Slavery; the root cause of Secession & War

[Johan Steele]

There is a theory in England, believed perhaps by some, half believed by many more, which is only consistent with original ignorance, or complete subsequent forgetfulness, of all the antecedents of the contest. There are people who tell us that, on the side of the North, the question is not one of slavery at all. The North, it seems, have no more objection to slavery than the South have. Their leaders never say one word implying disapprobation of it. They are ready, on the contrary, to give it new guarantees; to renounce all that they have been contending for; to win back, if opportunity offers, the South to the Union by surrendering the whole point.

If this be the true state of the case, what are the Southern chiefs fighting about? Their apologists in England say that it is about tariffs, and similar trumpery. They say nothing of the kind. They tell the world, and they told their own citizens when they wanted their votes, that the object of the fight was slavery. Many years ago, when General Jackson was President, South Carolina did nearly rebel (she never was near separating) about a tariff; but no other State abetted her, and a strong adverse demonstration from Virginia brought the matter to a close. Yet the tariff of that day was rigidly protective. Compared with that, the one in force at the time of the secession was a free-trade tariff: This latter was the result of several successive modifications in the direction of freedom; and its principle was not protection for protection, but as much of it only as might incidentally result from duties imposed for revenue. Even the Morrill tariff (which never could have been passed but for the Southern secession) is stated by the high authority of Mr. H. C. Carey to be considerably more liberal than the reformed French tariff under Mr. Cobden's treaty; insomuch that he, a Protectionist, would be glad to exchange his own protective tariff for Louis Napoleon's free-trade one. But why discuss, on probable evidence, notorious facts? The world knows what the question between the North and South has been for many years, and still is. Slavery alone was thought of, alone talked of. Slavery was battled for and against, on the floor of Congress and in the plains of Kansas; on the slavery question exclusively was the party constituted which now rules the United States: on slavery Fremont was rejected, on slavery Lincoln was elected; the South separated on slavery, and proclaimed slavery as the one cause of separation.

The Contest in America by John Stuart Mill

Who am I to argue w/ the world's leading Economist of the day... and a contemporary of the War.

[gray]

What you offer is quite an incomplete assessment of the causes of secession. Tennessee, for instance, voted not to secede. Lincoln ordered Tennessee to provide troops to invade neighboring seceding states. This caused Tennessee to take another vote and favor secession.  As I remember, Virginia seceded on much the same grounds. The recent Congressional vote to increase already unpopular tariffs was one of the last straws. Lincoln's election was a factor since he was considered less favorable to Southern interests than other candidates. Lincoln himself stated that he was morally opposed to slavery but would not outlaw it. There was no serious danger of losing slavery. The main argument was the expansion of slavery into Federal territories especially as they might become states. The Southern states already were in a minority of votes in Congress and wanted the new territories to allow slavery so that their interests would more nearly correspond to Southern interests and would swing the balance of power South. The Northern interests were just as determined to outlaw slavery in territories so that if the territories became states they might side with Northern states. Congress had voted that runaway slaves in free states must be returned to their owners. This was a pro slavery vote. ----- Secession by Southern states was a declaration of independence from a hostile Federal government. The North went to war to preserve the Union. It wasn't about slavery.

[Johan Steele]

What you offer is quite an incomplete assessment of the causes of secession. Tennessee, for instance, voted not to secede. Lincoln ordered Tennessee to provide troops to invade neighboring seceding states. This caused Tennessee to take another vote and favor secession.  As I said:  "Who am I to argue w/ the world's leading Economist of the day... and a contemporary of the War."

TN's 2nd Secession vote... armed Pro CS troops in the polling places... TN troops already on their way to assist the CS.  Seems to me TN had decided well prior to the 2nd vote and I don't think they gave a hoot about any opposition vote. As I remember, Virginia seceded on much the same grounds. The recent Congressional vote to increase already unpopular tariffs was one of the last straws. Lincoln's election was a factor since he was considered less favorable to Southern interests than other candidates. Lincoln himself stated that he was morally opposed to slavery but would not outlaw it. There was no serious danger of losing slavery. The main argument was the expansion of slavery into Federal territories especially as they might become states. The Southern states already were in a minority of votes in Congress and wanted the new territories to allow slavery so that their interests would more nearly correspond to Southern interests and would swing the balance of power South. The Northern interests were just as determined to outlaw slavery in territories so that if the territories became states they might side with Northern states. Congress had voted that runaway slaves in free states must be returned to their owners. This was a pro slavery vote. Intended to placate the Secesh----- Secession by Southern states was a declaration of independence from a hostile Federal government. The North went to war to preserve the Union. Very true.  It wasn't about slavery. Men like Mosby, a Southerner and frankly a true CS hero and a fighting man of the highest order would disagree w/ you.

  Note your own words I highlighted why I firmly believe Secession was about slavery.  Take a look at who John Stuart Mill was.  He knew what he was talking abaout, frankly far more than I.

[gray]

There was a lot of emotionalism involved and a lot of inflammatory accusations including that the Northerners wanted to take away the slaves. The Cherokee Indians believed that the government would take their slaves without compensation. They mistrusted the Federal government already over losing their land and readily sided with the Confederates. Slavery didn't become a big issue until 1863. Before that it was just rhetoric. The war started after the North invaded the South to try to force the South back into the Union. The Southern states believed in states' rights and did not want a strong Federal government, especially a Federal government that was increasing tariffs on the South and treating the South as if they were a foreign country. Slavery was beginning to be unprofitable on the older plantations where the land had been overfarmed and was becoming less and less productive. Southern states wanted to diversify with industrialization and the North wanted to keep industrialization up North. Northern interests weren't in favor of ending slavery. They didn't want free blacks coming up North. A certain amount of criticism against Southern slavery was intended to keep public attention away from the shame of the industrial factories' common practice of child labor. It was worse than slavery and it was kept out of public view. The many, many differences between North and South can't be boiled down to just slavery.

[Johan Steele]

So men like Mosby, who knew what they were talking about because they lived it and disagree w/ your position were... what?  John Stuart Mill was the foremost Economist of his day and the day was a contemporary of the CW.  Why was he wrong and why should his opinion be worthless?

I'm using the words of men of the day to shape my opinions and men who lived it.  Not men who decided to revise their opinions and do their best to change facts to make themselves look better...

The Decleration of Causes are quite clear, only Georgia's even mentions the Tarriffs.  Btw Jeff Davis as a Senator voted for the tarriffs after President Polk convinced him the tarriff was in his own best interest...

Again the ROOT cause of Secession was slavery.  Was it the only cause, no but it was the cause at the base of all the CS complaints and it certainly trumped the tarriff which BTW equated to approx $3 a year per US citizen.  What was the value of slaves in the CS?  Compare that to approx $3... pretty thin argument, pretty bloody thin.

[Southron]

  Note your own words I highlighted why I firmly believe Secession was about slavery.  Take a look at who John Stuart Mill was.  He knew what he was talking abaout, frankly far more than I.

If anyone reads the entire article they will see that Mill was extremely biased in his views.

[ole]

If anyone reads the entire article they will see that Mill was extremely biased in his views.

Of course he was! Does that make him wrong? Calhoun was biased; as was Jeff Davis, Thaddeus Stevens, Robert Barnwell Rhett, William Lloyd Garrison, Governor Pickens, Abraham Lincoln, and on and on.

Bias is a concern only when some historian is expounding on findings of fact.
ole

[Johan Steele]

If anyone reads the entire article they will see that Mill was extremely biased in his views.

So men like Mosby, who knew what they were talking about because they lived it and disagree w/ your position were... what?  John Stuart Mill was the foremost Economist of his day and the day was a contemporary of the CW.  Why was he wrong and why should his opinion be worthless?

I'm using the words of men of the day to shape my opinions and men who lived it.  Not men who decided to revise their opinions and do their best to change facts to make themselves look better...

[Southron]

Over the years I've seen the Mill article cited in several works (typically by a Northern historian who points to it proudly as some sort of vindication of the North) but never had the opportunity to read the full article until recently. 

When I read it I was amazed at the extreme bias shown by the author and that anyone could hold this up as some "well-reasoned" view of the war. 

Only someone who holds the same extreme biases could see it as such.

[Johan Steele]

My only bias is w/ history.  I believe the CS began the War, the US won.  I believe Secession was over slavery.

So men like Mosby, who knew what they were talking about because they lived it and disagree w/ your position were... what?

I'm using the words of men of the day to shape my opinions and men who lived it.  Not men who decided to revise their opinions and do their best to change facts to make themselves look better...