Posted on 12/16/2023 9:27:14 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
1/ Within the next several days, barring intervention from Congress, the Biden Regime, in violation of the law, will remove the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery, commissioned to celebrate the reconciliation of North and South.
@blueandgray1864 @oilfieldRando
2/ The memorial is considered the masterwork of the renowned Jewish-American sculptor Sir Moses Ezekiel (a former Confederate soldier who was described by his biographer as “adamantly opposed to slavery") who is buried at its base.
3/ Ezekiel, knighted by the King of Italy, was so dedicated to North-South reconciliation that he would later host commanding Union General Ulysses S. Grant at his studio.
4/ Yet in the wake of the George Floyd moral panic, this memorial was scheduled for removal, though its removal is being done in violation of several federal laws and the clear text of the legislation, which excludes graves.
5/ As former Democrat Senator and Navy Secretary Jim Webb said:
“What was it that Union Army veteran McKinley understood about the Confederate soldiers who opposed him on the battlefield that eludes today’s monument smashers and ad hominem destroyers of historical reputations?”
6/ In fact, at the time it was constructed, some major Confederate groups opposed it because they opposed the reconciliation it symbolized.
7/ Webb, a Vietnam Veteran, has spoken about taking groups of North and South Vietnamese to the monument to show how the U.S. reconciled successfully after a bitter civil war
8/ 44 House Republicans have signed a letter opposing the removal but every Republican should be on record as opposing this lawless action
9/ But of course, this is never *really* about the Confederacy or “Confederate Statues”. The same spirit animated the recent removal of the statue of Thomas Jefferson from the New York City Council, where it had stood for 187 years.
Many of us participating in this thread provided information based on our observations, quotes etc. that we feel back up our opinions. For instance, the back and forth as to whether or not slave labor can be used effectively for this or that occupation is conjectural. It's fine to to propose theories and draw personal conclusions, but that does not necessarily prove or back up anything.
IMO, human affairs are complicated and do not always lend themselves to explanations based on quotes from participants. People looking at events and drawing different conclusions from them are often the cause of wars.
Jefferson looked at slavery and did not see a crime against humanity. Others did see it. His lovely prose in the Declaration positing all men to be created equal I believe to be hypocritical. Lincoln's words in his letter to Erastus Corning and Others (1863) are not as lofty as Jefferson's; but they are, IMO, he words of an honest man struggling to save a nation that was trying to get its act together. We won't agree...so what?
Now, as for Davis...Many of his quotes remind me of the line Ted Knight (as Judge Smails) delivered to a young actor in Caddyshack when he told the kid something to the effect that he sentenced boys like him to death for their own good. I suspect Davis might have felt he was doing slaves a favor by holding them in bondage for their own good.
Damn, if I don't hate these long posts. I doubt many here read them. And I will tell you that I don't normally post with FReepers who are fond of telling me that I am mistaken etc.. I prefer to use terms such as "I disagree". But I will admit your dedication to and interest in this subject have been of interest to me...not sure how long that is going to continue.
You are too quick to believe that politicians you agree with are straight shooters. Here is Robert Toombs lecturing Bostonians about slavery for a very long time. Here he is in 1865 on the question of arming Black troops. He rejected the idea, even if it could have saved the 10% tariff.
In my opinion, the worst calamity that could befall us would be to gain our independence by the valor of our slaves, instead of our own… The day the army of Virginia allows a negro regiment to enter their lines as soldiers, they will be degraded, ruined, and disgraced. But if you put our negroes and white men into the army together, you must and will put them on an equality; they must be under the same code, the same pay, allowances and clothing… Therefore, it is a surrender of the entire slavery question.
And of course, the stirring words of his farewell to the US Senate:
You Abolitionists are right when you say that there are thousands and tens of thousands of men in Georgia, and all over the South, who do not own slaves. A very large portion of the people of Georgia own none of them. In the mountains, there are comparatively but few of them; but no part of our people are more loyal to their race and country than our bold and brave mountain population: and every flash of the electric wires brings me cheering news from our mountain tops and our valleys, that these sons of Georgia are excelled by none of their countrymen in loyalty to the rights, the honor, and the glory of the Commonwealth. They say, and well say: This is our question; we want no negro equality, no negro citizenship; we want no mongrel race to degrade our own; and as one man they would meet you upon the border with the sword in one hand and the torch in the other.
Toombs did admit that some day his state might decide to abolish slavery, but he certainly wasn't going to lead the way or support it at the time. In any event, it's clear that slavery was very much on his mind, whether or not he chose to devote one of his speeches to it.
The South was not paying the overwhelming majority of the tariff, and there's no indication that per capita government spending was greater in the North than in the South. There was a protectionist component to the tariff that did benefit Northerners who went into industry. Southern industrialists and Southern hemp and sugar cane growers also benefited. Secessionists could rail against US import duties. Their plan was to tax cotton exports. Something that the US constitution wouldn't allow.
Slave miners were an important factor in the economies of Ancient Rome and Spain's New World Empire, but I will admit that some of the problems slavery might have in industry also would be faced in modern mining.
OK but what is not opinion but rather observable data is that chattel slavery could not be made to work efficiently for much of anything except large scale agriculture and even then only for lucrative cash crops....and arguably even then it only worked because the "enforcement costs" were socialized while the profit was privatized. It just didn't work with industrialization. There isn't an example of chattel slavery being successful in an industrialized setting.
Jefferson looked at slavery and did not see a crime against humanity. Others did see it. His lovely prose in the Declaration positing all men to be created equal I believe to be hypocritical. Lincoln's words in his letter to Erastus Corning and Others (1863) are not as lofty as Jefferson's; but they are, IMO, he words of an honest man struggling to save a nation that was trying to get its act together. We won't agree...so what?
Jefferson wasn't sure if Blacks could be intellectual/moral equals. He did oppose slavery in principle and tried on 11 different occasions to get rid of it, prevent it from expanding, etc. He had feet of clay to be sure but he was way ahead of his time in many ways. He was born into a world of hereditary kings, no democracy and no guaranteed rights for individuals. Even if he didn't get as far as some would have liked he - in football terms - advanced the ball down the field quite a ways.
Now, as for Davis...Many of his quotes remind me of the line Ted Knight (as Judge Smails) delivered to a young actor in Caddyshack when he told the kid something to the effect that he sentenced boys like him to death for their own good. I suspect Davis might have felt he was doing slaves a favor by holding them in bondage for their own good.
Davis thought the Southern states were not fighting for slavery. He himself advocated emancipation long before he could finally get the Confederate Congress to go along with it. As a slave owner he was known to be particularly enlightened.
Watch from 40 to 46 minutes on his treatment of his own slaves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a35NAQvvTB0
I hope the negroes' fidelity will be duly rewarded and regret that we are not in a position to aid and protect them. There is, I observe, a controversy which I regret as to allowing negroes to testify in court. From brother Joe [Joseph Davis], many years ago, I derived the opinion that they should be made competent witnesses, the jury judging of their credibility. (Jefferson Davis: Private Letters 1823-1889, selected and edited by Hudson Strode, New York: De Capo Press, 1995, reprint, p. 188)
Davis was a kind, decent Christian man who treated blacks with respect, and many blacks knew it. During a trip through the western part of the Confederacy, Davis got off his train at Griswoldville, Georgia, in order to meet with a group of slaves who had gathered in the hope of seeing him. These men worked at a local pistol factory and had come to the train station because they wanted to meet Davis. Informed of the gathering, Davis got off the train and circulated among the group, shaking each hand and speaking to each man individually (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, p. 494).
When Davis returned to Richmond, Virginia, after the war, he was not only cheered by whites but also by blacks. One observer noted that Davis was "greatly touched" by the sympathy shown to him by the blacks in the crowd. In fact, some blacks climbed up on his carriage, shook and kissed his hand, and called out "God bless Mars Davis" (Allen, Jefferson Davis: Unconquerable Heart, pp. 486-487).
He was a man of his time and no doubt by today's standards would be considered a racist.....as would practically everybody else in the world at the time. Far from being a mint julep sipping caricature of a plantation owner however, he was not cruel, did not abuse his slaves and always treated Blacks with respect - and furthermore, Black people at the time knew it.
Damn, if I don't hate these long posts. I doubt many here read them. And I will tell you that I don't normally post with FReepers who are fond of telling me that I am mistaken etc.. I prefer to use terms such as "I disagree". But I will admit your dedication to and interest in this subject have been of interest to me...not sure how long that is going to continue.
I have no problem with disagreement and do not equate it with disrespect. I'm always willing to consider other points of view but, I need to see the evidence others have to back up their arguments.
Can we at least put an end to this piece of nonsense?
In fact, slavery was alive and well in New Mexico:
Mexican Rule: "...After Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1821, Mexico enacted the Treaty of Córdoba, which decreed that indigenous tribes within its borders were citizens of Mexico.
Officially, the newly independent Mexican government proclaimed a policy of social equality for all ethnic groups, and the genízaros were officially considered equals to their vecino (villagers of mainly mixed racial background) and Pueblo neighbors.[33]
This never was completely put into practice.
The Mexican slave trade continued to flourish.
The average price for a boy slave was $100, while girls brought $150 to $200.[34]
Girls demanded a higher price because they were thought to be excellent house keepers and they were frequently used as sex slaves...
American Territory: In the period of Mexican and early American rule (1821–1880), most of the genízaros and captive servants in New Mexico were of Navajo ancestry.
Author Brugge estimates that 2,465 Navajos were captive servants during the 1860s as well as 1,000 from other tribes.[35]
During negotiations with the United States military, Navajo spokesmen raised the issue of Navajos being held as servants in Spanish/Mexican households.
When asked how many Navajos were among the Mexicans, they responded (with exaggeration): "over half the tribe".[36]...
Last Slaves:...Slavery in New Mexico and the southwestern United States persisted into the 20th century in isolated cases.
In 1909, trader Louisa Wade Wetherill inherited 32 Ute slaves, all women, from a rich Navajo leader.
She gave the women a herd of sheep and sent them on their way, but they gave away their sheep and came back destitute to her trading post.
She built them hogans and permitted them to live nearby, feeding them and giving them work when they asked for it.[42]"
For anyone who's not familiar with the 1860 map of the USA:
No, I've not forgotten these instances. It wasn't so much that Southerners feared a slave revolt.....at least not the vast majority who didn't own any slaves. It was that they could see there were Northern terrorists who would do all they could to incite slave revolts.....AND far more damaging to internal relations....they could see that many more Northerners were willing to finance these terrorists and murderers like John Brown AND the state governments in Northern states just winked at it. For example, when John Brown and his terrorists raided Harper's Ferry, they had Sharps rifles. These were brand new and quite expensive. Everybody immediately knew he had financial backing from others. When several of those others came out publicly, several Northern states did not arrest them or charge them with committing any crime.
Remember what the US was like after 9/11? Had we found any country a state sponsor of the terrorist attack, we would have issued a formal declaration of war. Had we found wealthy people in other countries publicly sponsored that terrorist attack and those countries did nothing but instead provided safe haven for them it would at the very least have utterly wrecked our relations with those countries if not caused the US to start trying to overthrow the governments of those countries. That would have been seen as an extremely hostile act.
That's exactly how Southerners viewed the Northern states after Harpers Ferry. It wasn't so much the fear of slave revolts as some Northerners were actively trying to get them killed and Northern states provided them sanctuary from which they could sponsor future attacks. This was no longer a matter of mere political disagreement. These were actual enemies.
You are too quick to believe that politicians you agree with are straight shooters. Here is Robert Toombs lecturing Bostonians about slavery for a very long time. Here he is in 1865 on the question of arming Black troops. He rejected the idea, even if it could have saved the 10% tariff.
Au Contraire. I don't assume any politicians are beneath being self serving and many though not all of them hypocritical. I will point out however that there is another side to the standard narrative that is now presented in the public schools and on TV.....that there obviously were major concerns about other issues especially THE standard issue people usually fight about which is money.
Toombs did admit that some day his state might decide to abolish slavery, but he certainly wasn't going to lead the way or support it at the time. In any event, it's clear that slavery was very much on his mind, whether or not he chose to devote one of his speeches to it.
I have never denied racism was prevalent. That was true of the vast majority of White people in the North, the South, and all around the world at that time. Was concern over that real? Of course it was. Slavery was AN issue. It just wasn't THE issue. As I've outlined there were 3 main issues. Economics/the Tariff and federal expenditures, The nature of the relationship between the federal government and the states and slavery. All 3 were linked. Most prominent Southerners felt that Northern lobbyists and business interests were out to line their own pockets at the South's expense. They wanted to expand the power of the federal government and reduce the power of the states to do that. And they used the slavery issue to keep Midwesterners on side whose interests otherwise did not align with those of Northeastern industrialists.
The South was not paying the overwhelming majority of the tariff, and there's no indication that per capita government spending was greater in the North than in the South.
This is simply false on both counts. Tax expert Charles Adams has laid it out and numerous Northern newspapers at the time in arguing for a war to prevent the Southern states from seceding made it quite clear that the South was a cash cow that was in effect paying huge amounts of tribute to the North every year. I've posted the articles here many times before as you well know.
There was a protectionist component to the tariff that did benefit Northerners who went into industry. Southern industrialists and Southern hemp and sugar cane growers also benefited. Secessionists could rail against US import duties. Their plan was to tax cotton exports. Something that the US constitution wouldn't allow.
Yes there were some sweeteners thrown in to try to log roll.....to pick off one or two Senators from Southern states so as to get the Morrill Tariff passed. Remember when Obama gave Nebraska a complete exemption from Obamacare to get a Nebraska senator to vote for it? This is standard fare in politics. The vast vast majority of the benefit from any high tariff would go to Northern industrialists. The vast majority of the costs would be borne by Southern exporter/importers.
Slave miners were an important factor in the economies of Ancient Rome and Spain's New World Empire, but I will admit that some of the problems slavery might have in industry also would be faced in modern mining.
When you have a flood of POWs coming in - like Rome did - they aren't worth much and you don't care very much as the slaveowner if they die in the mines or wherever. Many did and being sent to the mines was considered to be a death sentence in ancient Rome. Its vastly different when slaves are limited in number and quite expensive as they were in the US in the mid 19th century. As the slave owner you really don't want your valuable slaves to die. That's why indentured servants rather than slaves were put to work in the most dangerous jobs. Their value was much less to the owners of their contracts since they were only indentured for a limited time. Mining was just not an economically productive use to put slaves to. Had it been, they would have been used much more for that purpose throughout Latin/Central America which was doing a good bit of mining.
If slaves had been able to be put to profitable use in the New Mexico territory, a lot more of them would have been brought to the territory. They weren’t. Its dry as a bone out there. The engineering to irrigate much of anything out there did not exist in the mid 19th century. Hell, even in the 20th century not much other than the Valley of the Sun in Arizona was irrigated. Plantations, cash crops, etc just could not have been done there.
So let's talk about the first tariff -- the Tariff of 1789:
FLT-bird: "At first it was vastly richer and was willing to subsidize things like restrictions on shipping to only domestic (ie Northern) shipping to maintain that industry for national security."
It's not true that all shipping in 1789 was Northern owned or operated.
In fact, both Charleston, SC, and Baltimore, MD, were major ship builders.
So was New Orleans at the time of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803.
FLT-bird: "It was also willing to subsidize some mining and manufacturing (again overwhelmingly in the North) as well as infrastructure."
US iron & steel production in 1789 was a big deal, estimated as equal to Britain's, third in the world behind Sweden and Russia. So American steel was protected by tariffs as high as the highest protections on Southern exports like tobacco, hemp and indigo.
FLT-bird: "But time went on the North only ever clamored for even more money.
They tariff of abominations was hugely harmful.
Even the "lower" tariff you refer to was 17%.
That was considerably higher than what the South wanted.
The Confederate Constitution would have limited tariffs to 10% maximum."
The 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" was proposed or supported by the following Southerners:
After passage, the 1828 Tariff of Abominations caused South Carolinians to threaten nullification and secession, to which now Pres. Andrew Jackson famously responded:
"On December 10, he issued a proclamation against the "nullifiers",[255] condemning nullification as contrary to the Constitution's letter and spirit, rejecting the right of secession, and declaring that South Carolina stood on "the brink of insurrection and treason".[256]"
Finally, the Confederate constitution says nothing about a 10% maximum tariff rate, though it does attempt to eliminate protectionist tariffs.
In February 1860 Confederates adopted basically the old 15% US tariff from 1857 (passed by Democrats), with some minor changes.
It was replaced by the second Confederate tariff on August 31, 1861.
In reality, by the time the new rates went into effect, the Union blockade had nearly eliminated Confederate dutiable imports.
US tariff rates, both overall and dutiable averages from 1821 to 2016:
Read my post #264 again.
In 1860 there were thousands of slaves in New Mexico territory.
Very few were of African descent.
The last reports of slavery in New Mexico came from 1909.
Evidence comes in several varieties. With the exception of the well-documented physical captivity and its attendant crimes against the enslaved, much of the evidence offered in support of the various positions taken on this thread are circumstantial. And that variety of evidence is open to interpretations that can often bring visions of a dog chasing its tail.
The various approaches to slave ownership, "kindly" or brutal, are inhumane. Slavery, whether practiced by T. Jefferson etc. or a Simon Legree, is a crime against humanity, in my view. And there is no appeal for me in the opinion that, in due time, a benevolent or industrially evolved South would phase out the abomination of slavery. As a side note, IMO, the belief that black intelligence could not be used in highly skilled labor in any environment is a slur on the legacies of individuals of Carver's worth.
It is obvious, at least to me, that no amount of citing data of this or that approach to slavery or its suitability for this or that employment has any bearing on the North's absolute duty to abolish it.
I will, however, state that this thread's intellectual spinning etc. has been interesting.
Yes, I've said that in the early years Southern political leaders agreed to protectionist measures and what amounted to wealth transfers to ensure a domestic shipping industry and some mining and manufacturing. There was no dispute about this.
"James Madison modified the terms of the tariff to balance sectional conflicts[4] but conceded that articles subject to high duties "were pretty generally taxed for the benefit of the manufacturing part of the northern community."[5] He acknowledged the South, the main wealth-producing part of the nation, would inevitably "shoulder a disproportionate share of the financial burden involved in the transforming the United States into a commercial, manufacturing, and maritime power."[6]" In Madison's mind, the South was the wealthiest and so should pay the highest share of import duties. However, it's not clear to me how Southern exports -- i.e., tobacco, hemp & indigo -- were any less protected than Northern steel.
Exports weren't protected at all. Domestic manufacturing was protected....and as this also shows, Madison knew full well that the effect would be to transfer wealth from the South to the North just as I said it did.
It's not true that all shipping in 1789 was Northern owned or operated. In fact, both Charleston, SC, and Baltimore, MD, were major ship builders. So was New Orleans at the time of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803.,/p>
Its not true that I said "all". Fishing and shipbuilding were more of a Northern industry than a Southern one from before the War of Independence though.
US iron & steel production in 1789 was a big deal, estimated as equal to Britain's, third in the world behind Sweden and Russia. So American steel was protected by tariffs as high as the highest protections on Southern exports like tobacco, hemp and indigo.
Except there were no protections for for exports. There were only tariffs on imports. These tariffs protected Northern Industries overwhelmingly.
The 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" was proposed or supported by the following Southerners: VP John C Calhoun from SC Sec. of State Henry Clay from KY Andrew Jackson from TN House representatives from TN and KY The "Tariff of Abominations" was opposed by other Southerners and also by a majority New Englanders. After passage, the 1828 Tariff of Abominations caused South Carolinians to threaten nullification and secession, to
Some Southern political leaders supported the Tariff of Abominations beforehand. Once they saw how harmful it was economically, nobody in the South supported high tariffs any more.
Finally, the Confederate constitution says nothing about a 10% maximum tariff rate, though it does attempt to eliminate protectionist tariffs.
The Confederate Constitution allowed for a revenue tariff only - no protectionist tariff. The maximum rate for a revenue tariff was understood by one and all to be 10%.
In February 1860 Confederates adopted basically the old 15% US tariff from 1857 (passed by Democrats), with some minor changes. It was replaced by the second Confederate tariff on August 31, 1861.
Feb 1860? You mean 1861. The CSA was by then at war and needed to raise huge amounts of money to pay for the war. Wars are expensive.
Read my earlier post. Only 12 African slaves had been brought into the New Mexico territory. Slavery as an economic system was not profitable there. They could not grow the labor intensive high value cash crops needed to sustain it.
Thanks for the info...
A few points. Nobody is arguing for slavery. As to when it would have ended in the South that of course can only be a matter of conjecture but there were many who felt secession would lead to a more rapid collapse of slavery in the states where it existed. The CSA only had a total White population of 5.5 million and it had a 1500 mile long border to police. There is simply no way they could have prevented hordes of slaves from pouring over the border into the US which would now be a separate country and under no obligation to return their escaped slaves. In order to work, slavery needed to socialize the enforcement costs. It needed the fugitive slave clause in the US constitution. And Yes, this argument was made at the time.
"But secession, Lincoln argued, would actually make it harder for the South to preserve slavery. If the Southern states tried to leave the Union, they would lose all their constitutional guarantees, and northerners would no longer be obliged to return fugitive slaves to disloyal owners. In other words, the South was safer inside the Union than without, and to prove his point Lincoln confirmed his willingness to support a recently proposed thirteenth amendment to the Constitution, which would specifically prohibit the federal government from interfering with slavery in states where it already existed." (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 32-33)
As a side note, IMO, the belief that black intelligence could not be used in highly skilled labor in any environment is a slur on the legacies of individuals of Carver's worth.
Who believed that Blacks were not intelligent enough to become highly skilled in various specialties? Obviously some were highly skilled in various areas right from the start.
It is obvious, at least to me, that no amount of citing data of this or that approach to slavery or its suitability for this or that employment has any bearing on the North's absolute duty to abolish it. I will, however, state that this thread's intellectual spinning etc. has been interesting.
Nobody is arguing the ending of slavery was a bad thing. The means of how it got done were though. In only one country was the abolition of slavery even associated with a major bloodbath. Every other country got rid of it via peaceful means. Usually that meant one form of compensated emancipation scheme or another. That's how the Northern states got rid of it. I do not and will never agree that spilling a huge amount of blood was "necessary" in this case when it wasn't "necessary" anywhere else as evidenced by the fact that they actually did get rid of it everywhere else by peaceful means. Of course, slavery was not why the Southern states seceded or why the federal government started a war against them to prevent them from leaving.
Of course they did. You can hear the same red state/blue state complaints now from both sides. They haven't led to Civil War, and if we do have a Civil War they won't be the reason. Secondly, consider that these are the "prominent Southerners," the political class, the people who read the newspapers and believe what they read, the people who write the newspapers and put in enough grievances to fill the pages. There's no indication that the average Southerner felt that his pocket was being picked unless he picked up elite opinions.
They wanted to expand the power of the federal government and reduce the power of the states to do that.
The Northerners or the Southerners? Northerners wanted a federally-funded transcontinental railroad. Southerners wanted a federally-funded (and possibly slave-built) transcontinental railroad. Northerners wanted a Homestead Act. It's not clear how that would expand the power and reach of the federal government. Northerners wanted an increase of the tariff and Southerners didn't. Southerners wanted federal censorship of the mails. They wanted strict enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law, and they wanted state resistance to the law to be suppressed. I don't see that in 1860 either side wanted to expand the power of the federal government much more than the other.
And they used the slavery issue to keep Midwesterners on side whose interests otherwise did not align with those of Northeastern industrialists.
It was the other way around. There was massive opposition to slavery expansion in both the Northeast and the Midwest. That's how the Republican Party got started and it was started at the grassroots. There was agreement between farmers and townspeople on both sides of the Alleghenies about slavery in the territories. Northeastern intellectuals agreed with them about slavery expansion. The tariff was the "wedge issue." It was thrown in to win the support of Pennsylvania, a key swing state that had gone Democrat in 1856 because it was Buchanan's state. The tariff prevented the Republicans from going the way of the Liberty Party and the Free Soil Party. New York financial interests were divided. New York went Republican because of the upstate vote.
Mining was just not an economically productive use to put slaves to. Had it been, they would have been used much more for that purpose throughout Latin/Central America which was doing a good bit of mining.
Don't you know that they were? Native and African slaves were used extensively at Potosi, the world's largest silver mine. If there isn't a large Black population in Bolivia, it's because most of the Africans were worked to death.
Two things. It was much worse then. There weren't "stabilizers" built in like social security, a federal income tax, etc etc that smooth things over. The wealth transfer from one region to another was far greater then. Also, numerous Southern politicians were saying it. This must have been on the minds of their voters.
The Northerners or the Southerners? Northerners wanted a federally-funded transcontinental railroad. Southerners wanted a federally-funded (and possibly slave-built) transcontinental railroad. Northerners wanted a Homestead Act. It's not clear how that would expand the power and reach of the federal government. Northerners wanted an increase of the tariff and Southerners didn't. Southerners wanted federal censorship of the mails. They wanted strict enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law, and they wanted state resistance to the law to be suppressed. I don't see that in 1860 either side wanted to expand the power of the federal government much more than the other.
The North wanted higher tariffs, more corporate subsidies, more expenditure for infrastructure projects and they wanted all this to be concentrated in their region like it generally had been up to that point. I will freely concede that both sides were not above some hypocrisy....ie Northerners in claiming states' rights for certain things they wanted and Southerners championing federal power for some things they wanted. Politicians then as now were hypocrites.
It was the other way around. There was massive opposition to slavery expansion in both the Northeast and the Midwest. That's how the Republican Party got started and it was started at the grassroots. There was agreement between farmers and townspeople on both sides of the Alleghenies about slavery in the territories. Northeastern intellectuals agreed with them about slavery expansion. The tariff was the "wedge issue." It was thrown in to win the support of Pennsylvania, a key swing state that had gone Democrat in 1856 because it was Buchanan's state. The tariff prevented the Republicans from going the way of the Liberty Party and the Free Soil Party. New York financial interests were divided. New York went Republican because of the upstate vote.
Midwesterners didn't just want slaves kept out of the Western territory. They wanted BLACKS kept out to include free blacks. They adopted the first "Black codes" and the state constitutions of Kansas and Oregon forbade Blacks from settling there. The desire to acquire the Western lands for settlement was fairly universal in the North. The Industrialists wanted it too because that was some of the "compensation" they used to draw cheap labor for their factories from Europe. They'd come over penniless, work in the factories for a few years and save a little and then go homestead free land in the West - the impossible dream in Europe, your own land!
The South's interest in the western territory was more for the votes in the Senate they needed. They had a smaller population and weren't drawing in a lot of immigration by comparison.
Don't you know that they were? Native and African slaves were used extensively at Potosi, the world's largest silver mine. If there isn't a large Black population in Bolivia, it's because most of the Africans were worked to death.
The Spaniards worked a lot of the Natives to death in the mines just as the Romans worked a lot of their slaves to death in the mines. Mining was horrendously dangerous until well into the 20th century. Slaves were expensive in America. Slave owners did not want to risk their valuable property in such a hazardous activity.
I have been casually looking for information on the South's interest in and/or support for possibly building a southern railroad route across Texas and the southwest. I feel this could shed light on the CSA’s positions as to expansion. I haven't as yet found much info.
Isn't it the black slaves that we are talking about? The Indian slaves became peóns.
I would encourage you to look further south. The maps presented here seem to end at the Rio Grande, as if that was the edge of the world. Jeff Davis and his Confederacy had their eyes on a much bigger market for their peculiar institution. Some might call it a golden circle that stretched through Mexico, down through Latin America, across northern South America and all the way to Cuba. They didn’t need any Corwin Amendment, or even western expansion. They had their eyes on a much bigger picture than some here (with their blinders on) discuss. It’s a waste of time even discussing the Corwin Amendment and or expansion into the “territories”. The Confederacy had high hopes to become a main player on the world stage separate from the parasitic Northern States.
Thanks...I am going to sniff around some of the antebellum congressional interaction between Northern and Southern delegations concerning the Gadsden Purchase...If I can find some time...
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.