Posted on 08/01/2022 9:00:05 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
For some time I have wondered how to explain the cause of the Civil War in simple terms that are easy to understand. I now see that Ayn Rand did it years ago. Laws passed by a Northern controlled Congress routed all the money produced by the South into Northern "elite" pockets.
1. In March of 1861, both houses of the US Congress passed the Corwin Amendment, a bill proposing a constitutional amendment that would protect slavery. President Buchanan signed the bill*, which then went to the several states for ratification.
Some yankee states, and even free yankee states, voted to ratify the bill, but none of the Confederate states (to include those that were still 'officially' part of the Union) so much as bothered to put the matter to a vote, effectively rejecting a proposal to enshrine slavery in the US Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment
2. The March 22, 1862 issue of Harper's Weekly reported that Lincoln had held out an olive branch to the Confederacy. Rejoin the Union -- no harm, ho foul -- and we'll abolish slavery incrementally and compensate slave owners for the loss.
No official from any southern state (Union or Confederate) rose to the bait, demonstrating again that slavery was not a motivation fundamental to secesion.
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1862/march/slavery-compromise.htm
3. In January of 1865, Confederate President Davis sent Duncan F. Kenner (possibly the biggest slave owner in the continent) as envoy to the heads of state of France and Great Britain. Kenner was to attempt to enlist support for the Confederate cause from the European powers, hoping at the very least that they could be enticed to officially recognize the independence of the Confederacy. With the authority of the Confederate cabinet, Kenner was empowered to offer that in return for the Europeans' suppport, once the war was at a conclusion, the newly independent Confederate States would abolish slavery within a period of five years.
The French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte III was willing to acknowledge the Confederacy, but only if the British Prime Minister would do the same. Prime Minister Henry John Temple refused to even meet with Kenner, which scuppered the deal. But even if Kenner had succeeded, his mission probably took place too shortly before Lee's surrender at Appomattox to have changed the outcome of the war.
Still, it shows the Confederacy was willing to throw a "Hail Mary" pass to get shut of Lincoln, even at the cost of slavery.
https://libertyclassroom.com/slavery-and-the-civil-war-revisited/
* This bill has never been rescinded or overturned.
The cause of the civil war was a disagreement over the proper role of the states vis a vis the national government.
Since people who lived in the South, through no fault of their own, had as Jefferson said, “the wolf by the ears”, they elected state governments which would make sure the wolves never got loose.
“Fair minded” whites like Jefferson understood slavery could not stay lawful in the long run.
But his attitude about blacks was misguided, and prejudiced by the limitations on what sorts of blacks he had common association with, which were vastly uneducated blacks who of course had even less “civil” education than poor free whites. (Thus his call that part of the resolution of slavery include the deportation of freed slaves).
There were learned and accomplished blacks in America and the U.K. by the late 1700s, but, to Jefferson’s misfortune to his knowledge, they were few in number and even when published what they wrote was not widely circulated; limiting the awareness of them even among very learned men like Jeffferson.
Just a few examples, there was:
Venture Smith - 1729-1805
Ukawsaw Gronniosaw - 1705 - 1775
Olaudah Equiano - 1745 - 1797
Phillis wheatley - 1753 - 1784
Jupiter Hammon - 1711 - 1806
There were surely others who were never published or noted widely at the time, and that lack of awareness spread the myth in the 1700s that black slaves could never attain a western education on par with whtes of the 1700s. In truth most of what was missing was most were never provided any opportunites for an education, leaving plantation slaves as 99% from which most whites drew any impression; Jefferson included.
Fortunately, Jeffersons ideals were above his understanding of their universal adpatability, if the right circumstances were provided.
Most sane people wouldn't want any part of a war, but as Leon Trotsky noted. "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
Both sides ruthlessly plundered Mayland and burned their homes. I’ve visited some of the caves where families hid out.
You can see why both sides wouldn't trust them. To the South, they were disloyal people. To the North, probable sympathizers and potential assets for the South.
Ping
It reminds me of my millennial son and fiancé taking a picture of a payphone in a diner a few years back. They thought it was so quaint to see a working payphone for real. Everybody over the age of 40 just shook their heads the same way.
Cotton was almost entirely a product of the Deep South, in 1860 its exports totalled about $200 million, or about half of the Deep South's GDP.
Tobacco was a product of mostly Union states, including Kentucky.
In 1860 its exports totalled about $24 million, or roughly 10% of Border states GDP.
As to who, exactly, "made money" off those crops, obviously, everyone who handled or processed them got paid something, as did, for example, the carpenters who built the large estate homes of wealthy Southern planters, and Northerners who manufactured the iron stoves or carpets that went in those mansions.
So, how much money was left over for luxury imports after all the bills were paid, and new slaves "purchased" to expand his operations?
Typically, not very much, if any, and so naturally, we'd expect the great slav-ocrats to seek relief from their obligations by declaring secesdion & war on their creditors.
A clever move, right? Or too clever by half?
Stop showing your ignorance. Lots of Republicans were in power before Lincoln came along. William Seward was previously governor of New York and was at that time a Senator for New York. Thomas Corwin was a congressmen from Ohio.
I wish you knew more about the Civil War, so you could comment from a more defensible position.
I've been reading your commentary, and clearly you know less about it than do I.
The south was not sufficiently aggrieved by Yankee corruption to secede from the union. Yankees did not have a monopoly on influence peddling.
Lincoln did not appear on the ballot and did not receive one vote in the south during the 1860 election and yet won an electoral victory. The south realized that it would be a permanent political minority and would be dictated to by the central government on the question of slavery. The south seceded to form its own government to control its own culture, economy and destiny. The question of slavery was not a primary reason for secession but rather a symptom. The south did not want to be told how to live by Yankees.
“Rather than bring up the Civil War which people are still on different sides of the fence over, Ayn Rand’s statement could be used to reference our globalist/fascist problems.”
Correct.
Would love to get into it, but I am currently going through the replies. When the initial flurry of activity settles down, I will come back and give more details on how I was slowly swayed to see things differently.
Started with my friend (who is black) and who is a history major. He said something to me one day that shook my understanding of things.
Which laws in which Northern controlled Congress are you referring to?
They did in fact make soldiers out of slaves. For most of the Confederacy, the effort was near the end of the war, but Nathan Bedford Forest made 20 or so of his own slaves into cavalry with a promise of emancipation if they fought with him. They were quite effective. Prior to one battle, Forest signed all the manumission papers so that if he died, they would still have their freedom as he promised.
Only 1 deserted.
It is good of you to acknowledge that Virginia was clearly guided by the principle that states had a right to independence. It's a shame that the rest of them did not recognize this right.
So, the determining factor remains slavery. No dispute over slavery, fugitive slaves, etc. no secession.
You are begging the question here.
“As I understand it, cotton and tobacco were the USA’s biggest exports before the Civil War, but somehow the North made more money off them than the South did.”
ANYTHING from agriculture, from any part of the country, north or south, provided less profits (more competition among farmer sellers) than to large traders, distributors and exporters. It was not a north-south thing as much as an industry and trade over agriculture.
She is making a statement of general principles that applies to the entire history of mankind. As Lincoln would put it, "the same old serpent."
It just so happens that her statement applies in 1861 for those who have learned how to see it.
There was only an import tax. How would Southern cotton be taxed by that?
They didn't all agree to it! The North wanted it, and the South was against it. (Because they were paying most of the costs.)
Why would you say they all agreed to it when it was the bone of contention for decades?
It would have waned in the South as well if a certain Massachusetts citizen didn't invent the Cotton Gin.
Then, it suddenly became the South’s great sin, according to the northern virtue-signalers.
It was useful propaganda to gain power, just as BLM is being used today for the same purpose and by people from the same regions of the country and the same liberal "elite" attitude.
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.