The REAL cause of the Civil War.

Vanity | 1957 | Ayn Rand

[x]

I count 15 slave states and 18 free states in 1860. Four border states that went with the Union in the war were slave states and weren't going to vote for measures that threatened slaveholders' interests. Take away Minnesota and Oregon, which had only become states in 1858 and 1859, and you have 15 slave states and 16 free states. Some senators and representatives from the free states could be counted on voting with the slave states. That was less likely with slave state delegations.

9 of 15 presidents had been born in the south. Buchanan and Pierce were reliable allies. That leaves only Van Buren, a slave state ally who turned opponent after leaving the White House, and the Adamses. I don't have time to do all the counting and math, but it looks like the Speaker of the House was from the South more often than not, and Roger B. Taney, a fierce supporter of slavery, had been Chief Justice since 1836.

It's not at all far-fetched to argue that for the most part, Southerners had dominated in the government, or at least had more influence than their numbers might warrent.

[x]

There was a period when Americans jumped ahead in the packet trade. That wasn't the case earlier and it wasn't the case in the 1850s after Cunard and other British firms got into the business. Cunard started in 1840, the British Black Ball Line (not to be confused with the earlier American Black Ball Line which had dominated the trade earlier) in 1851. The White Star Line started in 1845, concentrating on the passage to Australia, but it opened North Atlantic routes as well. So by 1860 it could not be said that New York ships and firms dominated the packet trade.

The New York Herald was a notably pro-Southern paper, as the reference to "Black Republicans" indicates. They aren't to be trusted. The British Navy did police the seas off Africa to stop slave trading. There was only so much that they could do. There were New Yorkers who worked the slave trade, mostly sending slaves to Brazil and Cuba, but slaves that came to the US illegally appear mostly to have come on Southern-owned ships. The Clotilde was built in Mobile and owned by a Mobile businessman. The Wanderer was built in New York, but owned by a Savannah businessman. These were the last ships to bring slaves into the US. There were also Southern-owned ships that took slaves from Virginia to New Orleans for sale. And the Herald leaves out cotton belt plantation owners, whose demand clearly had a role in keeping the illegal slave trade going, so far as slaves were coming to the US.

The topics discussed were whether slaveowners were getting cheated or exploited by New York shipping firms and whether Southerners could own and operate ships and engage in transatlantic trade. Clearly Southerners could. You are changing the topic to a moralistic "The Yankees were guilty too," or even "The Yankees were the real guilty ones." That's a distraction from what was being discussed. It wasn't a moral argument. There was a lot of guilt in those days. It was an argument about economics. Also, old newspapers don't always tell the truth, anymore than today's newspapers do. Nor are they always relevant to the topic at hand.

[icclearly]

The Tariff of Abominations was passed in 1828, not 1928

Thank you. I stand corrected.

The remainder of your comment supports the argument that the more heavily populated states in the north (even if you accept your equal number of states' argument) had the political power as a result of their greater population and representation in the House (and with control of Executive), and they passed the tariff - at the expense of the south.

[icclearly]

I don't have time to do all the counting and math

Nor I. You went through some convuleted exceptions in your reply and I stand by my original numbers showing the south was much smaller in both states and population -- which translated into control.

It's not at all far-fetched to argue that for the most part, Southerners had dominated in the government, or at least had more influence than their numbers might warrant.

"Not far-fetched." Perhaps not far-fetched for you, but the facts don't bare that out.

Frankly, we are still fighting some of the same ideas to this day. Maybe not as divided by geography, but divided just the same. Our fight today is one side wants the other side to change their lifestyles and priorities, re-write and destroy our history and conform to their convoluted way of living. While the geographic distinction is not quite as great, it still exists -- think blue state/red state. And the population density still exists.

Nothing is new under the sun!

[Bull Snipe]

A 9-vote difference in a house with 199 Representatives hardly seem like an overwhelming exercise of Northern political power. Besides that
24 states half slave & half not slave means that the slave states had 24 senators. There is no way the tariff would have passed had all 24 slave state senators had voted against it. A 24/24 tie in the Senate would have meant that Vice President John C. Calhoune, of South Carolina, would have cast the tie breaking vote. He was vehemently opposed the tariff bill.

[x]

Population didn't matter. Until California was admitted there were as many slave states as free states. That meant the slave states had as many senators as the free states. Combine that with the filibuster and the fact that many Northerners voted with the South and it's clear that slaveowners had a veto in national politics.

The number of Southern presidents shows that the North did not dominate antebellum politics. When I said I didn't want to do all the math, I meant I didn't have time to count up all the Northern and Southern justices and speakers. Judging by your post to me, you are one of those people who doesn't do any research at all and just insults people.

[jmacusa]

Who are you to judge me as a Catholic. Take your own invrntory please and there there’ no Catholic anywhere who never exclaimed that.

This has now gone from pre Civil War to a religious discussion.

Count me out.

[Albion Wilde]

Finally!

[jmacusa]

Cool your jets Reb. If you think I'm opting out of Civil War threads you're mistaken.

I'm not going any where. I meant count me out of religious discussions.
As to the CW threads the war still on.

[BroJoeK]

BJK: "By no warped twisted logic can the Declaration of Independence be construed to grant an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure."

DiogenesLamp: "I am not going to entertain this idea. It says exactly that."

It says nothing of the sort, any more than it provides for an unlimited "right of abortion".
You chose to read into its language words that are just not there and were never intended by any Founder.
And that's because you're a typical Democrat, it's what Democrats by their nature do.

DiogenesLamp: "But I see a pattern. You warp the law and the clear meaning every time it needs to be warped to justify what you want to justify."

And now, typical Democrat, you're just projecting your own messed-up mind onto others.

[BroJoeK]

servantboy777: "My grandad and some of the old timers in the family would always comment on the Yankees they knew. Loud, boisterous, rude, obnoxious know it all’s."

Human nature is pretty consistent -- in any large group of people, a certain percent will be extroverts, the others introverts, some will seek to dominate, others want most to entertain, others want to help & serve, still others study hard to lean the best answers.
Some want to be seen by all, others want to blend into the group, still others will set themselves apart from the group and may even attack it. That's human nature, nothing to do with North vs. South, FRiend.

People not accustomed to the nuances of culture in a different part of the country can easily become confused by it, whether they are Northerners in the South, or Southerners in the North, or Westerners in the East, etc., etc. New Yorkers are said to be loud, brassy & fast talking, while Southerners are supposedly more polite and Westerners even laconic. But in truth, within each group some are more of one & less of the other. If you live in a noisy big city, even in the South, you can learn to talk louder & faster.

I've lived all over the country, in big cities, small towns & rural country. People are people, the regional differences aren't that great, at least in my experience.

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket quoting the NY Herald, May 1860: "The black republicans of our Northern States, while they are foremost in the agitation against the institution of slavery in the South, are the very men who, for the sake of profits accruing from the slave trade, which they hypocritically denounce, fit out these vessels, destined for the coast of Africa.
It requires all the vigilance of government to prevent the sailing of slavers from our Northern ports and the landing of negroes on the coast of Cuba; yet it is remarkable that the very same parties who most loudly condemn the democratic administration as the friends of slavery are the most active instruments if fostering the importation of slaves – a forcible commentary upon the hypocrisy of abolition agitation, both at home and abroad."

This is an astonishing piece of "journalism"... that is, until we remember that the New York Herald at the time was a solidly Democrat supporter.
As Democrats, the Herald is here doing what Democrats, by their nature, do -- projecting their own misdeeds onto Republicans.
In 1860 New York elected a Copperhead Democrat mayor, Fernando Wood, whose response to Deep South secessions was to propose New York also secede and form it's own country, to be called the "Free City of Tri-Insula".

The real clue here, that this is partisan propaganda, not credible journalism is in that name, "Black Republicans".
And the whole accusation that it was abolitionists "Black Republicans" not pro-slavery Democrats working to increase the international slave trade would be laughable, except that it did, no doubt, help elect Democrat Woods as mayor in 1860.

[BroJoeK]

icclearly: "In 1861 almost 80% of the population was in the northern states.
There were 20 states in the north and 11 in the south."

In 1860 the populations of various regions were:

1. 7 Deep South original Confederate states = 4,869,000 including slaves (47%).

2. 4 post Fort Sumter Confederate states = 4,034,000 (29% slaves)

3. 2 Border slave-states claimed by Confederates = 2,297,000 (17% slaves)

4. 2 US territories claimed by Confederates = 137,000

5. Total Confederate population in 13 states plus 2 territories = 11,337,000 = 36% of entire US population.

The remaining Union population then totaled 20,106,000 or 64% of the total of 31,443,000.

Of course, those numbers don't look so lopsided in favor of the Union, but we can easily make them look more so, beginning by subtracting out about 3.5 million slaves, and disallowing Missouri & Kentucky & US territories as Confederate states.
That brings the Confederate population down to about 5.5 million whites versus now 22,000,000 Northerners.

[icclearly]

In 1860 the populations of various regions were:,,,,

Your numbers are very close to what I have for 1860. I can't argue with your analysis.

But the other characters you copied on this comment are intently focused on 1828 when the "Tariff of Abominations" was passed. They seem to imply that the country was equally divided then -- and nothing could be further from the truth.

The north had the population and the power -- and they used it. It's that simple. See this FR post about north/south attitudes that, to a certain extent, exist to this day (click here). I work for a living and am pushed for time to get the specifics, but I will have it in a few days.

The story and the truth are that the north rammed through the tariff bill and then tried to correct it in the "Nullification Crisis" a few years later. They tried, but the damage was done and it did not go far enough. The population difference existed in 1828 and in 1832 (Nullification Crisis), and as you describe in 1860. That population difference was reflected in the makeup of congress (primarily the House).

So, here's the bottom line that the other three characters you copied don't seem to want to hear. That is, when 1861 rolled around, the dissatisfaction had been brewing for 30 years. Lincoln was the straw that broke the camel's back. SC and, to a slightly lesser extent, others were ready to bolt.

What was the dissatisfaction, you may ask? With the power to do so, the north slammed the south economically (follow the money) with the tariffs and dictated their views on the south by law (states rights). Clearly, slavery was an issue but it was far from the primary issue. The south was just fed up with the abuse of power and being robbed by the one-sided tariffs.

So, the south drew a red line and said -- that's "it." By the way, the country was as divided then as it is today. While not exactly by geography but divided just the same -- maybe more so.

Well, it was "it." And we (the south) lost. So, we didn't get to write the history books as a result.

On a related note, while slavery was an issue, as mentioned, it was just one of many. There were significant ideological issues! With their moral superiority, some say that the north fought to free the slaves. It sounds good, but there is much more to the story. Anyway, by about 1885, slavery in the world was about over. Brazil was the last country to abolish slavery. So, was it worth killing over 600,000 of our young lives and destroying the nation to shorten an institution that had been around since man first walked the earth by 30 years? Some may say yes, but it makes no sense. The world was moving in that direction, and it was clear slavery was on life support.

[servantboy777]

Lol...my comments were kind of tongue in cheek. I grew up in a very Southern focused family. I think back from time to time about stories of life on the plantations.

One in Louisiana and one in Elora TN. There were endearing stories of mammies caring for the children. Stories of freed slaves not wanting to leave the plantations after the war.

This was their home. Where they worked, raised the kids, schooled the kids.

Stories of cruelty were not passed down through our family.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not going to indulge this assertion. The Declaration of Independence makes it very clear that the sole deciders of whether or not a people should have independence, is the people themselves.

That literally means "at pleasure."

[BroJoeK]

icclearly: "The story and the truth are that the north rammed through the tariff bill and then tried to correct it in the "Nullification Crisis" a few years later.
They tried, but the damage was done and it did not go far enough.
The population difference existed in 1828 and in 1832 (Nullification Crisis), and as you describe in 1860.
That population difference was reflected in the makeup of congress (primarily the House)."

In 1830 the US population was around 13 million in 24 states -- 12 slave, 12 free, though the free state population outnumbered slave states by 1.5 million = 56% to 44%, including slaves.
These numbers were reflected in the Congressional vote on the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" -- of the 199 total votes, 82 were from slave states, 117 from free states.
We are not told how many abstained, but 17 slave-state representatives voted for the tariff and 23 New England representatives voted against it.
So it was not strictly a matter of "North vs. South".

Here is a summary of the House vote in 1828:

House Vote on Tariff of 1828

Regional States	For	Against
New England (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine)	16	21
Middele States (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware)	56	6
"Western" States (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky)	29	1
South (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana,North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Maryland)	4	64
Total	105	94
Free States	88	29
Slave States	17	65

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Not going to indulge this assertion. "

That's because you are still a Democrat at heart, and Democrats just can't listen to reason that doesn't confirm their pervious opinions.

DiogenesLamp: "The Declaration of Independence makes it very clear that the sole deciders of whether or not a people should have independence, is the people themselves."

Not at all -- the Declaration is all about "necessity" created by British abuse & oppressions, a "parade of horribles" which it lists in detail.
It begins with the very words, "When... it becomes necessary..." and even notes that "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...".

Those are our Founders' honest beliefs, which you dismiss as irrelevant.
They went on to say:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism..."

And now we see their "necessary" conditions -- abuses, usurpations, absolute Despotism & tyranny, which again you dismiss as irrelevant.

So when such intolerable conditions exist, then:

"...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

So there was nothing "at pleasure" about what our Founders did in 1776.
However, in 1788, it was 100% "at pleasure" in "seceding" from the old Articles to the new Constitution and that's why it was done by mutual consent.

Bottom line: our Founders practiced revolution from necessity and they made "at pleasure" changes by mutual consent.

In 1861 there was neither "necessity" nor "mutual consent" and so our Founders would not have supported such secession "at pleasure".

[BroJoeK]

"Stories of cruelty were not passed down through our family."

Nor through mine, though my mother's family were among the few Republicans in a state dominated by Southern Democrats, and they had plenty to say about dishonest Democrat politicians.
My mother's people were especially outraged at Democrats who every election day raised up the dead from their graveyards just long enough to vote Democrat and then put them back in their boxes until the next election day!

Yes, that was considered humorous in her family! ;-)

[DiogenesLamp]

Not at all -- the Declaration is all about "necessity"

No it isn't. It does not say "necessity" in the important part. It only uses that word in regards to "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind."

Respecting the opinions of mankind is not a "necessity."