Posted on 06/11/2013 4:48:08 AM PDT by iowamark
Civil War buffs have long speculated about how different the war might have been if only the Confederacy had won formal recognition from Britain. But few recognize how close that came to happening — and how much pro-Southern sympathy in Britain was built on a lie...
Early British support for the South was further buttressed by something as mundane as a protective tariff — the Morrill Tariff — approved by Congress on March 2, 1861. This new tariff, passed to protect American infant industries, also unwittingly gave rise to a troublesome myth of mounting trans-Atlantic proportions.
The tariff had been opposed by many Southern legislators, which is why it passed so easily once their states seceded. But this coincidence of timing fed a mistaken inversion of causation among the sympathetic British public – secession allowed the tariff to pass, but many in Britain thought that the tariff had come first, and so incensed the Southern states that they left the union.
Nor was this a simple misunderstanding. Pro-Southern business interests and journalists fed the myth that the war was over trade, not slavery – the better to win over people who might be appalled at siding with slave owners against the forces of abolition...
Why was England so susceptible to this fiction? For one thing, the Union did not immediately declare itself on a crusade for abolition at the war’s outset. Instead, Northern politicians cited vague notions of “union” – which could easily sound like an effort to put a noble gloss on a crass commercial dispute.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Actually the logic is self-evident.
Lincoln said that although he would resist the expansion of slavery into the territories he understood that (irrespective of his feelings regarding the institution) slavery was sanctioned by the constitution. His stated intention was to maintain the union as it was.
The notion that anyone sought to “secure a tier of states” is utter nonsense. The idea that the souths’ failure to industrialize was founded in anything other than sloth is ludicrous. “The cause was economic in nature.” Yes - the economics of slave labor.
Excise was minimal.
The South's failure to diversify was its own fault.
But they weren't. They were simply manning their post.
Not to mention that wasn’t the only thing going on at the time. I know your knowledge of the period is extremely limited and those other events are beyond your scope of reasoning.
Well then by all means please educate this poor, unworthy Yankee and tell me what else was going on?
As I admitted, I meant to say tariffs, not excise taxes as someone also noted.
As far as being “anachronistic”, I stand by my assertion, the war was over money much more than slavery. In fact, there would probably have been no shooting had the union simply let the states go or sought redress through the courts rather than pushing them into a shooting war by enforcing the tariff collections. It was only after 7 states seceeded that Lincoln called up an army (illegally) without congressional support which forced 4 more states to leave too.
Winners write the history books.
That concept died long before Lincoln. Virtually every president from Washington to Jefferson and Jackson on through Polk consolidated power. Washington sent troops into Pennsylvania to suppress rebellion. Jefferson doubled the size of the country. Jackson told South Carolina, "If one drop of blood is shed in opposition to the law, I will hang the first man I can lay my hands on from the first tree I can find." Polk started a war with Texas and almost started one with the UK. Lincoln didn't expand the power and scope of the federal government any more than many of his predecessors had.
That is regrettable, as the National Government imposes one-size-fits-all standards where one size doesn't fit, while the states have become rubber stamps for the National Government.
The blame for that lies more with the Roosevelts, Wilson, LBJ, and his successors than with Abraham Lincoln.
Losers write excuses explaining why they started their war and why they subsequently lost it.
If it were not for the southern colonies during the Revolution, there would have been no United States.
It was a shooting war because Confederates shot at a federal fort and then followed up by invading Kentucky.
I did not say there was violence about the collection of tariffs, just that the union fortified all important port entries like to Charleston which was a major financial provider.
No argument, the south fired first, in april, after providing orders to leave. In actually, the first shots were fired in January at a supply ship trying to supply the fort.
Uh huh.
The Union didn't fortify the entry to Savannah or New Orleans or Mobile or any of the really important Southern ports. And it didn't interfere with traffic in and out of Pensacola and Charleston.
No argument, the south fired first, in april, after providing orders to leave.
If I ordered you to leave your property would you do it?
And unrepentant Dixiecrats too.
“The Union didn’t fortify the entry to Savannah or New Orleans or Mobile or any of the really important Southern ports. And it didn’t interfere with traffic in and out of Pensacola and Charleston.”
They did not have time, SC was the first to say bye bye.
“If I ordered you to leave your property would you do it?”
If I was there illegally I would! OK, not being silly, suppose the state took this matter to court i.e. could a state seceed. What court would have jurisdiction? I don’t believe there was a world court at that time, perhaps a world court of public opinion which in fact the state appealed to for their establishing their own nation state. The supreme court? Well, that would be a court aligned with the nation they wanted to leave, no? Another point, am I responsible for my parents’ contracts. Of course not, so why can a state not leave of its own volition?
Anyway, they tried and got no where except more federal troops and supplies. I wish that had been resolved by legal means, not by battle which solves nothing, but letting the winner dictate terms and write the history.
Lost Causers often try to assert a comparison between the patriots of our Revolutionary War and the slavers of the Civil War. There's not much to compare. The colonists tried for years to gain the right to sit at the table in Parliament. The south didn't ever try - they just did what they wanted and hang the cost. Winners always dictate the terms but, unlike so very many wars before it, the south wasn't prevented from noting it's own history - or mythology.
“or mythology.”
I said it in another post so I will reiterate it: if it were not for that part of the revolution fought by and in the southern colonies, there would have been no US. Also, don’t be so naive, the revolution was fought not only for moral issues but also over monetary matters.
Slavery was an underlying cause of the WBTS, but it was not the paramount issue. I say underlying because it was the engine which kept the southern aggrarian economy working as mechanization was a dream. The issue it underlayed was monetary driven by tariffs. I missed any reference to slavery in the proclamation to arms by Lincoln which further supports my position. That and the fact few people actually owned slaves in the south and Lee and a good number of his generals also did not or had freed them prior to the war. None of this is mythology, it is historic fact.
The US did not have an excise taxes in 1835 or in 1860. Even the Whiskey tax was long gone.
If you really want to get the spittle flying suggest to one of the Lincoln Coven that black soldiers fought for the Confederacy. That really gets their heads spinning like Linda Blair on pea soup.
People in SC paid taxes, a lot of taxes, that pile of rubble in the middle of the Cooper River was paid for 10x over when the Feds were given the boot.
I'm not sure what your point is. None of the other Southern ports were fortified by any troops that hadn't been there when their state left.
What court would have jurisdiction?
Supreme Court. Article III, Section 2.
Well, that would be a court aligned with the nation they wanted to leave, no?
But their only recourse while a part of the U.S.
...so why can a state not leave of its own volition?
Madison said that the logical conclusion of the claim that a state could leave without the consent of the other states is that the other states could expel a state without its consent. Would you agree with that?
Anyway, they tried and got no where except more federal troops and supplies.
Didn't try very hard.
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.