Secession and the Constitution

[unionblue]

My sincere apologies for the delay in responding.  Personally, I've had an eventful couple of weeks.  Computer problems, dodging one hurricane and as I write this another hurricane is bearing down on us.  This one is huge and the outter bands of it will begin bringing wind and rain in just a few hours.  It should be directly on top of us in the early am hours of Saturday.  I will almost surely lose power.  How long is the question.  Several days isn't out of the realm of possibility.  We decided not to evacuate.

Rose,

First let me express how happy I am that you or none of your suffered any harm from the storm.  Life here at the forum would be extremely dull if you were not here to infuse it with some excellent content and debate.  I hope things return to normal in your area as quickly as possible and that you can get on with just the simple joy of living.

Thanks Blue for your reply.  You raised many good questions.  I'll probably have to post a couple of times to respond to it all.

First...a question…Do you think if the South had suddenly abolished slavery like the North wanted that there would have been no secession…no war?   The South would never have willingly taken the subordinate role in the Union. With sudden emancipation agriculture and economy in the South would have been ruined. Only deeper animosity and hatred would have followed and secession would still have been the result.  At the time there was no way to bridge the gap between the sections except for one side to bow to the other.  Both sides believing themselves to be right wouldn’t budge.  The South couldn’t afford to and the North simply refused to.

First, Rose, let's stick to history instead of "what if's." 

You and I both know that the South was not going to suddenly abolish slavery and that the majority of the North didn't want them to.  The majority of the North could have cared less about the condition of the black man, free or slave, so this question, in this form, is absolutely meaningless. 

I do agree the Southern leadership did not wish to take a subordinate role in the government, as it had grown very comfortable with having it's own way with the federal government for the past seventy years until the election of Lincoln.  But Rose, NO one was talking about the "sudden emancipation" of black slaves in the South except for a few abolitionists who had NO power to force such emancipation, suddenly or gradually.  So this whole scenario you propose of ruination of the Southern economy, deeper animosity and hatred over such, came nowhere close to being exercised merely by the election of Lincoln.

THe South still held the Supreme Court, control of the US Senate, and could muster enough support to block any harmful legislation before it reached the desk of the Republican president Lincoln.  So the South was not politically helpless.  The only gap that could not be breeched was the apparent inability of the South to force the institution of slavery into the federal territories or its ongoing inability to enable the federal government to expand the institution into Mexico, Cuba, etc.  This is what was intolerable to the people that embraced the institution at the expense of all others, to include the citizens of their own states.

Now, if you wish to advance the idea that if slavery had not EVER existed in the United States, North or South, I am of the opinion that there would have been no Civil War.

The South’s reasons as spelled out in their “Declarations of Causes for Secession“, mention slavery only in the context that the Northern states were interfering with it, so was it slavery, per se, or was it Northern interference in Southern matters that pushed the South to secede?  I say it was the insulting interference of the North.  The Southern states saw it that way, too.  It was intolerable to these people that embraced state sovereignty and minimal central government.

Rose, let us both be sure that we understand that their "Declarations of Causes for Secession" mention slavery prominently over all others, that slavery was the primary cause of secession.  Until we do this, we're just chasing shadows, instead of identifying the real cause of the war and the motives behind them.  It was slavery, per se, and what was the institution being "interfered" with, slavery, insulted, slavery, and what was intolerable, any interference, insult, or mention of slavery.  So could slavery been at the bottom of it all?

There were continuous, ongoing efforts to expand the territory of the United States in order to expand the institution of slavery. Filibuster expeditions, the War with Mexico, attempts to buy or conquer Cuba, speeches made in Congress to expand into South America, the Walker expeditions, Olmsted, etc. The South was very anxious to expand the institution, even at the risk of war with other nations in this hemisphere.

Do you really believe efforts to expand the United States was only a ploy designed by the South to expand slavery and that no Northerners were interested in expansion? The Walker Expedition was supported by Cornelius Garrison, ship builder and  capitalist along with Charles Morgan, railroad and shipping magnate.  Note that neither were Southerners nor were they involved in growing cotton in the South.  The handful of wealthy slave owners supporting expansion of slavery had to be few.  In 1860 less than ½ of 1% of the Southern population owned 100 or more slaves and could profit by expansion.   The vast majority of Southerners had never traveled outside their own state and had no inclination to spread slavery. 

The majority of efforts to expand the United States was backed by Southerners, yes, and I do believe that as the historical record tends to support that view.  Oh, yes, there were Northerners who supported the idea of taking over Canada by force, during the Revolution and the War of 1812, and even in the period before the Civil War.  But this in no way somehow denies the historical record of attempts by Southern filibusters trying to expand the institution of slavery through means of conquest of our Southern neighbors.  While I agree with you that a majority of Southerners had never traveled outside their own state, this does not negate the fact that Southern slaveholders, who held most of the wealth and political power, did attempt to buy or conquer Cuba, parts of Mexico and South America, to expand that power and wealth through the expansion of slavery.

In 1898 the U.S. wrested  Puerto Rico from the Spanish.  This couldn’t have been in order to expand slavery.  St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John were purchased in order to become the US Virgin Islands in 1917.  The US took on Alaska and Hawaii as new states in the twentieth century, so I believe it’s obvious slavery wasn’t the only or even the major reason for Americans wanting to expand the US.

A different time and a different set of circumstances, Rose.  Of course the US wasn't expanding into these areas to advance slavery.  But don't you think the situation had changed just a tad with the abolishment of slavery in the US in 1866?

And Northerners believed their state's rights were being violated. Hence the election of 1860 with slavery as the core issue. Should it expand into the federal territories or contained to where it already existed. An election showing the will of the majority was to have settled the issue and when the South would not abide by that election, they seceded over the issue of slavery.

The majority of people lived in the North.  Therefore a majority election eliminated the will of an entire section of the country.  As to the North having their state’s rights violated, if that were true, they would have been “violated” legally by the U.S. Constitution.  The rights of the Southern states were violated, not by the Constitution but, illegally by some of the Northern states who refused to abide by the fugitive slave act.

Rose, the process worked the same for both sections.  Both sections had agreed to abide by legal elections as mandated in the US Constitution.  Slaves were being returned under the Fugitive Slave Act and the federal government was abiding by it.  What angered the Southern leadership is that some Northern States were applying the same "States Rights" argument as they were with their Personal Liberty Laws.  Now why is it o.k. for a Southern State to limit freedom of speech, restrict the US Mail and have no debate on the question of slavery, but yet then turn around and say another State cannot decide how things are done within its boundries?  Fair is fair. 

And why, Rose, did most fugitive slaves keep going until they got to Canada?  Because they knew they could still be captured and returned to the South if they were caught in ANY Northern State, regardless of their own State Laws because the Fugitive Slave Law trumped any State Law to the contrary.

But as for the idea that the South did NOT go to war over the issue of slavery, that statement simply does not hold up under historical examination. The South seceded over slavery. The North went to war with the South over secession, but the very reason the South seceded was over the protection of slavery and there was no other paramount reason for the South to take the actions it did except for slavery. IMO.

How about the fact that their way of life was being attacked by outsiders?  What about the fact that they believed if the North had their way the South would become financially ruined and without enough political power in Congress to defend their states?

Who was attacking that way of life?  What outsiders had the power to change it?  Lincoln was at one point decried by abolitionists as having a Southern point-of-view and marrying into a slaveholding family.  Most abolishionists didn't support him or trust him to do ANYTHING about slavery.  As for the abolishionist movement, what power did they hold?  Hardly any worth mentioning and their voice had been practically muzzeled in the South for decades.  The North was doing business with the South and in no way wanted in ruined and the South had not lost any political power that placed it in any real jeopardy.  What RIGHT did the South lose with the election of Lincoln?  What part of the political process was DENIED them?  What political action could they no longer take to protect themselves from Lincoln's administration?  NONE. 

Rose:  "If Southern leaders had been able to persuade the federal government to acquire Cuba, she would have become an American state."
Union Blue: Like Puerto Rico? 

A territory like Puerto Rico or perhaps a state like Alaska and Hawaii.

Ahhh! What might have been! Or we could speculate that with the purchase of Cuba, slavery would have been expanded, kept longer and been harder to root out later. Or perhaps with the money spent to buy Cuba, we would have missed out on buying Alaska from Russia and had those commies on our doorstep.

We could play "what if" all day, Rose, but it doesn't change history.

Hmmm.  Fact is we didn’t acquire Cuba and we will never know if it would have been used to expand slavery.  Certainly if the Northern states had their way slavery wouldn’t have became a part of Cuba and the Northern states had more voters to get their way in matters of expansion of slavery.  But, you are right, these “what if” games don’t change history.

Make that "at the time of secession there wasn't ANY movement to eliminate slavery by Southern people" and I will agree with you 100%.

There wasn’t any organized movement.  As I noted, some people were beginning to look at slavery in a different light.  It was more a change in the sentiments of people than any real movement.  From reading diaries, journals and letters of the antebellum period I’ve found that a fair amount of  Southerner's sympathies were with the slave.  They were willing their slaves to be freed upon their death and some were seeking ways for their slaves to be free and not suffer for it. Some allowed their slaves to work off their farms for wages which they could keep all or part of.  In this way they were allowed to purchase their freedom.  Many owners simply accepted their slaves as extended family and cared for them as such.  Of course, not all slave owners felt this way, but it was a growing trend, particular among the gentry.

My point is on the above, Rose, is so what?  Were any of these people in a position of political power or social bearing to reverse the trend of chattel slavery in the South?  No.  You have noted the occasional exception, but not the political or social will to change an institution that many Southerners considered a cherished way of life and a social norm.  It is in fact, a historical truth that the majority of slave owners could not concieve of giving up their slaves and felt their condition was the natural order of things.  It was not a "growing trend" among the gentry nor was there a grass roots effort to change the condition of the slave.

In the 18th century, Washington and Jefferson's time, slavery was considered an 'evil' and at least Washington put his money where his mouth was and freed his slaves. What did Robert E. Lee & Mary Chestnut do? They lamented and waited for God to settle the question and both considered slavery the best for the black man. By the time of the 19th century, slavery was being extoled as a "positive good" and there was NO one trying to eliminate it. Excuses are not action.

Yes, Washington, the esteemed father of our country, freed his slaves in his will…after he wouldn’t be inconvenienced by their freedom.  His will stated they were not to be freed as long as Martha lived, also.  That was most generous of him.  Robert E. Lee, unlike Washington didn’t own slaves.  That was his contribution.  "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."-R.E.L.

Others like Thomas Jefferson had slaves tied up in notes and mortgages.  It was impossible, legally, to free them.  Many planters were in Jefferson’s shoes. Still others believed it would be cruel to turn slaves out on their own with no where to go and no way to earn a living.  The slavery issues weren’t as black and white (no pun intended) as it is made out to be. 

What were the Northern states and the Abolitionists doing to help find and offer a solution?

Now, now, Rose!  Have those Northern States and Abolitionists interfere with the Southern institution?  Threaten their economy?  Cause all that insult, hatred and intolerable feelings among the South?  Which is it Rose?  Stay out or help and offer a solution?

And these "prominent Southerners" were who?

You mean in addition to the ones I mentioned?  Well…certainly I don’t know them all by a long shot, but I can name a few.  Constance Cary Harrison's (a nineteenth century author) family were among the first Virginians to manumit their slaves.  While they did hire slaves belonging to others to work as servants, Ms. Harrison rationalized, "our servants were hired black people, good and faithful souls, but, thank Heaven! not slaves of ours"

Sarah and Angelina Grimke, two South Carolina sisters toured the North preaching against slavery. There were also Southern families who participated in the underground railroad.  In 1796 Richard Randolph, cousin to Thomas Jefferson, manumitted his 90 slaves and allowed them to settle on his land.  George Custis willed his slaves to be freed withing 5 years of his death.  There are many examples of Southerners willing the freedom of their slaves upon their death, thereby setting examples for others.

And my point of asking for these examples was to show they had little or no impact on those in power, the slaveholders who held the reins of political and social power in the South, who kept slavery as their means to such wealth and power.

I know I haven't responded to all of your points, but I'll get back later.  There will be the usual clean up after the storm and power restoration will be the big question.

Later...
Rose

Until that time,

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Union Blue, thanks for the good wishes.  Sorry to hear that you were without power from Ike, too.  Three days without power makes us realize how much we depend on the things we tend to take for granted. It's incredible how many people were effected by that storm.  Also, thanks for your patience in waiting for my reply.

Slaves were much in demand and prices for slaves were at their highest right before the war. The institution was worth billions and investments in slaves was at an all-time high. The facts simply won't support this view.

This has been an ongoing argument among scholars.  Not everyone is in agreement.  Personally, I believe slavery could be profitable, but often wasn’t.  Sometimes, owners were “slave poor”, owning too many slaves that were too old/young to work, but still had to be fed and clothed. At that point they were liabilities.  Still others often had liens against them. Good workers or bad, healthy or not, the owner was stuck with them.  Slaves were cost prohibitive to most people.  Profitability depended on the long term, it wasn’t quick riches and some owners just didn‘t manage as well as others.

Rose, it is my own impression that a majority of scholars are in agreement that this is just a historical fact that you and I should accept.  Slavery was profitable to those who could afford slaves and wasn't to those who could not afford to buy them.  Herein lies your true meaning of being "slave poor."  As for feeding and clothing slaves, the price of doing so was minimal, especially for those who owned many prime field hands.  The fact remains that the institution was profitable and slave prices were going UP not down because of the huge demand for slaves.  To further prove my point, here is some information from the book, A Pro-slavery Crusade, by Ronald T. Takaki:

"The high cotton prices of the 1850s noticeably boosted the price of slaves.  The price of a prime field hand in the New Orleans market skyrocketed from $700 in 1845 to $1,000 in 1850 to $1,800 in 1860, and the slave prices in the Virginia, Georgia, and Charleston markets followed the same pattern.  In 1859 Edmund Ruffin estimated that slave prices had doubled since 1844 and that the escalation would continue...Southern newspapers throughout the 1850s reported the new slave prices with great excitement.  In 1854 the New Orleans Delta, for example, announced that at a recent sale slave prices were "extraordinary," and that one man commanded $3,000, another $1,970, others $1,600 and $1,700."

The North had lived with Southern administrations for over 70 years. They could not live with a Northern one for four? Sorry, Rose, that's an attempt to rouse panic, not point to a problem. That is an attempt to say democracy worked for us, but we can't afford to let it work for you. Poppycock.

Southern administrations weren’t detrimental to the Northern economy.  The North and South were so different that they may as well have been different countries…probably should have been.  One administration couldn’t work to the optimal benefit of both sections.  Too often one section had to sacrifice for the benefit of the other. The North was petulant and wanted their way in matters.  With immigrants continually pouring in to the Northern states they could out vote the South on most issues by 1860.  The South was equally stubborn, but as the minority they were fighting for survival.

Sorry, Rose, but the above argument doesn't make any sense to me at all.  70 years of Southern administrations could run the country without detriment, but a Republican elected for four years will ruin the Southern region?  Doesn't wash.  The North can survive for 70 years, benefiting both sections, but Lincoln was going to be so detrimental to the South in what way?  He was not going to interfere with slavery where it was, no political right was being withheld from the South, no attempt to subvert the law, so how was the South going to be "hurt?"

As for one section benefiting at the expense of another, I suggest this had been happening all along, with the West feeling left out and the South getting breaks on slavery legislation and the North not getting the high tariffs it wanted.  It's called politics and is pretty normal.  As for immigrants pouring into the North, why didn't they head South?  Are they to be forced to migrate to a place that does not welcome them, does not want them, and does not suit their own views?  The South, in my view, was not only stubborn, but selfish and suicidal.

Rose: What the South did or did not do to improve their region is of little consequence."
Union Blue: I agree when it comes to trying to make the tariff the cause of the war.

But, you believe the North was right to expect the South to pay a share to improve Northern infrastructure and shore up the manufacturing businesses?

I believe that no such right existed nor was the North so heavily favored at the tariff trough that it was an exceptionally heavy burden for the South.  The South bellied up to the same tariff trough when it wanted a shipyard, forts, mints, hemp making facilities for the navy, mail subsidies, etc.  There is simply no reason to make this a cause or a reason to kill hundreds of thousands of your fellow countrymen.

Absolutely untrue, Rose. Millions were expended in the South from the federal revenue. Postal subsidies, forts, arsenals, lighthouses, custom houses, court houses, mints, shipyards, etc. Please provide any evidence that the South was being given "little access" to federal expenditures.

The South didn’t protest any form of tariff.  They protested the protection tariff designed to subsidize and/or protect Northern business and industry.  The lack of Southern infrastructure is proof of “little access”.

No, Rose, it is not.  It is proof of a deliberate choice on the part of the South when it could have just as easily chose to invest in infrastructure.  They were encouraged to do so by our Southern friend DeBow and refused to do so.  The North did not keep the South from doing so. 

Perhaps this is why South Carolina said the people had come to the issue of secession over the cause of slavery and NOT of the tariff? The fact of the matter is, Rose, the US Mail touched more peoples lives in the South than any other federal program or institution, to include the tariff.

I’ve explained earlier that the South wasn’t against a fair and modest tariff.  They realized the government must have money to run the country and the tariff was the best plan at the time to raise revenue.  The people of South Carolina had little complaint of the tariff at the time directly before the war.  It was in the ongoing process of being lowered to a reasonable amount.  However, that wasn’t always the case and soon  would no longer be the case, either.  The newly elected Lincoln believed strongly in a protection tariff.

So again, it's "what might have happened" that brought on the war?  That somehow a future, higher tariff figured into South Carolina seceding from the Union?  Sounds more like that "Pureto Rico" what if argument we had a post or two back.  The historical fact of the matter is, back up by our friend Rhett, that the Southern people came to action of secession based upon slavery, not the tariff.  I will leave it there, in history, not in the "what might have been" catagory.

You are correct, as NO taxes were collected and therefore no one in the South PAID any taxes for ships unloading foreign imports no matter where the port was located.

We are rehashing old arguments.  The South was dependent economically on exports.

Rose, NO tariffs are collected on exports.  Being economically dependent on exports does not cost the South one thin dime, except for the choice already made to export on someone else's Northern ship, arranged for by Northern shippers and jobbers, whom the Southern exporter had decided was OK with him. 

A high tariff on imports hurts exporters most of all. 

This would be true if such a tariff was in effect at the time, but it was not.  The lowest tariff rate in the history of the United States was in place at this time, considered by most economic historians as an almost "free trade" period at the time.

Of course the North paid the same tariff on imports as the South did.  It’s just that those tariffs were boosting the Northern economy, via protecting industry, while harming the Southern economy.

You keep ignoring the fact that the South had equal access to the same tariff revenues as the North did.  Yes, the North could use the tariff to protect its industry, while the South could use the very same tariff to subsidise its mail costs, to build mints, ship yards, dredge harbors, etc.  The tariff is not the concern you wish it to be and the South made it plain it was not their primary concern either for leaving the Union.

The South grew the cotton, the South and the rest of the country imported the goods they wanted in trade via the Northern ships and ports the South did business with. They did this because they wanted to and did not invest ANY money into their own port improvements or their own shipbuilding industry, even though it had been pointed out to them repeatedly by Southern leaders. It was cheaper and simpler to do it this way. In other words, those in the South who did import goods and pay the tariff accepted this way of doing things and had for decades.

And…this should have been a great arrangement for both sides.  During the period of reasonable tariffs it was a great arrangement. As long as exorbitant protection for Northern industry existed cotton exports and Southern economy suffered.  Investing money into Southern ports and building a shipping industry wouldn’t have fixed the problem.

Rose, you keep referencing this "exorbitant protection for Northern industry."  You cannot make this fly in face of the fact that the lowest tariff rate in American history was in effect.  The protection you complain about simply was not in existence at this time.  And frankly, DeBow thought that investment of Southern money into Southern ports and ships was exactly what was needed to fix the problem of Southern dependency on Northern shipping and manufacturing.

No problem with you view that the tariff was originally designed to protect Northern industrial interests. It was. But again, you're freezing a moment in time and saying it applied in 1860. It didn't. The tariff of 1860 was so low it was considered a 'free trade' tariff and not the source of contention many would like it to be.

Absolutely true, much to the chagrin of Northern industry tycoons.  But then, much to their joy,  Abe Lincoln was elected. 

Rose, I imagine this is you expressing the joy of Northern industry tycoons and not a very factual reading of those men.  It was they who went to Lincoln to advise no action against the South during all the forts, ships, mints, arsenals, etc., being seized, as it would be "bad for business."

The South struggled for decades to get the tariff to a reasonable level and for the most part they had accomplished that.  Lincoln was a strong believer in protection for industry.  He referred to himself as “an old Henry Clay tariff Whig”. In the 1830’s while running for state legislature he claimed”

And HOW was Lincoln to get this higher tariff into being?  He HAD to go through the Congress, the Senate, and it came off as too high-handed or ilegal, through the Supreme Court, ALL of which could be blocked by Southern interests or were still under the control of the South.  I don't dispute your contention that Lincoln did campaign on a higher tariff plank and that he proclaimed himself as "an old Henry Clay tariff Whig" but you paint the blackest picture using only one color.  Again, HOW was Lincoln to get his tariff increase when the South still had all its representation in the Senate, the ability to block any objectionable tariff legislation in the House, and control of the Supreme Court?  The process that had served the South for generations was still intact.  The election of Lincoln did not bring the legislative process crashing down nor did it foretell with absolute certainty that a higher tariff woudl be passed.

“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.”

In 1859 Lincoln wrote to Edward Wallace: “In old times I made more speeches on that subject than any other. I have not since changed my views".  “That subject” he was referring to was protective tariffs.

Both above statements were said or written by Lincoln, no argument there.  But how was he to get his higher tariff?  By the process I have described in my previous paragraph.

His views alarmed Southerners who had worked hard to limit tariffs.  Indeed, he likely wouldn’t have been elected had he not endorsed protection for the industries.  By voting for Lincoln the Northern people were voting for two main goals, high protection tariffs and against slavery. 

First off, Rose, it was the issue of slavery and Stephen Douglass's Popular Sovereignty platform that led Lincoln back into politics and the presidential race.  Tariffs were strictly a side issue, and a minor one compared to the slavery issue.  Just read Lincoln's Cooper Union speech and look for the tariff issue anywhere within it, and this is the speech that supposedly got him elected as President, or at the very least, put him on the national stage.  Look at the Lincoln v. Douglass debates and see how much of each man's speech is devoted to the tariff and how much to the issue of slavery.  No comparison.  While some industrialists might have supported him for the tariff, a majority of this nation voted over the issue of slavery and its expansion into the federal territories and that was the primary issue the Northern people were concerned about.

It’s almost as if they wanted to goad the South into seceding.

I would have to take off my trifocles and cross my eyes in a dark room with the light off to "see" it that way, friend Rose.

And I would like to know who those many Northerners were who admitted in 1860 that the tariff was unfair.

I don’t know as the dates were 1860.  Occasionally I’ve came across Northern speeches and editorials that admitted the tariff was unfair to the South.  Unfortunately, I don't remember the sources. I’d have to search them out again, but I may need a little time.

Rose, there were no "imports from the North" as this would be considered internal trade between regions, but no matter.

Technically this is true.  However, I’m of the opinion that the sections were so different as to be foreign to one another.  Indeed, many Southerners claimed their respective states as their “country”.  But, yes.  There were no tariffs between North and South trade except for the ones incurred by the Northern merchants on imports and passed on to the South via sales.

As for the South having to pay for items it did not produce, again, this was a choice by the leadership and primary businessmen of the day, cotton growers.

I’ve never considered this to be unfair.

Now, if you want to gripe about shipping costs from the North to the South, I'm sorry, but that's called business, not a tariff burden.

I had no intention of bringing up shipping costs.

It would have been flat out impossible to base secession on the issue of the tariff as South Carolina proved in 1828 and 1830. And if anyone in the 19th, let alone the 21st century, tell me the future of a political administration, please give them my email address.

I have not based secession on tariffs,

Yet you seem to be unable not to link them with a underlying cause of the war.

although I’ve mentioned that inflated protection tariffs were unfair and while they were low in 1960 it had been a struggle on the Southern end to get them down to a reasonable level and the Northern manufacturers were still clamoring for protection. 

I'm sure you mean "1860" and not "1960" but no matter.  I am constantly puzzeled by your continued statement that although the tariffs were at an all-time low, inflated tariffs were unfair (of which there were none at the beginning of the Civil War) and that Northern manufactures were still clamoring for protection.  Why is this such an evil to you?  This was a political issue that in the entire history of the nation, never came close to dividing the nation, even with South Carolina's temper tantrum in the 1830s over nullification.

It was alarming to Southerners that a president leaning toward protection had been elected.  The Southern states, which had already become a minority in the House of Representatives, were now facing a future as a perpetual minority in the Senate and Electoral College against an increasingly powerful North. Southern leaders had not forgotten the exorbitant protective tariffs of the past. I repeat, I do not claim the tariff was the cause of secession.  But it was a very serious concern for Southerners.

You try to hard to make them into a concern that not even the Southern leadership considered them.  A concern is one thing, killing your fellow countrymen over the tariff rate was not the issue.

As for your last line, it simply says to me, the tariff was not the cause of the Civil War.

Seems we are in agreement on this.  The difference being that perhaps you don't believe it was a factor at all and I think it had considerable influence on decisions made by the South.

In this Rose, you are correct.  I don't believe, based on what I have learned and read about the tariff issue, it was not a factor at all in bringing on the war.

Lincoln was elected on the issue of slavery, not tariffs.  The South left the Union over the concern about slavery.

And the war came.

Rose

Until our next post.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Wild Rose]

First, Rose, let's stick to history instead of "what if's."

Ok.

You and I both know that the South was not going to suddenly abolish slavery and that the majority of the North didn't want them to. The majority of the North could have cared less about the condition of the black man, free or slave, so this question, in this form, is absolutely meaningless.

You are correct about slavery and the black man, but the question did have purpose.  You don’t, of course, have to answer any question you don’t want to.

So this whole scenario you propose of ruination of the Southern economy, deeper animosity and hatred over such, came nowhere close to being exercised merely by the election of Lincoln.

It was a hypothetical question.

THe South still held the Supreme Court, control of the US Senate, and could muster enough support to block any harmful legislation before it reached the desk of the Republican president Lincoln. So the South was not politically helpless.

Not quite yet they weren‘t.

Now, if you wish to advance the idea that if slavery had not EVER existed in the United States, North or South, I am of the opinion that there would have been no Civil War.

Sorry.  That would be dealing with “what ifs”.  There was slavery for a fact. 

It was slavery, per se, and what was the institution being "interfered" with, slavery, insulted, slavery, and what was intolerable, any interference, insult, or mention of slavery. So could slavery been at the bottom of it all?

I’m more inclined to believe it was people who couldn’t mind their own business that was at the bottom of it all.  Blaming slavery is like blaming the gun for the actions of the person who pulled the trigger.

While I agree with you that a majority of Southerners had never traveled outside their own state, this does not negate the fact that Southern slaveholders, who held most of the wealth and political power, did attempt to buy or conquer Cuba, parts of Mexico and South America, to expand that power and wealth through the expansion of slavery.

I can agree that perhaps ½ of 1 percent of Southerners were in  a position to enjoy expansion of slavery and perhaps pushed for it.

Now why is it o.k. for a Southern State to limit freedom of speech, restrict the US Mail and have no debate on the question of slavery, but yet then turn around and say another State cannot decide how things are done within its boundries? Fair is fair.

I do not know of a single instance in which a Southern state gave a fig about what was going on in a Northern state except when it came to the return of their property which was protected under the Constitution.

And why, Rose, did most fugitive slaves keep going until they got to Canada? Because they knew they could still be captured and returned to the South if they were caught in ANY Northern State, regardless of their own State Laws because the Fugitive Slave Law trumped any State Law to the contrary.

That and the fact that the North didn’t want them in their states.  The Compromise of 1850, lead by Clay, Webster and Calhoun was meant to settle the disagreement of returning fugitive slaves.  It didn’t.  However, Webster warned that if the North disregarded the Constitution, the South could not be expected to obey it; a bargain cannot be broken by one party and still bind another.  The North passed “personal liberty” laws as a measure to defy the fugitive slave law.  Attempts to enforce the FSL in the free states sometimes resulted in riots.  Officers and slave-owners were attacked and sometimes killed and slaves were set free.  Northern authorities did little to enforce the law and punish those who broke it.

Who was attacking that way of life?

Northern citizens who had the power in numbers vote their preferences, which effected the entire country, into law.

What outsiders had the power to change it?

The Federal Government had the power to enforce the Constitution.  The people, themselves, had the power to do the right thing and allow Southerners to see to their own affairs just as Southerners were willing to refrain from interfering in other states business.

What RIGHT did the South lose with the election of Lincoln? What part of the political process was DENIED them? What political action could they no longer take to protect themselves from Lincoln's administration? NONE.

I don’t claim the South lost any rights with the election of Lincoln.  I don’t claim any political process was denied them  I don’t claim there was any political action they could not take to protect them from the Lincoln administration…immediately, that is..  However, the South was the minority in the voting block as the election of Lincoln proves.  Sectionalism was sharply divided.  The South was soon to be a minority in federal government with no means to protect their home interests.  They knew the North was against their peculiar institution and for higher tariffs to protect Northern interests.  The federal government simply no longer worked for the South.  They only wanted to govern themselves and leave the North to do the same.

Were any of these people in a position of political power or social bearing to reverse the trend of chattel slavery in the South? No. You have noted the occasional exception, but not the political or social will to change an institution that many Southerners considered a cherished way of life and a social norm. It is in fact, a historical truth that the majority of slave owners could not concieve of giving up their slaves and felt their condition was the natural order of things. It was not a "growing trend" among the gentry nor was there a grass roots effort to change the condition of the slave.

Blue, nothing ever stays the same.  The South, just like every country before and since, would have eliminated slavery in their own time.  The Northern states seemed to have a different time table, but it wasn’t their decision.  And…I do believe the tides were turning and slavery was on its way out.  I admit the wheels were turning slowly because of the complications of the Southern economy being so tangled with slavery, but it couldn’t last and a war was not necessary in order to eliminate slavery.

Now, now, Rose! Have those Northern States and Abolitionists interfere with the Southern institution? Threaten their economy? Cause all that insult, hatred and intolerable feelings among the South? Which is it Rose? Stay out or help and offer a solution? 

All of the above and I’ll stay in, thank you.  As for a solution, I don’t think there is one.  We seem to be doomed to remain on opposite sides of the fence.

And my point of asking for these examples was to show they had little or no impact on those in power, the slaveholders who held the reins of political and social power in the South, who kept slavery as their means to such wealth and power.

I don’t believe you have any way of knowing what, if any, influence the my examples of anti-slavery Southerners had.  There was never any chance to find out since the war effectively ended the era of antebellum history.

Sorry for the delay, again.  I won’t bore you with excuses, but I have plenty of them.

Rose

[unionblue]

Wild_Rose,

I have not forgotten you, but please permit that I am somewhat busier than usual and cannot give you the quality reply that you deserve.

I will return.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Johan Steele]

THe South still held the Supreme Court, control of the US Senate, and could muster enough support to block any harmful legislation before it reached the desk of the Republican president Lincoln. So the South was not politically helpless.

Not quite yet they weren‘t.  And not in the forseeable future.

It was slavery, per se, and what was the institution being "interfered" with, slavery, insulted, slavery, and what was intolerable, any interference, insult, or mention of slavery. So could slavery been at the bottom of it all?

I’m more inclined to believe it was people who couldn’t mind their own business that was at the bottom of it all.  Blaming slavery is like blaming the gun for the actions of the person who pulled the trigger.  Some are willing to fight evil (slavery), others wish to excuse and defend it.

While I agree with you that a majority of Southerners had never traveled outside their own state, this does not negate the fact that Southern slaveholders, who held most of the wealth and political power, did attempt to buy or conquer Cuba, parts of Mexico and South America, to expand that power and wealth through the expansion of slavery.

I can agree that perhaps ½ of 1 percent of Southerners were in  a position to enjoy expansion of slavery and perhaps pushed for it.  What percentage of the political, economic and cultural power of the South was held by slaveowners?  I would wager it more than a miniscule 1%, and I think you know that.  A planter or other slaveowner knew where his property values lay.  And with 4 millions of slaves... I don't think they were owned by a paltry 1%.  THose who authored Seccession were slaveowners.  You are merely attempting to minimize the slavery in the South, doesn't fly.

Now why is it o.k. for a Southern State to limit freedom of speech, restrict the US Mail and have no debate on the question of slavery, but yet then turn around and say another State cannot decide how things are done within its boundries? Fair is fair.

I do not know of a single instance in which a Southern state gave a fig about what was going on in a Northern state except when it came to the return of their property which was protected under the Constitution.  FSA... FSA... FSA to name just one.

Who was attacking that way of life?

Northern citizens who had the power in numbers vote their preferences, which effected the entire country, into law.  Majority rule or minority rule... one is a democratic republic the other begins to sound like a monarchy.  One side wished to deny a majority their rights... come to think of it that ide was quite adept at denying rights to whole classes of people.

What outsiders had the power to change it?

The Federal Government had the power to enforce the Constitution.  The people, themselves, had the power to do the right thing and allow Southerners to see to their own affairs just as Southerners were willing to refrain from interfering in other states business.  The problem is that the "South" wasn't willing to refrain from interfering in the affairs of other states... Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Iowa and every state "interferred" with by Seccession and the Civil War.  THe slaveocracy had been dictating to the country since the Revolution.

What RIGHT did the South lose with the election of Lincoln? What part of the political process was DENIED them? What political action could they no longer take to protect themselves from Lincoln's administration? NONE.

I don’t claim the South lost any rights with the election of Lincoln.  I don’t claim any political process was denied them  I don’t claim there was any political action they could not take to protect them from the Lincoln administration…immediately, that is..  However, the South was the minority in the voting block as the election of Lincoln proves.  Sectionalism was sharply divided.  The South was soon to be a minority in federal government with no means to protect their home interests.  They knew the North was against their peculiar institution and for higher tariffs to protect Northern interests.  The federal government simply no longer worked for the South.  They only wanted to govern themselves and leave the North to do the same.  That would be why they called for 100,000 troops to assist in the cotton harvest of 1860 and why every bit of Federal property w/in reach was seized, soldiers attacked and mistreated and Ft Sumter was fired upon.  They wanted war, and they got it.

Were any of these people in a position of political power or social bearing to reverse the trend of chattel slavery in the South? No. You have noted the occasional exception, but not the political or social will to change an institution that many Southerners considered a cherished way of life and a social norm. It is in fact, a historical truth that the majority of slave owners could not concieve of giving up their slaves and felt their condition was the natural order of things. It was not a "growing trend" among the gentry nor was there a grass roots effort to change the condition of the slave.

Blue, nothing ever stays the same.  The South, just like every country before and since, would have eliminated slavery in their own time.  The Northern states seemed to have a different time table, but it wasn’t their decision.  And…I do believe the tides were turning and slavery was on its way out.  I admit the wheels were turning slowly because of the complications of the Southern economy being so tangled with slavery, but it couldn’t last and a war was not necessary in order to eliminate slavery.  Over and over again I hear that the "South would have eventually abolished slavery.  I see no evidence of such.  No moral push for it, no economic push for it and certainly no social push for it.  I see a lot of modern wishful thinking.

[Wild Rose]

Union Blue, I’ve finally finished responded to the rest of your message.  Sorry it took so long.  I realize you are busy these days and I’m certainly in no rush for a response. 

Both above statements were said or written by Lincoln, no argument there. But how was he to get his higher tariff? By the process I have described in my previous paragraph.

The first step in achieving a political goal is to elect those sympathetic to your agenda into office.  That had been accomplished for the Industrialists with Lincoln‘s election.  You aren’t acknowledging that the Republicans were soon to be a majority in government.  The country was divided into three sections…two main sections since the West was as yet largely unpopulated.  The North was a Republican voting block outnumbering the Southerners with new immigrants more and more every day.  The North’s political agendas were in direct conflict with those of the South.

First off, Rose, it was the issue of slavery and Stephen Douglass's Popular Sovereignty platform that led Lincoln back into politics and the presidential race. Tariffs were strictly a side issue, and a minor one compared to the slavery issue. Just read Lincoln's Cooper Union speech and look for the tariff issue anywhere within it, and this is the speech that supposedly got him elected as President, or at the very least, put him on the national stage. Look at the Lincoln v. Douglass debates and see how much of each man's speech is devoted to the tariff and how much to the issue of slavery. No comparison. While some industrialists might have supported him for the tariff, a majority of this nation voted over the issue of slavery and its expansion into the federal territories and that was the primary issue the Northern people were concerned about.

Lincoln would have been a fool to campaign on the tariff issue.  He had made it known where he stood, but to push the issue to the front would guarantee no Southern votes, which he still hoped to gain until the end. The average Northerner may not have been concerned by the tariff issue, true enough, but wealthy industrialists with political clout in the North were very concerned about protection for industry.  They were quite happy to whip up a frenzy over slavery and expansion into the territories.

Rose: I have not based secession on tariffs,

Union Blue: Yet you seem to be unable not to link them with a underlying cause of the war.

That is true.

You try to hard to make them into a concern that not even the Southern leadership considered them. A concern is one thing, killing your fellow countrymen over the tariff rate was not the issue.

Read Georgia’s Declaration of Causes for Secession, if you believe Southern leaders weren’t concerned about protective tariffs, but I agree with you that the Southern people didn’t kill anyone over tariffs.

I don't believe, based on what I have learned and read about the tariff issue, it was not a factor at all in bringing on the war.

Lincoln was elected on the issue of slavery, not tariffs. The South left the Union over the concern about slavery.

I’ve never known of a war that could be explained in such simplistic terms and I don’t believe the War Between the States is that simple to explain either.

Rose

[Wild Rose]

And not in the forseeable future.

Yes, the South was loosing political power.  Not one Southern state voted for Lincoln, but he still won the election.  Also, the South didn't have enough voting power to keep the territories open to slave-owners.  The North already had enough voting numbers to effectively push any agenda they wanted.  The Republican party was fast becoming the party of the North and soon would have filled the seats in the federal government.

Some are willing to fight evil (slavery), others wish to excuse and defend it.

Perhaps that has some truth to it if you are talking about antebellum days, but I know of no one today that defends slavery and there is no need to fight that particular evil in America since it doesn't exist.

What percentage of the political, economic and cultural power of the South was held by slaveowners?  I would wager it more than a miniscule 1%, and I think you know that.  A planter or other slaveowner knew where his property values lay.  And with 4 millions of slaves... I don't think they were owned by a paltry 1%.  THose who authored Seccession were slaveowners.  You are merely attempting to minimize the slavery in the South, doesn't fly.

The majority of Southerners owned ten slaves or less.  Only about 1/2 of 1% owned 100 slaves or more.  These would be the ones that perhaps pushed for expansion in foreign lands.  The average slave-owner/farmer was only concerned with his land and bringing in the current years crop.

Rose: I do not know of a single instance in which a Southern state gave a fig about what was going on in a Northern state except when it came to the return of their property which was protected under the Constitution.

Johan Steel: FSL... FSA... FSA to name just one.

Shane, that answer doesn't make sense since it is the one exception I mentioned.  And...I'm pretty sure if Northern property of any kind ended up in the South they would have expected it to be returned.

Majority rule or minority rule... one is a democratic republic the other begins to sound like a monarchy.  One side wished to deny a majority their rights... come to think of it that ide was quite adept at denying rights to whole classes of people.

I can't discuss this in modern terms when it is convenient and antebellum terms at other times.  Switching back and forth doesn't make a very productive discussion.  This whole class of people you refer to weren't considered U.S. citizens by North or South and at the time had no rights as such.  So by antebellum standards there was no rights denied to slaves. 

The problem is that the "South" wasn't willing to refrain from interfering in the affairs of other states... Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Iowa and every state "interferred" with by Seccession and the Civil War.  THe slaveocracy had been dictating to the country since the Revolution.

Secession interfered with no state except their own seceding states.  Who invaded whom?  Would you care to explain how the slave states had dictated to the free states since the Revolutionary War?

That would be why they called for 100,000 troops to assist in the cotton harvest of 1860 and why every bit of Federal property w/in reach was seized, soldiers attacked and mistreated and Ft Sumter was fired upon.  They wanted war, and they got it.

Ridiculous.  The South didn't want war.  They wanted to leave the Union peacefully.  What they seized was on Confederate property and belonged to the Confederacy as such.  It is impossible to move a fort from one location to another and the Confederate states offered to pay the U.S. for those holdings on Southern soil.  Firing on Ft. Sumter may or may not have been the wisest thing to do.  Unwise perhaps, because it played into the hands of Lincoln and provided the effect he was hoping for. 

Over and over again I hear that the "South would have eventually abolished slavery.  I see no evidence of such.  No moral push for it, no economic push for it and certainly no social push for it.  I see a lot of modern wishful thinking.

There was little evidence by anyone who eventually abolished slavery, but they did, country by country, in their own time.  Why would you believe the South would have been different from any other country who eventually abolished slavery?  The war decided the slavery issue.  No one can say with any authority how and when it would have ended had there been no war.

Rose

[Johan Steele]

Yes, the South was loosing political power.  Not one Southern state voted for Lincoln, but he still won the election.  Also, the South didn't have enough voting power to keep the territories open to slave-owners.  The North already had enough voting numbers to effectively push any agenda they wanted.  The Republican party was fast becoming the party of the North and soon would have filled the seats in the federal government.  Rose you know Lincoln was not allowed on any Southern ballot.

Perhaps that has some truth to it if you are talking about antebellum days, but I know of no one today that defends slavery and there is no need to fight that particular evil in America since it doesn't exist.

Rose, I think you have seen those on these boards who would eagerly embrace a return of the peculiar institution; we've seen them on this board.

What percentage of the political, economic and cultural power of the South was held by slaveowners?  I would wager it more than a miniscule 1%, and I think you know that.  A planter or other slaveowner knew where his property values lay.  And with 4 millions of slaves... I don't think they were owned by a paltry 1%.  THose who authored Seccession were slaveowners.  You are merely attempting to minimize the slavery in the South, doesn't fly.

The majority of Southerners owned ten slaves or less.  Only about 1/2 of 1% owned 100 slaves or more.  These would be the ones that perhaps pushed for expansion in foreign lands.  The average slave-owner/farmer was only concerned with his land and bringing in the current years crop. The average farmer didn't push Seccesion.

Shane, that answer doesn't make sense since it is the one exception I mentioned.  And...I'm pretty sure if Northern property of any kind ended up in the South they would have expected it to be returned.  I think the United States of 1860 would disagree w/ you.  So would those business interests in the US that suddenly found loans voided by Secession and property outright stolen.  But since those were US businesses it was ok...

Majority rule or minority rule... one is a democratic republic the other begins to sound like a monarchy.  One side wished to deny a majority their rights... come to think of it that ide was quite adept at denying rights to whole classes of people.

I can't discuss this in modern terms when it is convenient and antebellum terms at other times.  Switching back and forth doesn't make a very productive discussion.  This whole class of people you refer to weren't considered U.S. citizens by North or South and at the time had no rights as such.  So by antebellum standards there was no rights denied to slaves.  I was referring to non slave holders and those who dared oppose slavery... but as you mention slaves do not forget they were barely considered human being but something less: 3/5 of a man I believe.

The problem is that the "South" wasn't willing to refrain from interfering in the affairs of other states... Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Iowa and every state "interferred" with by Seccession and the Civil War.  THe slaveocracy had been dictating to the country since the Revolution.

Secession interfered with no state except their own seceding states.  Who invaded whom?  Would you care to explain how the slave states had dictated to the free states since the Revolutionary War?  It has been explained several times Rose.  Seccession interferred with every family in the country.

That would be why they called for 100,000 troops to assist in the cotton harvest of 1860 and why every bit of Federal property w/in reach was seized, soldiers attacked and mistreated and Ft Sumter was fired upon.  They wanted war, and they got it.

Ridiculous.  The South didn't want war.  They wanted to leave the Union peacefully.  What they seized was on Confederate property and belonged to the Confederacy as such.  It is impossible to move a fort from one location to another and the Confederate states offered to pay the U.S. for those holdings on Southern soil.  Firing on Ft. Sumter may or may not have been the wisest thing to do.  Unwise perhaps, because it played into the hands of Lincoln and provided the effect he was hoping for.  The CS proved to the world that it not only wanted war but that it was willing to start one.  A gentleman by the name of Jefferson Davis ordered the shots fired upon this Nation not Lincoln.  No excuse to say Lincoln somehow baited him into it and you know it.

Over and over again I hear that the "South would have eventually abolished slavery.  I see no evidence of such.  No moral push for it, no economic push for it and certainly no social push for it.  I see a lot of modern wishful thinking.

There was little evidence by anyone who eventually abolished slavery, but they did, country by country, in their own time.  Why would you believe the South would have been different from any other country who eventually abolished slavery?  The war decided the slavery issue.  No one can say with any authority how and when it would have ended had there been no war.  And no one with a straight face can say w/ any authority that it would not have lasted into the present day.

Rose

[Wild Rose]

Rose you know Lincoln was not allowed on any Southern ballot.

No one in the South complained because he wasn't on the ballot.

Rose, I think you have seen those on these boards who would eagerly embrace a return of the peculiar institution; we've seen them on this board.

No, I can't say as I have seen that.  Maybe I don't get around as much as you do.

The average farmer didn't push Seccesion.

The average farmer didn't push for Union, either.  Their respective states were more important to them than the Union.  Most were for secession and volunteered for the CS army.  But, the point was the average slave-owner with a couple of slaves wasn't pushing for expansion of slavery.  There was only about 1/2 of 1%  of the Southern population that would even possibly benefit from expansion of slavery into a foreign country.

Shane: FSA... FSA... FSA to name just one.

Rose: Shane, that answer doesn't make sense since it is the one exception I mentioned.  And...I'm pretty sure if Northern property of any kind ended up in the South they would have expected it to be returned.

Shane: I think the United States of 1860 would disagree w/ you.  So would those business interests in the US that suddenly found loans voided by Secession and property outright stolen.  But since those were US businesses it was ok...

The US of 1860 would disagree with what?  That the North would want property ending up in the South returned?  Loans weren't voided by secession.  The war interfered with loans, but they were never voided.  Regarding stolen property, what property are you referring to?  The stationary property on Southern soil that couldn't be moved to the North?  The property that belonged just as much to the South as the North?  Property that the Confederate States was willing to compensate the North for?

I was referring to non slave holders and those who dared oppose slavery... but as you mention slaves do not forget they were barely considered human being but something less: 3/5 of a man I believe.

Yes, it was the Northern non-slave holders that only counted slaves as 3/5 of a person.

It has been explained several times Rose.  Seccession interferred with every family in the country.

I disagree.  It was war that interfered with every family in the country not secession. And it may have been explained many times how the South dictated to the North since the Revolution, but I must have missed class those days.  I do not know how you figure the South dictated to the North.

The CS proved to the world that it not only wanted war but that it was willing to start one.  A gentleman by the name of Jefferson Davis ordered the shots fired upon this Nation not Lincoln.  No excuse to say Lincoln somehow baited him into it and you know it.

No, as a matter of fact, I don't know it.  I know Lincoln wanted the war and hoped the Confederates would fire the first shot.  He was warned that if he attempted to resupply Ft. Sumpter shots would be fired.  He made the move with full knowledge of what would happen.

And no one with a straight face can say w/ any authority that it would not have lasted into the present day.

Perhaps not with authority, but certainly anyone with common sense can say slavery would have ended in its own time in the South just as it did everywhere else.

Rose

[unionblue]

Rose,

I must apologize, as I will not be able to continue our conversation for some time.

I am just too busy at present with other concerns.

I regret we cannot continue, as I have enjoyed our talks together.

Again, my apologies,
Unionblue