[yarddog]

It was much simpler than most people think. It was all about the North controlling the South for their monetary gain.

While searching for my ancestors on census records before the war, I was surprised to see that the South was very prosperous. I was astounded at how many had wealth in excess of $50,000 and that was in 1850 in the area around Valdosta, Georgia.

The South could sell their products to England and Europe and get good prices. They then used that money to buy products made in England etc.

The North wanted to force the South to sell and buy from them by placing tariffs on trade between the U.S. and Europe. They might have even been specific as to what was taxed but I don’t know that.

The North used slavery as their weapon to create hatred toward the South. Never mind that these same New Englanders were perfectly happy to engage in the most evil part of slavery, the slave trade.

Every Southern state had banished the slave trade. So the New Engendars now had no profit from slavery at all and became abolitionist.

[Elsiejay]

“Every Southern state had banished the slave trade. So the New Engendars now had no profit from slavery at all and became abolitionist.” -——

Can you recommend one or more sources of documentation as to when the Southern states banned the slave trade, and the extent to which New Englanders were owners/operators of slaving ships, in addition to British, Portugese and possibly others?

[Ditter]

While searching for my ancestors, I found in the 1st Census of Texas 1835 (I think) my ancestors in east Texas were not very prosperous. They listed as their property, one mule, 2 slaves and one wooden clock.

I have often wondered how they would react to my house full of stuff.

[Usagi_yo]

Uh, So the U.S taxed the U.S and then went to war over it? Cause that’s what your saying. Those tariffs and taxes were provided for in the U.S Constitution and part of the legislative powers what do you think paid for the ports and railroads.

This must have been when we figured Taxation *with* representation wasn’t any better.

[x]

The North wanted to force the South to sell and buy from them by placing tariffs on trade between the U.S. and Europe. They might have even been specific as to what was taxed but I don’t know that.

Sure, there was a general tariff and specific tariffs on certain items.

Some Northerners wanted the country to develop industries and favored tariffs as a way of encouraging native industries.

Southern planters figured they had enough money from slaves and cotton and didn't need to industrialize.

Far-sighted Southerners recognized that the South would benefit from industry as well, but the planters ruled the roost in the antebellum South.

Backwoodsmen and ordinary dirt farmers (South or North) who already satisfied their wants with what they had on hand really weren't all that concerned much over tariffs.

This had all become a minor issue in the late 1850s with all the agitation over slavery and abolitionism.

C'mon. John Brown, Dred Scott, Bleeding Kansas. Nobody was getting very agitated over tax rates in those years (unless you want to consider slavery a tax -- and maybe we should).

Anti-tariff forces had only to remain in Congress to defeat tariff legislation or bring down projected rates which may have been excessive.

Or they could have gotten behind one candidate in the presidential election, and possibly won.

But tariffs weren't uppermost in their minds, and already well before the election some Southern leaders were determined to break up the union.