed that the North was in it for humanitarian reasons, but some do try to portray it that way.).
The hypocrisy of a "War to end Slavery" while basically trying to keep a choke hold on the cotton-trade and benefitting from slavery is pretty pronounced...
No doubt of that, what with slavery being essential to the southern economy. It's not as though people held slaves as a hobby.
That southerners weren't enterprising enough to turn their own cotton into finished goods and New Englanders were hardly justified rebellion. But that wasn't really what southerners were mad about, they were mad because they feared losing their slaves.
Had there been no slavery there would have been no rebellion, had there been no rebellion there wouldn't have been a war. Pretty simple. Sometimes things are simple but those with an interest in obfuscation claim things are complex, the reason being in order to deflect attention from the truth. Talk of tariffs and agrarian society vs. industrial is a smoke screen to cover the one essential difference between north and south---slavery.
And the truth is that any sectional differences EXCEPT SLAVERY could've been compromised and dealt with, just as all other issues have been and continue to be.
Regards
What I don't get is why it's so important to you that this be a simple issue. Since when are wars and politics and such simple issues? You want to take one aspect of life back then, and make that single thing the cause of all dissension, when even the most casual glance at modern affairs will tell you when it comes to human beings, it's never simple. "One essential difference", please, you yourself have expounded on the differences politically and socially between the North and the South. Those differences were certainly intertwined with slavery, but they were also intertwined with different social values and profoundly different social identities.
The South much more strongly identified itself with the American Revolution.
They perceived themselves as rebels, keeping the goals of individual freedoms and carving out of the wilderness a civilized and productive lifestyle. They looked to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both advocates of states' rights, as the founders of this country but Southern gentlemen farmers as well. After all, until the Constitution was ratified, the country was ruled by the Articles of Confederation, an extremely loose alliance between the different states which operated as independent political entities. The Federal government essentially had no power of enforcement under the articles, and its powerlessness made it unable to perform the most basic tasks of a central government. The Constitution was intended to rectify that, giving the Federal government more power and was also intended to unite a country. "We the people" could have just as easily been, "We the United States", but using "people" was intended to supercede state affiliations. Even after the Constitution was ratified, there were numerous problems with just what powers the Federal government should enjoy. It wasn't slavery that cast this country into its first depression, it was a banking crisis brought on by the struggle between Federalists and non-Federalists over a Federal bank or a less controlled economy.
You keep on dismissing the idea that the issues of the time were more complicated and complex than a single issue of slavery. What I'm trying to explain (rather badly, I guess), is that slavery was a wedge between two different social systems, and as that wedge was driven in further and further, it revealed just how different these two societies were. The differences were profound, and while slavery was a primary issue of the time, continuing to compromise on the fundamental differences between the two systems, the imbalance between economic and political power, and the fact that this country was still struggling to define an identity for itself, and I do think that war was inevitable. I think this because I look at what came out of the war. Slaves were freed, but we didn't resolve their status issues, we didn't grant them true freedom because politically and economically we kept them in chains. The change in American society that is really well-defined post-war is the now clearly defined power of the Federal government. The balance of power between the Federal government and the states was radically altered, the ability of the Federal government to impose its will on the individual states is firmly established.
As for secession being a radical and extreme solution to political problems--well, Maine seceded from Massachusetts, West Virginia seceded from Virginia. Secession at this time was not the far-out talk of extremists, it was a political option that came up repeatedly in the first century of our country's development. The fact that it was considered a very serious move, an act with grave consequences, is the only reason it didn't come up more often.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
