Anybody watching the Civil War on PBS this week?

[WyandotteTX]

The 10% of Southerners who did own slaves were also the wealthiest most powerful members of that society so they were the catalyst and drivers of the said war. To THEM it was the reason why states rights was important because slaves were what was driving their economy thusly their wealth.

 

[Q9]

Okay, you know what? I think it'd be a good idea for me to lay out precisely why I believe that slavery was not a primary factor, and then just sign off of this thread - it'll come to no good if I stay on here.

First of all - obviously Southerners were nervous about the overwhelming Northern majority passing an immediate, non-compensated emancipation measure. That's undeniable, and I'm not going to deny it. That said, Lincoln's election was the catalyst for secession, and though Lincoln was personally anti-slavery, he supported an amendment to make slavery permananent (the "Corwin Amendment" I believe). However, he was militantly supportive of the tarriff.

Another reason I believe the tarriff was a prime reason was the infamous Nullification crisis. South Carolina, seeing that the tarriff would ruin the South's economy, nullified it. Andrew Jackson almost started a war, but in the end the central government backed down and crisis was averted. The tarriff in 1861 was even worse. It just makes sense that the election of Lincoln, who was pro-tarriff but supported a pro-slavery amendment, frightened the South primarily on the basis of increasing tarriffs, and slavery was, if anything, a secondary cause.

Also, the emancipation that the Radical Republicans were advocating was non-compensated and immediate, which would have certainly destroyed the South's economy and likely would have created violence, at least on and near the plantations with, er, "questionable" discipline practices - the results of immediate emancipation in several Carribbean nations come to mind. What Southern anti-slavery advocates had in mind was more akin to how England did it - compensated, to minimize economic damage, and somewhat gradual, for the benefit of both former slaves (education) and former owners (providing time to hire hands). In addition, the Radicals in the North were using incredibly violent and offensive rhetoric, sometimes literally advocating slave rebellion. This made the South even more sensitive to the murderous actions of John Brown and Nat Turner. Brown, in fact, was funded by Northern abolitionists. The South understandably wanted to do as much as possible to get them and their lethal intent out of the picture.

Last of all, but certainly not least, it was noted even in the South that slavery was actually more secure IN the Union than out of it. With Lincoln's support of the Corwin Amendment and the frighteningly well-enforced Fugitive Slave laws, the South did its "peculiar institution" harm by taking both of these slavery-supporting factors out of the picture. By leaving, the United States would not be bound to return fleeing slaves, and the Confederacy had already banned the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. You can see the threat these actions posed to slavery.

To sum it up, yes, slavery was a cause, but in different ways than you probably assumed. Did SOME Southerners want to protect slavery? Sure. Raphael Semmes, captain of the Alabama, did. Others, like Lee and Jackson, actively opposed it.

 

[Dunkopf]

I would be interested to know how onerous those tariffs really were. Was it really going to hurt their economy that bad or was it just a matter of the rich getting upset because their bottom line wasn't as big as they would like it to be? No way to really tell. Just as history repeats itself, you can judge history by todays events. If that's any gauge of what was going on it was probably just the rich wanting more on the bottom line.

I'll accept the other stuff though. Short sightedness seems to be a typical human flaw.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
You've outlined reasons why the educated powers-that-be in the South would choose to secede, and they are rational arguments with which I agree. However, if you were to take a poll of the common people of the South at the time just prior to secession, I think the overwhelming majority would have no awareness of the economic strangle-hold those tariffs would place on them. What they saw was a Northern president coming in and wanting to change their way of life. Compared to cultures in the North, the South has a stronger emphasis on tradition, and messing with that tradition is perceived as a threat. This alone would be enough impetus for the average non-rich barely-educated Southerner to leave his farm and go off to war.

I'm not disagreeing with you. In fact, I agree that the reasons you put forth are the ones that were the primary "executive decision" factors for the powers-that-be. But they don't translate well to the common people, whose support would be needed for the actual battle, and I believe effective rhetoric employed to gain popular support must have tapped into the feeling of a social threat coming in from the North, seeking to annihilate a "Southern way of life." Look at how politics today operate during election times. Are the advertisements advocating one candidate over another always presenting clear and logical arguments? Not so much. More often than not, advertisements aim to hit emotional targets by watering down facts and simplifying arguments in order to gain support.

Basically, yes, your reasons are correct for why it was beneficial for the South to secede from and go to war with the North. But those reasons aren't what was used to get people to sign up to be soldiers, and there were far more soldiers than there were individuals at the executive-decision level. So while your reasons are more correct for the powers-that-be, the "protecting our way of life" reasons were held by more actual people.

 

[foweler]

Quote:
Taken by itself probably no more onerous than any single step taken by the British parlament and the King to insure loyalty and continued revenue from the American colonies.
Any sample of any number of individual measures can be taken as tolerable when purposely isolated from a larger trend that they represent. That this tact is so often employed to give the appearance of over reaction is well worth noting.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

It seems, slavery or not, that the legitamacy of those words is timeless and applied as well in the 1860's as it did in the 1770's....as it applies today.

But then again, that is precisely why any mention of secession or nullification is immediately spun into an argument about slavery. To enforce the taboo that has been created around the very founding ideas of the country.
And that is why the old partial truths and misdirections must be rivived from time to time, using the latest and greatest cinemetography, to paint a picture so believable you would think you were there in the minds of the next generation. To have them cheering and waving their flags proudly as the good of powerful central govt smashed the evils of the human rights abuses that MUST arise in the absence of said collective power.


Of course you don't hear much about the principles of '98, the first ideas of secession spurred by the alien and sedition laws of the time and how the first talk of nullification was for IGNORING fugative slave laws.........​

 

[Q9]

Quote:
You've outlined reasons why the educated powers-that-be in the South would choose to secede, and they are rational arguments with which I agree. However, if you were to take a poll of the common people of the South at the time just prior to secession, I think the overwhelming majority would have no awareness of the economic strangle-hold those tariffs would place on them. What they saw was a Northern president coming in and wanting to change their way of life. Compared to cultures in the North, the South has a stronger emphasis on tradition, and messing with that tradition is perceived as a threat. This alone would be enough impetus for the average non-rich barely-educated Southerner to leave his farm and go off to war.

I'm not disagreeing with you. In fact, I agree that the reasons you put forth are the ones that were the primary "executive decision" factors for the powers-that-be. But they don't translate well to the common people, whose support would be needed for the actual battle, and I believe effective rhetoric employed to gain popular support must have tapped into the feeling of a social threat coming in from the North, seeking to annihilate a "Southern way of life." Look at how politics today operate during election times. Are the advertisements advocating one candidate over another always presenting clear and logical arguments? Not so much. More often than not, advertisements aim to hit emotional targets by watering down facts and simplifying arguments in order to gain support.

Basically, yes, your reasons are correct for why it was beneficial for the South to secede from and go to war with the North. But those reasons aren't what was used to get people to sign up to be soldiers, and there were far more soldiers than there were individuals at the executive-decision level. So while your reasons are more correct for the powers-that-be, the "protecting our way of life" reasons were held by more actual people.

Okay, I know I said I'd sign off, but I don't think I will - not yet, anyway. You're certainly right that the South had a much stronger emphasis on tradition, while the North emphasized progress. That said, the reason most people went to war probably actually didn't involve a whole lot of ideals or stuff like that. They looked and saw the United States launching an invasion, and they enlisted for the sole purpose of keeping the invader out.

Actually, the reason the South went to war anyway was for the sole purpose of keeping the invader out. I know what you meant, though.

Yes, probably what most of the people got were the (mostly true, actually) claims that the North had too much power, all we want is self-government, etc. etc. Journal entries indicate that a lot of Southern soldiers viewed themselves as fighting for the same basic cause as the Continental Army during the first War for Independence.

Know what's weird? I think I just said "I mostly agree with you" in the longest way possible, and probably give the appearance of disagreeing.

Thanks, BTW, for what has to be the first completely clear post on this thread (that includes mine!).

 

[Q9]

Quote:
You raise a good point, and I can see why you're suspicious. If you like, I'll provide some statistics on it - well, actually, I'll provide them whether you want them or not.

Okay, so the COMPROMISE tarriffs (post-nullification crisis) were not all that great anyway. In the 1840s, tarriff revenue was at $107.5 million. The South paid $90 million of it - 83%. This hurt, because the South was far more dependent on imports than the North, and was also a huge exporter, so they also suffered heavily from retaliatory foreign tarriffs, meaning that their goods didn't sell as well. By 1860, Southern exports were at $214 million, while the North's were at $47 million. Once again, the South ended up paying 83% of the revenue. By the beginning of the War, Lincoln and the Radical Republicans had hiked the rates up by 40%.

To add insult to injury, almost all of the revenue went to the North. When the South left, a lot of Northern businesses went berserk, freaking out (rather justifiably, for once) at the prospect of the South instituting low-tarriff or even tarriff-free ports and sucking trade away from the North. They helped prod Lincoln into launching a war - in fact, Lincoln himself was greatly concerned about the loss of tarriff revenue.

To sum it up in one sentence - the South, with a much smaller population, paid 83% of the tarriff revenue, while the North, a high-population industrial powerhouse, only paid 17%. And it all went North. By the time of Lincoln's election, the rates had spiked higher.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
You raise a good point, and I can see why you're suspicious. If you like, I'll provide some statistics on it - well, actually, I'll provide them whether you want them or not.

Okay, so the COMPROMISE tarriffs (post-nullification crisis) were not all that great anyway. In the 1840s, tarriff revenue was at $107.5 million. The South paid $90 million of it - 83%. This hurt, because the South was far more dependent on imports than the North, and was also a huge exporter, so they also suffered heavily from retaliatory foreign tarriffs, meaning that their goods didn't sell as well. By 1860, Southern exports were at $214 million, while the North's were at $47 million. Once again, the South ended up paying 83% of the revenue. By the beginning of the War, Lincoln and the Radical Republicans had hiked the rates up by 40%.

To add insult to injury, almost all of the revenue went to the North. When the South left, a lot of Northern businesses went berserk, freaking out (rather justifiably, for once) at the prospect of the South instituting low-tarriff or even tarriff-free ports and sucking trade away from the North. They helped prod Lincoln into launching a war - in fact, Lincoln himself was greatly concerned about the loss of tarriff revenue.

To sum it up in one sentence - the South, with a much smaller population, paid 83% of the tarriff revenue, while the North, a high-population industrial powerhouse, only paid 17%. And it all went North. By the time of Lincoln's election, the rates had spiked higher.

I agree, and want to add that this is not something to learn only through independent investigation. This was all presented way back when I was in high school and was taking AP American History in my junior year (in New York, a "Yankee State"). This was the driving force for the powers-that-be that initiated the war, but what was publicly touted at the time was slavery and the issue of states having the right to decide on the issue. So people who say the war was fought over slavery are correct, but in a different way from those who say the war was fought over economics and states' rights. I'm sure we can think of many other wars that had financial motives for the powers-that-be but were popularized under social causes.