FLT-bird: ***”Rhett made the case in 1860 - though he’d been making it for years - that the federal government under the control of the Northern states was treating the Southern states exactly as the British had treated the Colonies.
“Sure pro forma, the constitution did provide a vote but when a majority can impose taxes that fall overwhelmingly on a minority and use the tax revenue to enrich themselves, they will quickly develop an appetite for ever more of that....kinda like we see with social programs today.
If the taxes are paid by a minority, the rest will just vote themselves ever more of other people’s money.”***
In theory you’re correct, in part, and that is what happens today, sometimes with a vengeance.
But historically things were different.
That’s because Washington DC became a Southern Democrat company town in 1801, with election of the “Negro President” Jefferson and his Democrat majorities in Congress.
From 1801 until secession in 1861 Democrats ruled Washington almost continuously, with Southerners the majority of their majority Democrat party.
But Southerners themselves were not always united and I can cite several examples, beginning with your “Tariff of Abominations” which was originally SUPPORTED by Southerners VP Calhoun and President Jackson.
At the same time it was OPPOSED by many New Englanders — so it was never an issue of strictly North vs. South.
Another example is your mention of Henry Clay’s “American System”.
Clay was a Southern born slaveholding plantation owner with no interest, none, nada, in aggrandizing the North at the South’s expense.
What Clay certainly did want was to, ahem, “put Americans first” and, ah, “make America great” by encouraging US manufacturing North, South and West.
And your problem with that is what, exactly?
Even in 1860, when modest Morrill Tariff increases passed the House (but not the Senate) the reason was less to do with loss of Southern majorities than with disunion amongst Southerners.
Just as some Northerners opposed Morrill, some Southerners supported it, or abstained from voting.
So the “Solid South” was far from solid in 1860.
That was the real issue, regardless of how Robert Rhett tried to spin it.
Indeed, that real issue became obvious when only the Deep South declared secession before Fort Sumter and Border Slave States refused to secede even after Confederates formally declared war on the United States.
Do you disagree?
In theory you’re correct, in part, and that is what happens today, sometimes with a vengeance.
But historically things were different.
That’s because Washington DC became a Southern Democrat company town in 1801, with election of the “Negro President” Jefferson and his Democrat majorities in Congress.
From 1801 until secession in 1861 Democrats ruled Washington almost continuously, with Southerners the majority of their majority Democrat party.
Things were not different. People have always been only too happy to vote themselves other people’s money.
To say the South dominated the federal government until 1861 or that Washington DC was a SOUTHERN Democrat company town is ridiculous. The South was always in the minority. Sure the Democrats weren’t but there were plenty of Northern Democrats. The Federalist party and later Whigs and later Republicans were overwhelmingly Northerners. The North had more people and thus more representatives from the start. That only grew over time.
But Southerners themselves were not always united and I can cite several examples, beginning with your “Tariff of Abominations” which was originally SUPPORTED by Southerners VP Calhoun and President Jackson.
At the same time it was OPPOSED by many New Englanders — so it was never an issue of strictly North vs. South.
Agreed. There were divisions until Southerners got a good look at what the high tariffs did to their economies. Once they saw that, they were extremely opposed. Conversely, once Northern Manufacturers saw how they could raise prices and still gain market share when tariffs were sky high, they were clamoring for high tariffs even moreso from that point on.
Another example is your mention of Henry Clay’s “American System”. Clay was a Southern born slaveholding plantation owner with no interest, none, nada, in aggrandizing the North at the South’s expense.
What Clay certainly did want was to, ahem, “put Americans first” and, ah, “make America great” by encouraging US manufacturing North, South and West. And your problem with that is what, exactly?
Its true Clay did not have a sectional interest. The problem was the economies of the regions developed very differently (manufacturing in the North was relatively minor early in the 19th century but became very important by the mid 19th century). By the mid 19th century a high tariff was seen by everybody as doing great harm to the Southern states and providing great benefit to the Northern states....particularly New England and the Upper Midwest which were more industrialized.
Even in 1860, when modest Morrill Tariff increases passed the House (but not the Senate) the reason was less to do with loss of Southern majorities than with disunion amongst Southerners.
I wouldn’t call an immediate doubling of tariff rates “modest”.
Just as some Northerners opposed Morrill, some Southerners supported it, or abstained from voting. So the “Solid South” was far from solid in 1860.
The Upper South though not as industrialized as the North was relatively much more industrialized than the Deep South. As a result they were not as opposed to the high tariffs.....and gee lookie here. They stayed in initially. That was not a coincidence. Economics drives politics.
That was the real issue, regardless of how Robert Rhett tried to spin it. Indeed, that real issue became obvious when only the Deep South declared secession before Fort Sumter and Border Slave States refused to secede even after Confederates formally declared war on the United States.
Uhh....as I said above both sides were motivated primarily by economics/money. People almost always are. MONEY is what about 90% of all wars are about.