Posted on 07/22/2015 7:36:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?
Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.
London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.
The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?
But Lincoln was only talking about one, rebellion. So his quote does not support your claim.
Obviously you don’t need power to have a right, only to exercise it successfully, and only in certain circumstances.
Then why is Lincoln saying "having the power" if you say power is not needed?
How can slavery be such a burden if nobody is forced to do anything?
Makes as much sense.
It has yet to be established that the Southern burden of tariffs was a "small percentage" of it. Where do you get this notion?
Walter Williams says they paid 75% of the costs. By all rights, with them having a quarter of the population, they should have only paid a quarter of the costs.
I don't think William's claim has yet been successfully debunked. I know what the South was exporting to Europe, I don't know what the North was exporting to Europe. Do you?
If they will ignore the clear words of the Declaration of Independence, it won't do any good to quote natural law philosophers either.
” Southern states got money from exporting cotton and used it to buy things from Northerners. We know that cotton was the major part of America’s exports. But we don’t know that cotton growers were the major consumers of foreign goods. Big city factories and stores almost certainly bought more foreign goods — and hence paid more in tariffs — than plantation owners, who weren’t all that large a part of the population and could only consume so much. “
Southern states bought finished products from the north primarily - overwhelmingly. They paid excise taxes in buying back goods made with the raw materials they paid tariffs on in the first place - taxed twice.
The north had it good - they had unequal representation in the House, and back then Senators were elected by state legislatures. Tyranny of the majority was in full effect.
Is this 2015? Or 1862?
Are you really saying that what happened didn't happen because it could have happened differently?
To go from slaveowning guaranteed by law all over the country to slaveowning at the very least put at risk in half the country was a major step.
Are you really saying that having the Emancipation Proclamation and not having the Emancipation Proclamation would have meant the same thing as far as the prospects for slavery were concerned?
Sure, things can always turn out differently, but that doesn't justify ignoring actions that contributed to their turning out as they did.
No actually it doesn't. The South rebelled, not because slavery was such a terrible burden, but because they saw the election of a Republican president as a threat to their ability to expand slavery into the territories. So slavery was a very real issue to them because it was so important to their economy and their society. Tariffs were not.
It has yet to be established that the Southern burden of tariffs was a "small percentage" of it. Where do you get this notion?
Because they paid so little of it. And because so small a percentage of imported goods were delivered to Southern ports.
Walter Williams says they paid 75% of the costs. By all rights, with them having a quarter of the population, they should have only paid a quarter of the costs.
Which is the percentage that Alexander Stephens quoted in a speech to the Georgia Secession Convention in January 1861. At that I still think he was still inflating the figures a bit.
I don't think William's claim has yet been successfully debunked.
Williams's claim has been debunked by people far more knowledgeable on the topic than me. Williams said Southern ports paid 75% of the tariffs. In other words they collected that total. In fact, as has been shown over and over again, Southern ports collected around 5% of all tariff revenue.
I know what the South was exporting to Europe, I don't know what the North was exporting to Europe. Do you
And as for what the North was exporting I explained it earlier. The South was selling cotton, tobacco, and sugar but it was mainly Northern businessmen who were buying it. And they were selling it to Northern manufacturers and foreign customers. And buying all those imports that the South had little use for.
Freeper PeaRidge explained this issue quite concisely on the other thread. I cannot believe that you missed it. On the other hand, I can thoroughly believe you simply skipped over it, which would be why you seem unfamiliar with the material.
Apparently the Northern States got Federal laws passed forbidding Foreign ships from carrying cargo from one Domestic port to another.
The Europe/US shipping trade evolved accordingly with ships dropping most of their cargoes in New York, and Domestic ships handling it from there.
Inefficient? Yes, but certainly enriching of the Northern Interests who used government to force patronization of their goods and services, not at all unlike the cozy relationship some corporations (G.E. Cough Cough) with Government today.
New York was the most Major port of the Period. It oversaw shipping all the way to Chicago, and controlled Huge swaths of territory.
Cotton, tobacco, and sugar mostly, with grains and other agricultural goods making up the balance. You think it was Southerners brokering the cotton and selling it to foreign buyers? Nonsense. Plantation owners sold the cotton to brokers, who sold it to buyers both in the U.S. and overseas, and who paid the plantation owners for their crop with currency. That cotton, tobacco, and sugar were then shipped from southern ports, ports that were not used to import much in the way of goods, to Europe and points north.
Getting their cut on both ends of the Horse, eh? Yeah, I can see where they would be upset about that gravy train coming to a stop.
Not necessarily. All one has to do is look at tariff collections for FY1863. Tariff collections were over $102 million dollars, for a year without cotton exports and without Southerners consuming all those vast quantities of imported goods. How was that possible?
Tariff rates increased, Union spending borrowed money to buy more European goods. I don't know, could be several factors involved.
Do you have a breakdown of what was imported? That would go a long way to explaining how it got paid for. I imagine War material was probably in high demand about that time.
A tariff is a tax on imports. You don't pay taxes when you export things. If you pay a tariff on imported raw materials you don't also pay a tariff when you buy domestically produced finished goods. If you pay a tariff on imported foreign finished goods you haven't paid a tariff on the raw materials that foreigners used to produce them. It doesn't look to me like anybody was getting taxed twice.
Excise taxes applied only to a few items like whiskey, rum, tobacco, snuff and refined sugar. They weren't applied to most manufactured goods or to the raw materials that made them. I'm not aware of any agitation about excise taxes in the Civil War era.
The north had it good - they had unequal representation in the House, and back then Senators were elected by state legislatures. Tyranny of the majority was in full effect.
Well, there were more people in the North. But in fact Southerners benefited from being allocated seats in Congress to represent 3/5ths of the non-voting enslaved population. Southerners dominated in Congress in the early 19th century. Most of the Speakers of the House and Chief Justices of the Supreme Court and most of the Presidents were Southern or Southern-born in the years from 1830 to 1850 or so.
And of course you have no cognizance of the fact that is exactly what happened to the British Union. For that matter, we recognized the right to leave by the Cubans and the Philippines, and even Puerto Rico's right to be independent.
So you think they should be punished for what they were going to do. Sort of a "prior restraint" type of thinking? How very "Minority Report" of you.
Would save a lot of trouble if we would just lock up criminals BEFORE they commit any crimes, don't you think?
I think the Obama regime will come around to your way of thinking in his next term.
"Necessity" is in the eye of the beholder. It is arrogant of you to tell me how much pain I must endure before I decide it is necessary to do something about it.
So do the men who would rule others. The South was an escaped slave that put up a fight, and got beaten near to death because he tried to escape the Federal plantation.
“You’re exhibiting all the signs of someone who has lost a debate.”
Actually, I’d say the person prematurely declaring the debate over based on some nebulous “signs” instead of actually winning arguments is probably the one on the losing end.
What changed my view of the War for Southern Independence was reading up on Nullification and Sectionalism. The Bank Panic of 1857, ironically, was something that replayed itself in 2008. Western US banks ended up having to sell preferred stock to the FedZilla because the Eastern US banks couldn’t hold their mud and did stupid things.
The south was being marginalized - period. The north was tilting the field in their favor in order to keep the south under its thumb.
Here’s a good book on the subject, but there are others:
I remember it. I just don't think he ever provided a clear answer. Why don't you take a crack at it?
Apparently the Northern States got Federal laws passed forbidding Foreign ships from carrying cargo from one Domestic port to another.
A law still in effect by the way. Which is why you can't fly Luftansa from Houston to New York and why a cruise to Hawaii leaving from Los Angeles stops in Mexico for a few hours on the way home. And the law also mirrored one in effect in the UK at the time.
The Europe/US shipping trade evolved accordingly with ships dropping most of their cargoes in New York, and Domestic ships handling it from there.
But if all those goods were destined for Southern consumers then why not go straight to Charleston or Mobile or New Orleans? What difference did it make to the Northern businessman if he built his warehouse north of the Mason Dixon line or south of it, where all the customers were? Really, how much sense does it make to send a shipload of goods from London to New York, unload it, load it again on another ship, and then send it to Charleston when you could send it from London to Charleston direct?
Inefficient? Yes, but certainly enriching of the Northern Interests who used government to force patronization of their goods and services, not at all unlike the cozy relationship some corporations (G.E. Cough Cough) with Government today.
If I'm the importer then why do I put up with the inefficiencies and the extra costs? Why don't I ship direct? And if it was so good for the Northern interests then why wasn't it a two way road? Why weren't those ships taking the goods south coming back filled with cotton to be exported from New York? Why were those millions of bales destined for Europe leaving southern ports and going direct across the Atlantic? If it wsa such a money maker for Northern interests I find it surprising that they would only exploit it one way.
New York was the most Major port of the Period. It oversaw shipping all the way to Chicago, and controlled Huge swaths of territory.
And Boston and Philadelphia as well, so far as imports were concerned. Southern ports were big in exports.
The southern states felt it necessary. That’s all that matters.
You don’t get to be the judge of what is or isn’t necessary for other people. That is up to them to determine.
Again, according to the law, it isn't. If you think we had "gay marriage" in 1776, you are a loon.
Slavery was legal in the Union until 1865.
It’s wrong to enslave your fellow man.
Yes, please tell us that again, because some of us are unclear on the point. How about a few hundred more times?
But it was legal in 1864. It was legal under the Union flag for 89 years. It built the White House, and other government buildings in Washington.
It is wrong to rebel against legitimate governmental authority without an overriding moral basis.
It is wrong to attempt to impose your own moral conditions on the right to independence for others. You are just like the Homosexuals who want to force acceptance of what they believe, and want to criminalize anyone who believes differently.
You made my point that it was a political problem and not a slavery issue.
Looking to affix blame for the war, many in the press and government gave factual status to the idea that westward expansion of slavery was the primary factor leading to war. They relegated the increasing division of the two economic and political worlds as secondary factors.
Does not the word “Import” denote extra nationality?
“But Lincoln was only talking about one, rebellion. So his quote does not support your claim.”
Indeed it does, because there is NO “right to rebellion”. There is only the right to self-governance and that is what Lincoln was advocating. You cannot advocate that right, and then limit your advocacy to only one method of exercising the right. That is just foolishness. It’s as foolish as the liberals saying they believe in the “right to bear arms” but only if you want to bear black powder muskets.
“Then why is Lincoln saying “having the power” if you say power is not needed?”
Because he is speaking of the practicalities of the matter. He can’t be speaking of the principle of the matter, or his argument would undermine the very idea that the right he is advocating exists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.