Replies

Read some history boy!
Slavery had everything to do with it.

Learn some economics boy.

But why would the South want to secede? If the original American ideal of federalism and constitutionalism had survived to 1860, the South would not have needed to. But one issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing their production through public works. But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South?s trading relations with other parts of the world.

In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North?s early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the "tariff of abomination." Thirty year later, with the South paying 87 percent of federal tariff revenue while having their livelihoods threatened by protectionist legislation, it became impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime. The South as a region was being reduced to a slave status, with the federal government as its master.

But why 1860? Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery, but he did pledge to "collect the duties and imposts": he was the leading advocate of the tariff and public works policy, which is why his election prompted the South to secede. In pro-Lincoln newspapers, the phrase "free trade" was invoked as the equivalent of industrial suicide. Why fire on Ft. Sumter? It was a customs house, and when the North attempted to strengthen it, the South knew that its purpose was to collect taxes, as newspapers and politicians said at the time.

To gain an understanding of the Southern mission, look no further than the Confederate Constitution. It is a duplicate of the original Constitution, with several improvements. It guarantees free trade, restricts legislative power in crucial ways, abolishes public works, and attempts to rein in the executive. No, it didn?t abolish slavery but neither did the original Constitution (in fact, the original protected property rights in slaves).

Before the war, Lincoln himself had pledged to leave slavery intact, to enforce the fugitive slaves laws, and to support an amendment that would forever guarantee slavery where it then existed. Neither did he lift a finger to repeal the anti-Negro laws that besotted all Northern states, Illinois in particular. Recall that the underground railroad ended, not in New York or Boston-since dropping off blacks in those states would have been restricted-but in Canada! The Confederate Constitution did, however, make possible the gradual elimination of slavery, a process that would have been made easier had the North not so severely restricted the movements of former slaves.

Before the war, Lincoln himself had pledged to leave slavery intact,

Lincoln totally opposed Westward expansion of slavery which is exactly what the radicals in the South demanded. Lincoln would not compromise on that moral issue, and the greedy slave owning bastards looking to make a big buck selling human beings out West would not back off on their demands to make every Western territory 'slave country." They knew they needed more "slave states" if they were going to keep the institution alive and growing and continue to show a profit from their human breeding farms.

BTW. Show me where Lincoln ever proposed or sponsored an amendment to guarantee slavery where it existed. I'd like to see your source for that. Such an amendment would have been redundant in the first place since the constitution already acknowledged the legality of slavery.

And where did you get the factoid that Fort Sumter was a customs house? It was no such thing. It was a mostly unnecessary Federal Fort that was build at the demand of the Charleston slavers as a public works project. (i.e. a Federally sponsored boondoggle)

And where in the US Constitution is the clause that says slavery will exist in every area added to the nation? That is what the Confederate constitution says, quite explicitly. Confederate States couldn't ban slavery even if they wanted to. Some Federalism there!

As to tariffs, as the great Constitutionalist that you are, you surely must be aware that import tariffs were the major source of income for the Federal government prior to the 16th amendment with excise tariffs running a very distant second. Below is the average rate of tariff revenue vs. the value of imports beginning in 1821. The rate would go high in a time of war (like the Mexican War, which was fully supported by and of great benefit to all of the Southern states) spike high in times of recession, and be lower at a times of peace and prosperity. You will note that the year 1860 was a nearly all time low for tariffs followed by a very steep rise to an all time high of 45% to pay for the Civil War. I would assume that nearly all of that increase was paid by citizens of the North. The fact is however, that the total federal take in taxes was meaningless it was so small. It simply had little or no impact on the average person in those days.

And if tariffs were such a big deal for the South, a deal big enough to break the Union and go to war, why was it that ever resolution of secession passed by the legislatures listed protection of the institution of slavery as their prime reason? Every one of them, Vinne, with no exceptions listed slavery as their cause. By their own words, they did not break over tariffs. They broke over the issue of slavery! Yes, it was economic --- 60% of the wealth of the South was in the form of slaves --- albeit that 60% was owned by less than 5% of the population of the South. Of course those same 5% owned all the Southern legislatures too, but I digress.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste Vinny. Quit wasting yours at these neo-Nazi web sites that are attempting to rewrite well-documented history. The Civil War is the most written and studied event in our history. Its cause was clear. It was all about slavery.

In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North?s early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the "tariff of abomination." Thirty year later, with the South paying 87 percent of federal tariff revenue while having their livelihoods threatened by protectionist legislation, it became impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime.

Let me quote from Alexander Stephens, soon to be vice president of the confederacy:

"The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment. About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself. And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron and brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe every other Southern man. So we ought not to complain of that...Yes, and Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at.

How could tariffs be the cause is they were at the rate the southern politicians wanted them at?

The Confederate Constitution did, however, make possible the gradual elimination of slavery...

Let's quote from the confederate constitution:

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

How would that make possible the gradual elimination of slavery?

Neither did he lift a finger to repeal the anti-Negro laws that besotted all Northern states, Illinois in particular.

Leaving aside for a moment the Black Codes implemented down south after the rebellion, how could the president dictate the repeal of state laws? Don't you believe in states rights?