Replies

You are still going on about how many black soldiers were on each side of this thing. Yes, let's focus on that trivia instead of the larger question of why the Union refused to let the South leave. Why the Union was fine with Slavery, so long as it was under their control.

How about you address that point? Also your arguments about revenue are so much crap. All of New England shipping and economic interests were at threat because of lower duty Southern ports.

Not only did the FedGov lose a tremendous amount of money from an Independent South, The New England Shipping interests and warehouses would have take a massive hit on their vigorish, and New England factories would have lost major chunks of their business.

I always used to wonder why people thought the Union blockade was essential to winning the war. When I was younger, I never understood the point of it. Presumably all the men who would fight were already in the South, and Presumably they had enough guns to do it, so what did the blockade do except just annoy people?

Now I understand exactly what the blockade did. It kept those Southern ports from financially massacring New England ports. The Blockade was ESSENTIAL to winning the war, because once Europe started seeing real economic gains from trading at those southern ports, there would be no putting that economic genie back into the bottle.

The only way possible for the Union to win was to make sure European business interests never saw those profits from trading at Southern ports. Thus the Blockade was absolutely necessary.

I found out a long time ago that the Union didn't launch a war over slavery. I have since come to realize that the Union launched a war because of money. It was the potential loss of Massive amounts of money that made the leadership decide an independent South was a threat to their livelihood.

And so they propagandized the slave issue to obfuscate their real reasons for sending a massive invasion force. No one would have fought so that rich people could continue to make large amounts of money, so they needed an emotional hook.

The war was about money.

Okay, now you can go back to your "We had more black soldiers than you did" distraction.

DiogenesLamp: "...Yes, let's focus on that trivia instead of the larger question of why the Union refused to let the South leave."

But I have already answered that question numerous times -- in depth and in summary -- on many threads, including most recently directly to you on post #196 above.

In brief, the answer is:

No Federal actions were taken -- none, zero, nada -- to prevent Slave-Power Fire-Eaters from declaring their secessions in December 1860 and January 1861.
No Federal actions were taken -- none, zero, nada -- to prevent secessionists from meeting & forming a new Confederacy on February 4, 1861.
No Federal actions were taken -- none, zero, nada -- to stop Confederates from writing and approving a new constitution for the CSA, beginning February 8, 1861.
No Federal actions were taken -- none, zero, nada -- to prevent Confederate delegates from electing Jefferson Davis as their President, on February 10, 1861.
No Federal actions were taken -- none, zero, nada -- to stop Confederates from seizing dozens of major Federal properties, i.e., forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc.
No Federal actions were taken -- none, zero, nada -- to stop Confederacy from calling up 100,000 troops on March 6, 1861, or making their own currency on March 9, 1861.
No Federal actions were taken -- none, zero, nada -- to stop Confederates from fortifying Charleston harbor and preparing a military assault on Fort Sumter.
Even after the Confederacy started war at Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861), sent military aid to pro-Confederates fighting in Union Missouri (April 23, 1861), formally declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861), called up an additional 400,000 troops, now 500,000 total (May 9), and ordered military supplies from abroad (May 10), still the Union armies did not invade a single Confederate state, and did not kill a single Confederate soldier.

The first battle resulting in one Confederate soldier killed, Private Henry L. Wyatt of the 1st North Carolina Volunteers, was Big Bethel on June 10,1861.
By that time dozens of Union troops had been killed, over 100 wounded and hundreds more captured and held POW in Texas.

And that's why there was a Civil War.
All the rest is just talk.

DiogenesLamp: "Why the Union was fine with Slavery, so long as it was under their control.
How about you address that point?"

Of course, slavery was the South's "peculiar institution" and was never "under Union control".
But more generically, your question is yet another I've answered numerous times.

Slavery is not only recognized in the US Constitution, it was in 1787 a precondition for Union.
In other words, had slavery not been incorporated into, and used to boost Southern representation in the new Constitution, there could have been no Union.
At least some Southern states would not have joined, so there would be no single United States.
In 1787, only Vermont and Massachusetts had no slaves, while slavery was still entirely legal in New York and New Jersey.
All other Northern states were in process of gradually abolishing slavery.
Point is: slavery in 1787 was not the anathema in the North that it later became.
From the time of Adams & Jefferson (1800) US politics was divided between a dominant Southern party and an opposition Northern party.
The Southern party was dominant for two reason:
- The Constitution's 3/5 rule gave the South disproportionate representation in Congress and electoral college.
- Many Northerners, especially big city immigrants, joined in voting for the dominant Southern political party.
So the political alliance of Southern Slave-Power with Northern big-city immigrants dominated US politics throughout the period from 1800 through the election of 1860.
Naturally, Northern Democrats very seldom voted against the interests of their Southern slave-holding allies.
Even the Northern political opposition parties -- first Federalists and then Whigs -- were far from anti-slavery.
Indeed, the two elected Whig presidents (Harrison & Taylor) were both Southern slave-holders, so there was in no major sense an anti-slavery movement in Washington.
Yes, there were a few abolitionists, but they lacked political clout, and their main focus was in preventing slavery's expansion into northern territories.
But what happened in the 1850s was Slave-Power dominance in Washington lead to new laws which required Northern states to enforce slavery in their own borders, and this destroyed the old Whigs and ignited the new Republican revolution.

That's what elected "Black Republican" Lincoln president in 1860 leading to Slave-Power declarations of secession, Confederacy and war on the United States.

DiogenesLamp: "Also your arguments about revenue are so much crap.
All of New England shipping and economic interests were at threat because of lower duty Southern ports.

"Not only did the FedGov lose a tremendous amount of money from an Independent South, The New England Shipping interests and warehouses would have take a massive hit on their vigorish, and New England factories would have lost major chunks of their business."

Then, obviously, you've not paid any attention to my actual arguments, but fantasize something different.

To repeat: my argument is not that Southern cotton was unimportant, far from it.
Rather, my argument is that cotton was not the USA's only export, and therefore was not solely responsible for import tariffs which produced Federal revenues.

Once again, the facts are simple & clear: in 1860 US cotton exports totaled $191 million, and US imports $362 million, producing Federal revenues of $52 million (15% tariff).
So it's entirely fair to say cotton paid for 53% of imports, and therefore 53% of Federal revenues.

That's a huge number -- nobody North, South, East or West would be happy about losing 53% of US export earnings.
Especially hard hit would be shippers, merchants and manufacturers in big cities like New York, Philadelphia and Boston.
This is not a matter of dispute.

But some, including DiogenesLamp have claimed the number was much higher than 53% -- if I remember correctly, some have claimed upwards of 85%, and that is just ridiculous.

And as proof that the American economy and Federal Government could quickly adjust to life without cotton, it certainly did just that during the Civil War.

DiogenesLamp: "The only way possible for the Union to win was to make sure European business interests never saw those profits from trading at Southern ports.
Thus the Blockade was absolutely necessary."

Remember, General Scott's Anaconda Plan was based on a preexisting plan created years earlier, to be used in the event of domestic insurrections.
It was not a new idea, and would have been well known to a former Secretary of War like, for example, Jefferson Davis.

DiogenesLamp: "I found out a long time ago that the Union didn't launch a war over slavery.
I have since come to realize that the Union launched a war because of money.
It was the potential loss of Massive amounts of money that made the leadership decide an independent South was a threat to their livelihood."

Total rubbish, the Union didn't "launch a war" for any reason, period.
The Confederacy provoked, launched, declared & waged war against the United States for months before the Union did anything significant in response.
Of course, once the Union did respond, it fought for total victory and unconditional surrender, including the abolition of slavery.

Those are very simple facts anybody should be able to remember.
So why can't you?