Confederate flag: Washington and Lee University removing display (Lee's Chapel)

[Predicto]

Not exactly it was one cause the southerners pointed too.. The north exported goods, the south over overwhelmingly imported goods.. So tariffs designed to protect northern industry hit the south especially hard. This was one of the constant points of contention between the northern and southern leaders...

 

 

 

Except, as has already been pointed out, American tariffs in the late 1850s were the lowest in the entire world, and had been made that way by the Southern politicians in Congress, and none of the secession documents talked about tariffs, and none of the speeches that were made talked about tariffs, and so on.  

 

So, no, there is no more reason to be talking about tariffs here than there is to be talking about the Erie Canal - UNLESS you are trying to avoid or obscure the fundamental fact that slavery was the root cause of the conflict.

[War Paint]

What you did was conjure out of thin air the idea that tariffs were a root cause of the Civil War.   

I never said that tariffs were the lone cause of the war.  I took the position that it was one of many factors.  You are the one who thinks that one issue, and one issue only was the cause.  You are wrong.

[Predicto]

I never said that tariffs were the lone cause of the war.  I took the position that it was one of many factors.  You are the one who thinks that one issue, and one issue only was the cause.  You are wrong.

 

No. I'm not saying that and I'm not wrong.

 

One issue was the overwhelming, overriding cause which made everything else pale into insignificance.   One issue underpinned every other potential discussion point.

 

"States rights" meant the right to keep slaves.

"Agricultural vs. industrial interests" meant the ability to keep making money off of slave labor.

"Property rights" meant the right to keep your slaves even when you left slave states.

"Complex political causes from the expansion of the nation" meant making sure that slavery was exported to the new states in the West

"Economic causes" meant the threat to the wealth of the Southern Aristocracy that was tied up in their slaves

"Tariffs" meant the South needed to import goods because our entire economy is based on slave labor agriculture and we produce nothing else

"Desire for self government" meant the desire to have a government that supported slavery

 

and so on

 

Tariffs was "one of many factors" in the war in the same way that the play of Darryl Tapp was one of "many factors" why the Redskins sucked last season. 

[JMS]

"He would either fight for the Union against his state of he would be pursued as a treasonous."

 

Can you present something that says that Scott told Lee that if he simply resigned his commission and went home to Arlington that the would be "pursued" for treason?

I could not... I refereed to the national park service presentation at Arlington Cemetery,

"no other choice was possible for Lee except to fight for the South", based upon his meeting with Winfield Scott.

[JMS]

Oh, there, I agree. Many of the state's declarations of reasons for secession, I'd say that the major point they listed was that slave states were losing their control of Congress.

other reasons were that Northers states weren't respecting their slavery laws.

Yes the States rights issue was a biggie which sold the war to the average southerner..

Coarse the irony was it was only southern state rights they cared about. The fugitive slave act for example basically legalized slavery in the North, radicalized the North, and that was enthusiastically supported in the same southern states which were proclaiming state rights.

Likewise slavery was a very big part of the rights the South objected too loosing.

I think it was mentioned several times that they were upset that a slave owner couldn't take his slave into a state where slavery was illegal, and be immune from the laws of the state he was in. (So much for the "state's rights" argument.)

Yes exactly correct... Southerners were upset slaves could run to free states and thus achieve freedom. If somebody stole your horse and crossed state lines, the horse remained yours. They over reacted though by supporting the fugitive slave act. It effectively legalized slavery in the North and made it impossible for the free north to coexist as a free territory with the pro slave south. It radicalized the North.

It's a great example of how one side over reacting and being unreasonable has the opposite effect to that which they were trying to inspire.

And that uppity Northerners were actually having the nerve to express the opinion that slavery was wrong. In some cases, even in front of the slaves.

I think the south was radicalized earlier.. I mean South Caroline had tried to secede in Andrew Jackson's day... and I believe Jefferson Davis's family was behind that one too... What made the 1860's special was

(1) the 1850's which made it apparent slavery would be ending in the short term. Kansas Nebraska..

(2) The fugitive slave act again 1850's which again leaned over backwards to placate the south...

Both of theses joint bipartisan attempts to preserve the union by political leaders had ultimately the opposite effect. They really pissed off the North, who responded by dissolving the Wig party and moving towards an abolitionist Republican Party further infuriating the South.

[JMS]

Except, as has already been pointed out, American tariffs in the late 1850s were the lowest in the entire world, and had been made that way by the Southern politicians in Congress, and none of the secession documents talked about tariffs, and none of the speeches that were made talked about tariffs, and so on.  

 

So, no, there is no more reason to be talking about tariffs here than there is to be talking about the Erie Canal - UNLESS you are trying to avoid or obscure the fundamental fact that slavery was the root cause of the conflict.

Tariffs were another point of contention between north and south.. the fact the tariffs controlled by southern supporters in the senate went so low in the 1850's was another pin in the side of northerners... radicalizing them and driving the once fringe abolition movement into centrist politics in the north.

Tariffs not slavery were the underlying cause of the South Carolina's previous succession.

Tariffs were featured in the Lincoln Douglas debates of the 1858 when Lincoln blamed the Nullification Crisis ( nullifying tariffs which threatened the Northern Industries ).. on slavery... Douglas Disagreed with him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln-Douglas_debates_of_1858

And while you are right that Tariffs were low in the 1858 when the South was able to control them... By the time South Carolina seceded they had gone up to 15%.. which was very high... And that's kind of what happened with tariffs.. they were a whip used by whichever side could control them to beat the snot out of the other side.

I think of Tariffs as just a back door to talking about Slavery... This was an issue like slavery which had become a generational struggle since the founding fathers. These guys hated each other and in the end when the North looked like they had finally found the upper hand; the South just folded up their chair and went home... Was it slavery or was it just the Southern Leadershp's machismo or honor wouldn't let them acquiesce gracefully.... I really think the latter had as much to do with it as anything... The latter along with their was no statesman left in the South who had the stature of a Washington, Jefferson, or Madison. A leader who understood and was still able to broker a compromise with the North. A statesman who still had the trust of both sides..

[JMS]

I never said that tariffs were the lone cause of the war.  I took the position that it was one of many factors.  You are the one who thinks that one issue, and one issue only was the cause.  You are wrong.

I think you are on safe ground there.. It was one of many contentious issues felt sharply both in the North when tariffs were low, and in the South when tariffs were high. It didn't help matters that both sides used the tariff issue as their own chew toy when in power to stick it to the other side.

It did not eclipse the slavery issue, but tariffs certainly were a huge cause of contention between North and Southern leadership.

[PeterMP]

I could not... I refereed to the national park service presentation at Arlington Cemetery,

"no other choice was possible for Lee except to fight for the South", based upon his meeting with Winfield Scott.

 

Which on its face isn't true.

 

He could have committed suicide.

 

He could have fled to South America.

 

(The idea that a person is ONLY presented with one option is NEVER true.  The other options might not have been that attractive, but they are there.)

[PeterMP]

The thing which had protected slavery since the founding fathers was the equilibrium of the Southern slave states in the Senate. They were in a position to block any abolitionist legislation with their block of votes. The writing was on the wall after the Kansas Nebraska act failed. The South would loose it's ability to block legislation against slavery. That was the game changer.

New States coming into the union would be overwhelmingly anti slavery, because it was anti slavery populations who would settle them. The Southern effort to mandate 1 slave state for every free state had failed..

It was thus only a matter of time before the legislature passed a law declaring slavery illegal nationally. It may have taken a decade or two, but it would occur. The issue was out of southern hands to avoid for the first time in the nation's great debate.

 

This assumes that the voters in those states would have cared enough to elect representative that would have cared.

 

For example, while Kansas was a "free state" there is no doubt that there were a lot of people in Kansas that supported slavery.

 

As Kansas' agrain economy grew, I wouldn't be surprised in such an alternative history if there wasn't more support from Kansas voters for Kansas to become a slave state vs. electing representatives that supported abolishing slaves in the already slave states.

 

Can anybody really claim that the land owners in Kansas wouldn't have gotten tired of being at an economic disadvantage to the slave states with respect to labor costs after a decade or more and wouldn't have decided that the solution was to become a slave state too?

 

 

With respect to War Paint, I just want to be clear.

 

We've gone from the argument being that the federal government was using money collected from tariffs to build ESPECIALLY northern industry

 

to the argument being that tarrifs being a partial cause of the Southern secession even though at the time they weren't mentioned in any document that any state produced to explain why they were seceding

 

Is that right?

 

Before we shift can we can an acknowledgement that the first argument was wrong?

[Larry]

I just want to be clear.

We've gone from the argument being that the federal government was using money collected from tariffs to build ESPECIALLY northern industry

to the argument being that tarrifs being a partial cause of the Southern secession even though at the time they weren't mentioned in any document that any state produced to explain why they were seceding

Is that right?

Before we shift can we can an acknowledgement that the first argument was wrong?

Actually, I think the progression went through the phases of:

Claiming that It was honorable for an officer of the US army to take up arms and fight against the US, because Lee had no other choice.

Asserting, however, that unlike Lee, Lincoln DID have choices, (and therefore, I assume, was not as honorable as Lee), because he could have prevented the war from even happening in the first place, by launching a massive federal research program into developing mechanical agriculture, (and thus freeing the slaves without the South objecting to it).

When people point out things such as the fact that the South seceded before Lincoln even took office, people then admit that, well, somebody could have prevented the civil war, if they had moved to end slavery through automation decades before the abolition movement even started.

When people ask how this proposal that couldn't possibly have been passed in the first place, could have been paid for, assert that they could have spent all the money that they spent subsidizing northern businesses.

When people point out that the government wasn't spending money subsidizing northern businesses, assert that well, they had tariffs, which helped American businesses, and most of the businesses were in the North. (Therefore, supposedly, a tariff equals spending money to subsidize businesses, and, supposedly, could be spent subsidizing different businesses, (for the purpose of achieving a goal, ending slavery, which nobody wanted), instead of the activity that it wasn't actually being spent on, anyway).

And, while you're at it, assert that said tariff was the real reason why South Carolina initiated the war. (And accuse anybody who asserts otherwise of being willfully ignorant, and of consuming revisionist history).

(When people point out that South Carolina actually announced why the seceded, and that the people themselves listed one and only one reason, then pretend like you haven't noticed this fact, and announce that well, you never actually stated that the tariff was the LONE reason).

----------

But, admittedly, I'm no doubt paraphrasing. And probably paraphrasing multiple people.

[JMS]

This assumes that the voters in those states would have cared enough to elect representative that would have cared.

If the history of the Kanasas war tought of anything it was that the folks there definitely cared enough to wage war and commit mayheim to promote their positions on both sides of this issue..

There really was no middle ground. The slavery issue was tied to the basic economy and livelyhood of the folks settling these new territories.

The South could not compete with drawing new states to it's side, because the vast majority of the US population was in the north, and the vast majority of immigrants were coming from countries which had long ago outlawed slavery.

Which on its face isn't true.

 

He could have committed suicide.

 

He could have fled to South America.

 

(The idea that a person is ONLY presented with one option is NEVER true.  The other options might not have been that attractive, but they are there.)

Well I would argue that if his choices were to commit suicide or flee to South America then he didn't have a choice. He would have to declair for either North or South.

[JMS]

Which is exactly why the South wanted to secede.    So that they wouldn't be a part of a majority non-slaveowning country, and potentially have to give up their slaves someday through the political process.   

 

ergo - they seceded over slavery.  They shot at Fort Sumter over slavery.  Slavery was the root cause of the conflict.  It was all about slavery.   Anything else is deflection and nonsense.

Again, you aren't wrong in your former statement, you are wrong with your latter statement..

I make the analogy with the second gulf war. We fought that war for oil, there is no question that without oil in that region/country we don't go. But if you asked the average American who supported that war, or the average American who fought in that war; they wouldn't say oil was their reason.

That's the distinction I'm making. To say the civil war was about slavery is symplistic, even though without slavery that war doesn't occur. To say the civil war was fought about freeing the slaves or between an anti slaver north and a pro slave south is even more problemmatic.

Clearly Southern Leadership was locked in a generational struggle with the leadership of the North which went back to the founding fathers on many issues the greatest of which was slavery. Clearly you are also correct in saying when the writing was on the wall, and the issue was all but decided with the south loosing; that's when a little more than half of the sucessionist states left the union. When Lincoln decided to raise an army and invade the south without the authorization of congress; that's when Virginia and the rest of the sucessionist states left 4 months after South Carolina suceded.

The proposal adopted by the Virigina convention of 1861 reflects states rights issues in it's first article. It also discusses it's objection to the use of force by the North, as well as slavery of coarse.

The other thing which is important to note is the North did not fight to end slavery. Lincoln invaded the south to perserve the union not end slavery, because he believed as outlined by the founding fathers of both north and southern heritage that biforcating the nation would lead to 1000 years of war, as Europe had experienced. This is outlined in the Federalist Papers. The war didn't become about slavery for the North until Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclaimation in January 1, 1863; nearly two years into the 4 year war. Even then Lincoln was barely able to get the thirteenth ammendment adopted January 31, 1865; only three months before the war ended. ( Lee's surrender April 9, 1865 ).