Ignoring the issue of slavery, who would you have wanted to win the civil war?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Perhaps so, but then I didnt precede my serious comments with one about the naivete of yours.

Since there was nothing naive in what I said you didn't have any call to. I have and had the evidence on my side.

The only way you could claim to know the South seceeded over economic issues would be if you were a necromancer. What they themselves wrote was pretty clear that it was slavery so you would have to be able to read the minds of dead people to see that they were lying. I did not say you were naive. I was showing you could not possibly have any knowledge evidence that could support you.

[ZaphodBeeblebrx]

Originally posted by Guynemer
we're all Americans here.

I'm not sure if that will always be true, though.

Unless things in the US change, I think that New England will eventually just get tired of it, and Secede; we have done it before, after all.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Just so I can get called a dumbass again by Boris, Ethelred, and MrFun:

I never called you or anyone else here a dumbass. I did just wonder if you are delusional but I hadn't done that when you wrote this.

The North wasn't all that keen on Lincoln The Ape, as he was called. The only President who talked to himself more was Richard Nixon.
By the same token, the South wasn't fanatical about Jeff Davis.

Lincoln won by plurality and wasn't even close to a majority so you got that one right anyway. I don't know about Davis but he seems to me to have been a bit of an elitest. That often doesn't go well with the general public.

If Lincoln talked to himself more than Tricky Dicky it could be the nasty drugs he tried for his depression.

[ZaphodBeeblebrx]

Yeah, that Mercury that he took, probably just made it worse!

[Ethelred]

You know that "Flame Warriors" website? The address eludes me, but more and more, Sloww is resembling "Stone Deaf".

Flame warriors web site.

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html

I've never understood why this particular issue was so particularly touchy with some southerners. Yeah, we never like to admit past wrongs, but come on; we're all Americans here.

Because they don't want to admit the war was over slavery. Somebody freaks out every time it comes up but the evidence is pretty darn clear.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Since there was nothing naive in what I said you didn't have any call to. I have and had the evidence on my side.

I never claimed the South seceeded over economic issues

Heres the comment that I originally made if you want the context you'll just have to go and read it yourself.

"I would say that slavery became the issue, just as nazi mistreatment of the Jews and other people became an issue. Wars are fought over money and power not morality."

I wasnt talking about the articles of secession at all.

your next comment

The Southern states were quite clear about in the Secession Documents. They didn't talk about money and the power was about the voting power they needed to maintain slavery.

In order to point out the weakness in blindly accepting the cited reasons for the secession, I tried to use an analogy and point out the discrepancy between the cited reasons for war and the "real" reasons.

Which led to this comment

So your psychic. You even read dead minds.

But this is not mud slinging, I'm overly sensitive

Due to your confusion I gave these examples of what I was refering to:

"The reason cited by the Nazis for the invasion of the Sudetenland was mistreatment of the german people living there by the Czechs.

The "real" reason was that the nazis wanted to take over Europe.

The reason cited for the cause of WWI was the murder of the Austrian Archduke.

The "real" reason was Imperial designs by european monarchs.

The reason cited for american involvement in the gulf war was to free the Kuwaitees.

The "real" reason was to protect our oil supply (there are lots of others to pick as well)."

And now we're back to the second part of your current post

The only way you could claim to know the South seceeded over economic issues would be if you were a necromancer. What they themselves wrote was pretty clear that it was slavery so you would have to be able to read the minds of dead people to see that they were lying. I did not say you were naive. I was showing you could not possibly have any knowledge evidence that could support you.

Obviously, no one can know what was in the minds of the leaders of the confederacy. All we can do is look at historical documents and use some judgement as to their value. You seem to believe the articles of secession at face value and dismiss the economic and political complexities of the issue despite that you're aware of them. My experience and prior training leads me to question everything. Personally I find it naive to believe everthing you read, especially documents written by politicians.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Just so I can get called a dumbass again by Boris, Ethelred, and MrFun:

The North wasn't all that keen on Lincoln The Ape, as he was called. The only President who talked to himself more was Richard Nixon.
By the same token, the South wasn't fanatical about Jeff Davis.

I like your choice of objective words, SlowwHand.


So it doesn't matter that Lincoln was re-elected?? Everyone still hated him. I do not think so, SlowwHand.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I never claimed the South seceeded over economic issues

Then why are you argueing with me?

Heres the comment that I originally made if you want the context you'll just have to go and read it yourself.

"I would say that slavery became the issue, just as nazi mistreatment of the Jews and other people became an issue. Wars are fought over money and power not morality."

I wasnt talking about the articles of secession at all.

I read the comment. Its just as dubious the second time around. Slavery did not become the issue. It was the issue from the start and right there you are contradicting your claim that you weren't saying the South seceeded over economic issues because that is exactly what you are saying there.

The money and power issue of the Civi War were almost entirely based on slavery. To pretend the issue was money and power is to try to avoid the very real cause which was slavery. Without slavery there would have been no issue that could not be dealt with.

In order to point out the weakness in blindly accepting the cited reasons for the secession, I tried to use an analogy and point out the discrepancy between the cited reasons for war and the "real" reasons.

A analogy that looked exactly like an attempt to evade slavery as the cause of the Civil War. So I pointed out what it looked like. There is no discrepency between the cited reason and the real ones. The cause was slavery. The Articles of Secession are not even remotely the only source of this available. I have looked. You seem to be swallowing the modern revisionism hook line and sinker. I took nothing blindly.

But this is not mud slinging, I'm overly sensitive

Well I glad that something is clear. Unless of course you are being sarcastic. Sometimes its hard to tell.

Due to your confusion I gave these examples of what I was refering to:

I wasn't confused. Unless of course you were when you posted. Its not my fault if it looked exactly like you were trying to evade the fact that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. You still apear to be doing exactly that.

"The reason cited by the Nazis for the invasion of the Sudetenland was mistreatment of the german people living there by the Czechs.

Thats nice. It was an obvious lie considering the things Hitler wrote and said elsewhere. Now can you show some evidence to support you regarding the South?

The reason cited for the cause of WWI was the murder of the Austrian Archduke.

The "real" reason was Imperial designs by european monarchs.

Thats nice. It was an obviuous lie considering the actions taken by those same Monarchs. Now can you show some evidence to support you regarding the South?

The reason cited for american involvement in the gulf war was to free the Kuwaitees.

The "real" reason was to protect our oil supply (there are lots of others to pick as well)."

Actualy that one is false. The US wasn't getting oil from Kuwait. Our European allies were and of course we were worried about Saudi Arabia where we do have oil interests and treaty obligations. Now can you show some evidence to support you regarding the South?

Maybe asking the same question three times will get through to you that you apear to be without supporting evidence of anykind.

Obviously, no one can know what was in the minds of the leaders of the confederacy. All we can do is look at historical documents and use some judgement as to their value.

There are a lot of such documents and a lot of day to day stuff like newspapers and letters. They mostly show that slavery was the issue.

You seem to believe the articles of secession at face value and dismiss the economic and political complexities of the issue despite that you're aware of them.

Have you read the Texan secession document? That one is pretty clear about it. You would have figure the authors of it were lying bastards to think they didn't mean what they said. No weasle words there.

My experience and prior training leads me to question everything. Personally I find it naive to believe everthing you read, especially documents written by politicians.

How about letters and newspapers? You haven't read any of them I take it? I find you naive in your belief that anything that doesn't lead to a conclusion that the Civil was not over slavery must be dismissed as mere propaganda. It looks very much like you intend to deny all evidnence and of course produce none to support your revisionist claims.

Heck you even say "I never claimed the South seceeded over economic issues" and then do litlle else but try to support that claim for the rest of your post. Just how confused on this are you?

[MrFun]

Too many freakin' analogies already.

[SpencerH]

Again, I'm not trying to support one side or the other. My only point was that wars are not fought over moral issues. You seem to be the one with some ideological agenda. You do seem to understand the concept that the cited reasons for wars are not what they're really fought over, but then continue to doggedly assert that slavery was the only cause of the civil war because thats the answer present in historical documents.

I dont care what the war was fought over, its simply a topic for discussion. With that in mind, maybe you can understand why I say "I never claimed the South seceeded over economic issues" and thats why I have not

and then do litlle else but try to support that claim for the rest of your post.

.

Its pretty simple, I'm merely supporting my general viewpoint with respect to the causes of war not the specifics of this one.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Again, I'm not trying to support one side or the other. My only point was that wars are not fought over moral issues.

Who ever said the Civil War was? I didn't.

I said it was over slavery which was not a moral issue for the South. It was a moral issue for the North but the North neither seceeded nor did it start the war. The causes of wars are those of the people that start it. Therefor since the South definitly seceeded over slavery and they definitily started the war its Southern reasons that are the cause of the Civil War.

You seem to be the one with some ideological agenda.

My agenda is to show that the modern revisionism has no factual basis.

You do seem to understand the concept that the cited reasons for wars are not what they're really fought over,

Only when we are using the reasons you cited. You are often using the reasons of the people that didn't start the wars. The US for instance did not start the Gulf War.

but then continue to doggedly assert that slavery was the only cause of the civil war because thats the answer present in historical documents.

Well if all the evidence is in my favor I would have to be really silly not to stick with it. Or brainwashed by modern revisionist thinking.

I never said it was the only cause. I said it was the only thing that couldn't be negotiated. The South didn't want a compromise that could lead to the end of slavery.

I dont care what the war was fought over, its simply a topic for discussion. With that in mind, maybe you can understand why I say "I never claimed the South seceeded over economic issues" and thats why I have not

I can't understand it since it isn't doesn't fit anything else you have said. If you admit they seceeded over slavery you would have nothing to disagree with me over so its really hard to see how you justify claiming you are not saying it was over economics.

Its pretty simple, I'm merely supporting my general viewpoint with respect to the causes of war not the specifics of this one.

And your general view is that wars are about economics and power. Which is generally true if you want to ignore all the different things that can lead to economic issues or power issues.

So are you admiting the Civil War was due to slavery or not? There is no reason to argue if you do and you sure have been argueing.

[SpencerH]

It was a moral issue for the North but the North neither seceeded nor did it start the war.

It was an issue for some Northerner leaders. I doubt that the average people cared about it in their daily lives one way or another.

So are you admiting the Civil War was due to slavery or not? There is no reason to argue if you do and you sure have been argueing.

I dont care whether it was or not. Clearly, slavery was a factor, perhaps the major factor. I simply doubt that it was the only one, and I reject the assumption of fact based upon historical documents.

I spend my time de-bunking scientific myths about infectious disease. In some cases I run across "facts" that are based upon publication of the most tenuous comments by some "expert". If something that is patently false can be accepted as scientific "truth" despite its capability of being tested as such, what can be believed about matters such as history where it is not possible to rigorously test a hypothesis?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I dont care whether it was or not. Clearly, slavery was a factor, perhaps the major factor. I simply doubt that it was the only one, and I reject the assumption of fact based upon historical documents.

It was the by far the major factor. Whats this nonsense of your claiming I said it was the only factor? I said it was the only factor that couldn't be negotiated. Many times now, yet you again pretend I said it was the only factor and ignore my pointing out that you are wrong in that claim.

Aparently you reject all evidence. There is none to show that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. You sure haven't tried to show any.

I spend my time de-bunking scientific myths about infectious disease. In some cases I run across "facts" that are based upon publication of the most tenuous comments by some "expert".

Why? For what reason? I ask because a lot of cranks do that as well as rational people. For instance there are lot people trying to claim AIDs isn't caused by HIV. The evidence is pretty overwhelming.

If something that is patently false can be accepted as scientific "truth" despite its capability of being tested as such, what can be believed about matters such as history where it is not possible to rigorously test a hypothesis?

I am waiting for you to do something except make unsupported statements. I haven't bothered posting links since its clear that most of the people on this thread saw those links the last time this came up. If anyone had shown any signs of actually wanting to discuss facts I would have. You have only been claiming we can't go on the actual evidence.

Now if you should actually want to discuss this how about you try supporting your self. I am fully capable of supporting what I have said but you have been very carefull not to actually deal with anything I have said in a detailed way. You have merely claimed without cause or evidence of any kind that we can't go on the actual statements of the people living at that time.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SpencerH

It was an issue for some Northerner leaders. I doubt that the average people cared about it in their daily lives one way or another.

That is where I believe you are seriously wrong.

Many white Northern settlers and farmers of the North expressed concern of what negative effects slavery will have on white society in the territories where slavery might be allowed to expand into.

White settlers knew that slavery was repugnant to the American ideal of liberty, and many others knew that many poor white Southerners experienced deprivation or a different kind of exploitation due to the slavery system of the Southern states.

White settlers and farmers of the Northern states and territories did not want to fall under the yoke of the slavery system.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by MrFun
So it doesn't matter that Lincoln was re-elected?? Everyone still hated him. I do not think so, SlowwHand.

In an event most often referred to as "the lesser of 2 evils".

[Ramo]

Don't feel like getting into another "What started the Civil War" debate right now, but whomever mentioned protective tariffs was indeed correct.

Lincoln was campaigning on the Morrill Tariff, which raised duties to extremely high amounts on industrial goods coming from Europe (for the time), and it passed the House before Lincoln was elected. When it was clear that the tariff would pass the Senate and that it would be enforced by the new President (who was a life-long mercantilist, basing his political career around protective tariffs), the deep South seceded. In Lincoln's first inaugural, he said, "The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion – no using force against, or among the people anywhere." Basically, Lincoln promised that he would invade the South and force them to give up duties for the federal government, a repeat of Jackson's dealing with the Nullification Crisis over the Tariff of Abominations (note that this tariff almost caused a Civil War around 1833).

On the other hand, the federal government had no authority whatsoever to abolish slavery, the federal governmment would never have the authority to abolish slavery unless the Southern states overwhelmingly consented (in which case, becoming independent defeats the purpose of avoid abolition), Lincoln never said implicitly or explicitly that he would abolish slavery before his election, and afterwards, only to preserve the Union. Basically, the only way that the North would impose abolition on the South was if it seceded and circumstances dictated (in this case, to ward of European and French intervenction) that slavery had to be abolished to preserve the Union.

Someone has mentioned the Northern states' nonimplementation of the Fugitive Slave Act and likelyhood of freedom in the territories as reasons for secession. Well, the Fugitive Slave Act would certainly never be enforced in the North if the South seceded, and since the territories were overwhelmingly Union anyways, slavery certainly couldn't be imposed there after secession.

What about the balance of slave and free states? Well, again, abolition could never be imposed on the South regardless of how large the ratio of free to slave states there exists. On the other hand, tariffs protecting the North's industry certainly could be and were imposed on the South, and when the ratio of free-to-slave states increase, so too does the ratio of industrially dominated to agriculturally dominated states, and therefore so to do tariff duties on foreign industrial goods.

[SlowwHand]

And don't forget that the "great emancipator" didn't even address the slave-owning border states.
I'll say again that of course, and by no means, should any human being be subjected to slavery, but it's not like the South was the only side that should carry blame.

[Ramo]

It's interesting to note that one of the major reasons that Yankees opposed slavery in the territories was that they didn't want whites to have to compete with blacks for jobs.

[SlowwHand]

We kind of hit on that, but it went over most's head.
While the South was screwing up with slavery in agriculture, the North was doing the same thing in manufacturing, only with white immigrants.
They didn't want to acknowledge that part. Go figure.

[Ramo]

Yep. Lincoln even used Union troops to break strikes several times.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo
Don't feel like getting into another "What started the Civil War" debate right now, but whomever mentioned protective tariffs was indeed correct.

Well you did so badly the last time its not surpising that you are reluctant this time. Whoever mentioned tariffs was wrong though. Just like last time.

Well it is nice that at least one revisionist here has tried to support himself. Not very well though. Not one sign of evidence that the South agreed with his claims.

No one else has even tried this much.

Lincoln was campaigning on the Morrill Tariff, which raised duties to extremely high amounts on industrial goods coming from Europe (for the time), and it passed the House before Lincoln was elected.

Protective tariffs were part of the Republican Platform anyway. The Morrill tarrifs were Morrill's not Lincolns. Is 10% really all that high? More importantly it did NOT become law before Lincoln was elected.

When it was clear that the tariff would pass the Senate and that it would be enforced by the new President (who was a life-long mercantilist, basing his political career around protective tariffs), the deep South seceded.

False. The Secession movement started as soon as people were sure Lincoln had won the election. The Southerners were not there to vote against the Morril tariffs because they were allready engaged in starting the Confederacy.

The Morrill Tariff was not passed untill March well after the 1860 election and it likely would at least have been different if the South had not begun seceeding almost imediatly after the election. The first vesrion was a 5 to 10 per cent tax. It was later increased to help pay for the war. There is no way that a tax that didn't yet exist caused the secession.

While it might have passed over Southern opposition that seems unlikely as the South had forced compromise many times in the past. This time they simply weren't there because they had already seceeded over slave issues as they made very clear. If it had been about the tariffs they would have at least mentioned them.

In Lincoln's first inaugural, he said, "The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion – no using force against, or among the people anywhere." Basically, Lincoln promised that he would invade the South and force them to give up duties for the federal government, a repeat of Jackson's dealing with the Nullification Crisis over the Tariff of Abominations (note that this tariff almost caused a Civil War around 1833).

You are carefully ignoring the fact that the South had allready seceded at that point. Note also that the Tariff of Abominiations did NOT cause a civil war as the South was able to vote it out just as they could have done with the Morrill tariff if they had not seceeded.

On the other hand, the federal government had no authority whatsoever to abolish slavery, the federal governmment would never have the authority to abolish slavery unless the Southern states overwhelmingly consented (in which case, becoming independent defeats the purpose of avoid abolition), Lincoln never said implicitly or explicitly that he would abolish slavery before his election, and afterwards, only to preserve the Union. Basically, the only way that the North would impose abolition on the South was if it seceded and circumstances dictated (in this case, to ward of European and French intervenction) that slavery had to be abolished to preserve the Union.

The Southern States did not agree with your thinking. Nor did Southern newpapers or even private individuals. Most of the South greatly feared that slavery would be made ilegal. They said so. Frequently.

Someone has mentioned the Northern states' nonimplementation of the Fugitive Slave Act and likelyhood of freedom in the territories as reasons for secession. Well, the Fugitive Slave Act would certainly never be enforced in the North if the South seceded, and since the territories were overwhelmingly Union anyways, slavery certainly couldn't be imposed there after secession.

I pointed some of that out the last time this issue came up. It didn't seem to phase the South as they made it very clear why they were seceeding. In speechs, votes, debates, editorial, and of course legal documents of secession passed by the various Southern State. There is little or no mention of tariffs and lots of mentions about slavery and fugitive slaves and property rights that were about a specific property, slaves.

What about the balance of slave and free states?

Yes what about the South wanting to force some places to accept slavery even if the people there didn't want it?

Well, again, abolition could never be imposed on the South regardless of how large the ratio of free to slave states there exists.

The South did not agree with you on that. They were exceedingly clear they feared that slavery would become ilegal. You own statement doesn't make any legal sense by the way. Abolition most certainly could have forced. The Federal government would have to pay for the property loss otherwise nothing in the Constitution could have stopped it if enough lawmakers wanted it.

On the other hand, tariffs protecting the North's industry certainly could be and were imposed on the South, and when the ratio of free-to-slave states increase, so too does the ratio of industrially dominated to agriculturally dominated states, and therefore so to do tariff duties on foreign industrial goods.

Taiffs also protected Southern cotton and sugar. The South liked those tariffs.

The fact is the tariff issue was real but no where near as important or significant as slavery was to the South. The Morrill Tariff was passed AFTER the South seceeded. The South was very clear about its reasons for secession. All attempts at compromise after Lincoln was elected were directed at slavery not tariffs. Even the effort by Jefferson Davis was dealing purely with slavery not taxes.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
We kind of hit on that, but it went over most's head.
While the South was screwing up with slavery in agriculture, the North was doing the same thing in manufacturing, only with white immigrants.
They didn't want to acknowledge that part. Go figure.

It didn't go over any heads. It simply doesn't do anything to show that slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War. And that was pointed out not ignored.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yep. Lincoln even used Union troops to break strikes several times.

I guess I will acknowledge that so Slowhand can't pretend it was ignored.

So Ramo just how does that show the South didn't seceed over slave issues. How does something that happened AFTER the South seceeded have any relevance to the question?

[Ramo]

Well you did so badly the last time its not surpising that you are reluctant this time.

In your dreams.

Is 10% really all that high?

10% increase. Yes, I consider a ~30-% average tariff duty high.

More importantly it did NOT become law before Lincoln was elected.

I consider it to be more important that it passed the House before Lincoln was elected. The South saw the writing on the wall, and bailed the minute they knew the law was going to pass (i.e. when Lincoln was elected).

False. The Secession movement started as soon as people were sure Lincoln had won the election.

How does that contradict what I wrote?

The Morrill Tariff was not passed untill March well after the 1860 election

Gee, when do you think a newly elected President gets in office? There's a certain public figure that has to sign a new law...

and it likely would at least have been different if the South had not begun seceeding almost imediatly after the election. The first vesrion was a 5 to 10 per cent tax.

Yes, tariff duties probably wouldn't have doubled as the revision dictated. What's your point?

It was later increased to help pay for the war. There is no way that a tax that didn't yet exist caused the secession.

It was a tax that was about to be enacted, which certainly can cause a Civil War.

You are carefully ignoring the fact that the South had allready seceded at that point.

What difference does that make?

Note also that the Tariff of Abominiations did NOT cause a civil war as the South was able to vote it out just as they could have done with the Morrill tariff if they had not seceeded.

The South did not have the same political power in 1860 that it had in 1833. They had no chance of getting out of the tariff.

The Southern States did not agree with your thinking. Nor did Southern newpapers or even private individuals. Most of the South greatly feared that slavery would be made ilegal. They said so. Frequently.

And that was propaganda. Believe it or not, in the South preserving the "peculiar institution" was an effective rallying cry. But any person who looks at the situation rationally and with the least bit of knowledge about the government would realize abolition from the the federal government was an unrealistic threat.

I pointed some of that out the last time this issue came up. It didn't seem to phase the South as they made it very clear why they were seceeding. In speechs, votes, debates, editorial, and of course legal documents of secession passed by the various Southern State. There is little or no mention of tariffs and lots of mentions about slavery and fugitive slaves and property rights that were about a specific property, slaves.

Southern politicians had been very careful to point out that secession was over "principle" and "honor," not "doctrinal differences." The Fugitive Slave Act was seen as a contract between states, and the North's refusal to enforce the law was seen as equivalent to breaking the contract, which they though gave them a justification to break the ultimate contract between the states - the Constitution. They were always careful to make secession justified legally, not financially or morally.

Take a look at this:
http://history.furman.edu/~benson/docs/scdebate2.htm

Yes what about the South wanting to force some places to accept slavery even if the people there didn't want it?

What about it?

The South did not agree with you on that. They were exceedingly clear they feared that slavery would become ilegal. You own statement doesn't make any legal sense by the way. Abolition most certainly could have forced. The Federal government would have to pay for the property loss otherwise nothing in the Constitution could have stopped it if enough lawmakers wanted it.

The 10th Amendment... This was Lincoln's jusfication for the illegality of federal abolition, BTW.

Taiffs also protected Southern cotton and sugar. The South liked those tariffs.

Yes... What's your point? I specifically mentioned industrial goods...

The fact is the tariff issue was real but no where near as important or significant as slavery was to the South. The Morrill Tariff was passed AFTER the South seceeded. The South was very clear about its reasons for secession. All attempts at compromise after Lincoln was elected were directed at slavery not tariffs. Even the effort by Jefferson Davis was dealing purely with slavery not taxes.

Lincoln said he would not invade if he could retain federal forts and collect tariff duties in his inaugural! Why didn't the South give Lincoln his money if it was so insignificant? The Compromise proposed by the NY Chamber of Congress involved the repeal of the Morrill Tariff, which Lincoln didn't like very much.

So Ramo just how does that show the South didn't seceed over slave issues. How does something that happened AFTER the South seceeded have any relevance to the question?

I didn't say it had anything to do with secession. I was responding to to Sloww's post...

[David Floyd]

I wish the South had won, of course.

Hopefully such a victory would have produced an alternate history in which the US (and CSA for that matter) avoided conducting so many aggressive actions worldwide against innocent civilians, and generally minded their own business here in North America because neither would be strong enough to influence world affairs to the same degree as the US did historically.

At least, that's what I wish. Realistically, I seriously doubt that the US and CSA would have actually been hostile towards each other, and I rather imagine they would have worked together to a large degree as time went on.

But who knows.

Regardless, I think the South should have won, because it would have been a victory against expanding federal power and economic tyranny.

[ZaphodBeeblebrx]

David, try reading the books that I've been Referencing on this Thread.

They paint a Very, Different picture!

Also check out Bring the Jubilee, by Ward Moore, now that's an Oldie!

[David Floyd]

Sorry, I don't have time to wade through 8 pages of stuff...but if you repost some titles I'll definitely check them out when I get time

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo
10% increase. Yes, I consider a ~30-% average tariff duty high.

Wrong. The total ranged between 5 and 10 percent. It was raised later in 1862 to something higher than you said so you didn't even get the later version right. It went to 45 percent.

I consider it to be more important that it passed the House before Lincoln was elected. The South saw the writing on the wall, and bailed the minute they knew the law was going to pass (i.e. when Lincoln was elected).

Funny how none of them said that. The Senate is where the South was forcing compromises. On top of which it was a new Congress that passed it in 1861 and any decisions by the 1860 Congress that weren't passed and signed had to be restarted. There was no House passed bill in 1861 untill the newly seated Congress started it all over again.

How does that contradict what I wrote?

The total lack of a passed Tariff bill. The whole South contradicted what you wrote anyway. They were pretty darn clear it was about slavery.

Gee, when do you think a newly elected President gets in office? There's a certain public figure that has to sign a new law...

Of course it was Lincoln that signed the bill. I didn't say otherwise. The bill of course was started after the election not before. Bills that don't pass during a Congressional session have to be started up again from the beginning.

Back then it was in March that the President was inagurated. March 4th in this case and the bill had to be restarted . Long after the Secession began and even after the South started to seize military instalations and began the blockade of Ft. Sumter.

Yes, tariff duties probably wouldn't have doubled as the revision dictated. What's your point?

If it passed and that would have brought the tariff to 5 to 10 percent. Whats your evidence that the tariffs were the cause of the war. They weren't passed till after the South had Seceeded and the South was clear about slavery being the issue.

It was a tax that was about to be enacted, which certainly can cause a Civil War.

It was a tax that had to be passed by both houses and signed. With the Southern states there that would have been difficult. In any case the South did not go to war over a tax. You are speculating and have nothing except the fact of tax and you are denying all the real evidence that it was over slavery.

What difference does that make?

Effects generally follow causes. In the case the secession is the cause and the tax was an effect. The tax likely would have at least been different without a war brewing and the Southern Congressman and Senators there to fillibuster and negotiate.

The South did not have the same political power in 1860 that it had in 1833. They had no chance of getting out of the tariff.

That is speculation. The Republicans would not have had anywhere near the power they had with the South still there.

And that was propaganda. Believe it or not, in the South preserving the "peculiar institution" was an effective rallying cry. But any person who looks at the situation rationally and with the least bit of knowledge about the government would realize abolition from the the federal government was an unrealistic threat.

You have nothing to support the claim of mere propaganda. You didn't the last time and you don't this time either. Are you claiming that ALL the papers, ALL the States that seceeded and everyone else that said it was about slavery were in engaged in a massive coordinated campaign to mask the true nature of the secession? Rubbish.

Southern politicians had been very careful to point out that secession was over "principle" and "honor," not "doctrinal differences."

Some did. The principles and the alleged honor always involved slave issues. Want to take another look at what Texas said? There were especially clear about slavery. In fact so was that SC document you linked to.

The Fugitive Slave Act was seen as a contract between states, and the North's refusal to enforce the law was seen as equivalent to breaking the contract, which they though gave them a justification to break the ultimate contract between the states - the Constitution. They were always careful to make secession justified legally, not financially or morally.

Funny how that is STILL a slavery issue and not even close to a tariff issue. Thanks for backing me up.

Take a look at this:
http://history.furman.edu/~benson/docs/scdebate2.htm

I posted a link to that the last time. It supports me. The complaints are all slave based. The other parts are legal jusifications based on the Revolution. There is nothing about tariffs.

For instance:

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

All the other causes are similarly based on slave issues. None are about taxes which is both your claim and one of the causes of the Revolution. If they were going back to the Revolution for justification and the cause was taxes they would have mentioned them.

What about it?

It shows the South was not honest regarding States Rights. You brought it up. How about you tell me what your point was supposed to be? You neglected to make one.

The 10th Amendment... This was Lincoln's jusfication for the illegality of federal abolition, BTW.

He had more. They would have had to pay to free the slaves. In any case the South was quite clear that it thought abolition was not only possible but likely. The Constitution is clearly amendable. Even that part was an amendment.

Yes... What's your point? I specifically mentioned industrial goods...

And I specificly mentioned agriculture goods. What is your point unless it is to evade the fact that the South wanted tariffs but only when good for the South.

Lincoln said he would not invade if he could retain federal forts and collect tariff duties in his inaugural! Why didn't the South give Lincoln his money if it was so insignificant? The Compromise proposed by the NY Chamber of Congress involved the repeal of the Morrill Tariff, which Lincoln didn't like very much.

Lincoln was dealing with an act of secession. He did NOT say that only tariffs were involved. He said "The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, " now thats an emphasis on the federal property that the South had seized after they seceeded and in several cases even before they formally seceeded. Lincoln was obligated to take those things back and he was obligated to enforce Federal taxation laws. If the South had acceded to those things they would essentialy have been going back on the Secesion.

Note also the Lincoln did NOT invade untill after the South started the War. He even said he would not start the fighting in other statements.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I wish the South had won, of course.

Hopefully such a victory would have produced an alternate history in which the US (and CSA for that matter) avoided conducting so many aggressive actions worldwide against innocent civilians, and generally minded their own business here in North America because neither would be strong enough to influence world affairs to the same degree as the US did historically.

At least, that's what I wish. Realistically, I seriously doubt that the US and CSA would have actually been hostile towards each other, and I rather imagine they would have worked together to a large degree as time went on.

But who knows.

Regardless, I think the South should have won, because it would have been a victory against expanding federal power and economic tyranny.

Stop idealizing the Confederacy and the Southern states of antebellum America.

The Southern states and then the Confederacy had their own form of exploitation and abuse of power in two areas:

1) slavery

2) exploitation of poor white Southerners

Clearly, you are unable to view both sides of this conflict realistically.

[David Floyd]

1) slavery

I thought we were ignoring slavery.

2) exploitation of poor white Southerners

First off, I think we'd disagree on the definition of "exploitation". Secondly, using hingsight, a weaker US could easily have changed history for the better.