Causes for the War of northern aggression.

Started by hokiewoodchuck, March 14, 2012, 02:56:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

hokiewoodchuck

Causes of the The War Between the States - A Southern Perspective
For more than 40 years Southerners spoke of "disunion" over a variety of issues. By the time Abraham Lincoln was elected president a single issue, the rise of the abolitionists, became the focal point of Southerners. Tariffs Tariffs were permitted in the Constitution to allow the United States to generate revenue. The first act, the Tariff Act of 1789, did just that, fairly raising revenue through tariffs on imported goods. In the Tariff of 1816, however, the United States tariff structure changed from revenue producing to protectionist. These protectionist tariffs had been proposed by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton back in 1789 but the concept was pretty much ignored. Hamilton's original reason was promote the industrialization of the North. Tariffs levied in 1816 were aimed at lucrative Southern markets. Many Northern politicians were looking at wealthy plantation owners and wanting to share that wealth with their constituents and tariffs were the means by which to accomplish this goal. Protectionist fervor, fanned by pre-1816 success creating industrial growth through the Embargo Act was somewhat muted by shippers and merchants who opposed tariffs, but in 1820 and 1824 the United States once again was trying to increase tariffs. The Tariff of 1828 precipitated the first secessionist crisis, in South Carolina in 1832. The battle pitted Vice-President John C. Calhoun against President Andy Jackson, ending with the Nullification Crisis.

http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Abraham_Lincoln

There is more info covering the other individuals at the same site......


Elmer...........I posted this especially for you.

EDITED: shortened up the post, per hokie's request -taxed
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.

Solar

Hokie, you need to shorten this, it violates copy right laws.
Only post a couple of short paragraphs, that goes for all articles.
Thanks.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

hokiewoodchuck

OK...How. My screen doesn't have modify or edit. Can the moderator do it?..or atleast give me the button back.
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.

Solar

Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on March 14, 2012, 04:47:21 PM
OK...How. My screen doesn't have modify or edit. Can the moderator do it?..or atleast give me the button back.
I'll have Walks do it, you get about 25 minutes to edit, after that, it disappears.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

hokiewoodchuck

Here is the link for the entire article as originally posted.

BTW....thanks for the help and gettin' my ass out of a potential fire. I own a copyright as well and do not want someone stepping on it also.

http://blueandgraytrail.com/features/southerncauses.html


Why is the modify tool removed after a time limit.....just askin'.
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.

elmerfudd

I think it's important to note this excerpt from the original post:

"Many Northern politicians were looking at wealthy plantation owners and wanting to share that wealth with their constituents and tariffs were the means by which to accomplish this goal."

The thing is, secession was, at root, caused by the perceived threat to the existence of slavery.  As this excerpt points out, the onerousness of the tariffs were even mostly about slavery. 

The truth is, both sides were equally responsible for the "war of northern aggression." If both sides had had perfect ESP, enabling them to see the next 4 years, they would have avoided war at almost any cost.  The northern radicals would have embraced, or at least accepted as the lesser of two evils, compensating slave owners.  The south would have accepted that, too.  But war, being such a "glorious" undertaking (mostly for those who are not participating in it, though), and fire eaters being so persuasive, that just didn't happen. 

In a nutshell:

Firing on Ft. Sumter was the immediate cause.
Secession was the action that led to the firing on the fort.
The perceived threat to slavery was the reason states seceded.

It is true that the north did not prosecute the war to free slaves. It was prosecuted to restore the union.  But anybody who says the perceived threat to slavery was not the cause for secession has to ignore an awful lot of history.  And when they trot out something to support it was tariffs, as in the original post, it invariably gets linked to slavery.

hokiewoodchuck

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 15, 2012, 11:52:21 AM
I think it's important to note this excerpt from the original post:

"Many Northern politicians were looking at wealthy plantation owners and wanting to share that wealth with their constituents and tariffs were the means by which to accomplish this goal."

The thing is, secession was, at root, caused by the perceived threat to the existence of slavery.  As this excerpt points out, the onerousness of the tariffs were even mostly about slavery. 

The truth is, both sides were equally responsible for the "war of northern aggression." If both sides had had perfect ESP, enabling them to see the next 4 years, they would have avoided war at almost any cost.  The northern radicals would have embraced, or at least accepted as the lesser of two evils, compensating slave owners.  The south would have accepted that, too.  But war, being such a "glorious" undertaking (mostly for those who are not participating in it, though), and fire eaters being so persuasive, that just didn't happen. 

In a nutshell:

Firing on Ft. Sumter was the immediate cause.
Secession was the action that led to the firing on the fort.
The perceived threat to slavery was the reason states seceded.

It is true that the north did not prosecute the war to free slaves. It was prosecuted to restore the union.  But anybody who says the perceived threat to slavery was not the cause for secession has to ignore an awful lot of history.  And when they trot out something to support it was tariffs, as in the original post, it invariably gets linked to slavery.

Elmer?......did you read the entire story at the link? Sort of steers you away from your way of thinking......
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.

elmerfudd

Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on March 15, 2012, 01:40:27 PM
Elmer?......did you read the entire story at the link? Sort of steers you away from your way of thinking......

Yes, I read it. 

elmerfudd

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 15, 2012, 03:32:27 PM
Yes, I read it.

But I am not sure you read it much of your own link.  Here's more:

The link:
http://blueandgraytrail.com/features/northerncauses.html

An excerpt:
It is true that the single, simple answer to the question "What caused the Civil War?" is slavery, but the causes of The Civil War are by no means simple, and saying slavery caused the Civil War is somewhat akin to saying the invention of the printing press caused the Enlightenment. While the two are inextricably tied together, and one probably would not have happened without the other, the invention of the printing press was not the only element that contributed to The Enlightenment.

The same can be said about the Civil War. Without slavery, the divisions that split our nation probably would not have occurred, but slavery was not the only cause of the war.

Emphasis added.  There is simply no way around it.  The perceived threat to slavery is the ONLY thing that prompted secession.

Those other "threats" to secede over tariffs?  Saber rattling. Nothing more.  The proof is in the history books.  Did secession occur?  No.  Did it occur when the southern slave owners thought their source of wealth was in danger of being voted out of existence? Yes.  They said as much in their secession speeches.  Nary a word on "tariffs."

hokiewoodchuck

'probably'? means unsure, without a full commitment.

But I do see where the article said tariffs, tariffs, tariffs.

'Slavery was not the only cause'........I notice you didn't increase the size of THAT text.
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.

elmerfudd

Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on March 16, 2012, 01:28:53 AM
'probably'? means unsure, without a full commitment.

But I do see where the article said tariffs, tariffs, tariffs.

'Slavery was not the only cause'........I notice you didn't increase the size of THAT text.

No, but I also didn't edit it out.  The sentence, as written, is obviously from a person who desperately wants it not to be primarily about slavery but who recognizes there is too much evidence to the contrary.  It says "without slavery, the divisions that split our country probably would not have occurred."  That's an understatement.  The history of this country from its founding through the firing on Ft. Sumter clearly indicates that is ABSOLUTELY the case.  It was slavery, slavery, slavery.  Period. But you cannot change your mind, and I don't expect you to.  It's been fun. 

The tariffs were onerous because they were a direct result of the north trying to get their pound of flesh out of the slavers.  It always goes back to the perceived threat to the existence of slavery.  I do not see how any rational human being can assert otherwise, especially after reading the secession speeches themselves.  But I have had this conversation with people who DID read the secession speeches and then, in the very next breath, would say the winners get to write the history and slavery had nothing to do with that war.  They believed the speeches were faked by the victors.  Seriously.

hokiewoodchuck

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 17, 2012, 11:33:02 AM

The tariffs were onerous because they were a direct result of the north trying to get their pound of flesh out of the slavers.

Well then. If this be the case then slavery was never the issue because if the north was ALSO making money off of slavery why would the north want to end it?
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.

elmerfudd

Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on March 18, 2012, 04:07:15 AM
Well then. If this be the case then slavery was never the issue because if the north was ALSO making money off of slavery why would the north want to end it?

Many in the north did not care one way or the other.  But the fire eaters in the south believed, wholeheartedly, that if free states ever outnumbered slave states the "peculiar institution" was doomed. They said so in speech after speech, document after document.  Upon the election of Lincoln, who categoricaly stated his goal was to preserve the union, not to end slavery where it then existed, those same fire eaters decided it was time to secede.  Why?  They stated their reasons in their speeches.  Because of the perceived threat to slavery, the source of their great wealth.  So they dissolved the union.  War resulted, not to end slavery but to preserve the union.  When it became apparent that the north needed a little more motivation for continuing the war (many were getting tired of the bloodshed and figured it was best to let the south go and take their nigras with them), Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, to give a "moral" basis for continuing the war.  He also waited until there had been a couple of spine stiffening union victories before doing so.  He was, after all, a master politician. 

Then, having issued that Emancipation Proclamation (which freed no one when issued), he was pretty well committed to ending slavery permanently, assuming the north won the war.  Which they did. 

An amendment permanently abolishing slavery then followed, because it was the issue that led to secession, and secession was the issue that led to war. 

Why is that so hard to admit?  What it is that makes "it was tariffs, not slavery" people hang on that mantra in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, and absolutely none (at least not credible evidence) in favor?

hokiewoodchuck

HA! Lincoln was a racist. He never believe the races could ever mix and wanted to buy the slaves and send them to what is now known as Liberia.
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.

elmerfudd

Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on March 19, 2012, 12:50:00 PM
HA! Lincoln was a racist. He never believe the races could ever mix and wanted to buy the slaves and send them to what is now known as Liberia.

I agree he was a racist.  He certainly told racist jokes.  And he did not believe blacks were the intellectual or cultural equal of whites.  I know the Liberia idea cropped up well before he was in office, and I guess he supported purchasing slaves and shipping them to Liberia.  I'll defer to you on that.  But none of this is relevant to a discussion of what caused the civil war.

Secession caused it. But what caused secession?
The perceived threat to the existence of slavery.