The Civil War

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have been readingly material from history source with an obvious conservative bent (Patriots History of the US) and it states firmly the tariff debates were proxies for the Slavery debate.

Most other sources, especially mainstream respected ones agree with that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't know about the rest of the South, but the only reason NC left the union was because Lincoln wanted NC to attack SC and they didn't want to do it. The Western half of NC at the time was very pro-union during the war and many didn't own slaves at all and were very much against it. It was the rural eastern half of NC that owned most of the slaves.

The vote for secession was close in all southern states. The following was the margin of victory in these three deep southern states:
GA - 3,500
MS - 5,000
LA - 1,200

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So what did started the Civil War? Tariffs. Taxation, without representation.
South Carolina had already foiled the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" and had vowed to leave the Union if the Senate passed the 1861 Morrill tariff.
The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent. The slap in the face was that 80% of the import tariffs were being paid by the South and revenues were mostly going to the Northern industries.
Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected.
What this meant was, the South could not sell their goods to other countries at a world price.

If you doubt any of this, research for yourself. Go to books that were printed in the late 1800's

Try squaring your Neo-Confederate revisionism with the statements of Davis, and Stephens.

CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens, "Our new gov't is founded upon the great truth that the negro is not the equall of the white man. That slavery - subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

CSA President Jefferson Davis in respone to the Emancipation Proclamation, " On and after February 22, 1863, all free negroes within the limits of the southern confederacy shall be placed on slave status, and be deemed to be chattels, they and their issue forever".

I like how it is put in "A Patriot's History of the United State" on page 302.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was no justifiying or escaping the truth with regards to the CSA. It was a regime built entirely on racism which would not be matched until Hitler's rise in the 1930's. The rhetoric of Southerners with regards to the issue had shifted entirely from the 1790's when most despised it and thought it would be gone withing a decade or two, to the 1820's when they saw it as a "necessary evil", to finally the 1850's when people like Jefferson Davis challegned openly whether anything was "evil" about it.


Also I wouldn't be relying on the books in the "late 1800's" since that was the height of neo-confederate revisionism to try and turn the south into some kind of noble utopia that was disrupted by the evil immoral Yankees.

So what did started the Civil War? Tariffs. Taxation, without representation.
South Carolina had already foiled the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" and had vowed to leave the Union if the Senate passed the 1861 Morrill tariff.
The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent. The slap in the face was that 80% of the import tariffs were being paid by the South and revenues were mostly going to the Northern industries.
Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected.
What this meant was, the South could not sell their goods to other countries at a world price.

If you doubt any of this, research for yourself. Go to books that were printed in the late 1800's

I have researched it myself and find that what you wrote is not supported by the evidence.

Take a look at what the leaders of South Carolina said were their reasons for secession:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
Anything about tarrifs in that?  nope.
Anything about slavery in that?  Yes.

Lets look at Lincoln's first inaugural address: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
The only mention of tarrifs is in a list of activities that he is responsible for as president. Nothing shocking in a president stating that he will do what his oath of office says he is supposed to do.
 Does the inaugural address  say slavery has anything to do with the situation?  Yes, in fact he said slavery "is the only substantial dispute".

Where does the claim that "80% of the import tariffs were being paid by the South" come from? This is a great mystery to me.  

Thats because its revisions to the historical record that aren't true. Thats why it has no basis in fact.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Your quote from Jeff Davis is in Feb, 1863. Furthering my poing that it became about slavery after Lincoln issued the emancipation proclomation.

no, its in late 1862.

The Stephens quote is from 1861. And the Robert Johnson quote is from period between Lincoln's election and his taking office. Try again.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Davis served in the Senate in the 1850's.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

PGT Beuraguard did not fire on Fort Sumpter to keep slaves, and Lincoln did not call for 75,000 troops to free slaves, he did it to put down the rebellion. Why dont you try again.

Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard fired on Fort Sumter because he was ordered to by Montgomery (Then capital of the CSA), which was siezing all federal property because they were rebelling against the lawfull federal gov't over the fear that the Lincoln administration would shut off expansion of slavery and then risk blacks outnumbering whites in the South, as Senator Robert Johnson had admitted at the time, was their fear.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Im sure when Pickett's, Trimble, and Pettigrew's divisions were charging the center at Gettsburg on the third day there battle cry was not keep the slaves, just like when Burnside's Grand Division were charging Marey's Heights at Fredricksburg were not screaming free's. The soldiers who fought the civil war were not fighting for slaves, lol slavery was not there battle cry. When you consider  90% of Rebel soldiers did not own slaves.

We weren't talking about battle cries. We were talking about the South's justification for the rebellion.


Battle cries are often propagandistic, meant to get the troop's dander up and get em a movin. What th troops were fighting for means little and had no bearing on what the politicians' who started the War by rebelling were thinking. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination.  President Jefferson Davis, Confederate States of America

Lol wow REALLY I MEAN REALLY?

Of course he would say that. He wanted to keep the non slaveholding whites  not only that but get them to die for his cause. Its also downright false as he spent the whole decade of the 1850's denying that slavery was evil and insisting on not only the South's right to maintain it but that it was consitutionally protected and all laws restricting it were unconstitutional.

Or maybe you would prefer this one

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world".
Abraham Lincoln-U.S. Congress 1847

A little over 10 years later after the South attempted precisely that , Lincoln, when asked, "Why not let the South go in peace"? replied; "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government"? "And, what then will become of my tariff"?
Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861

Notice he says any people have the right not any state or entity. That was a common statement at the time and today but usually it is contect of "the world" or "other" countries. As most considered, including Lincoln, that the people of the US had been liberated in the Revolution. The people have the right in the US to overthrow the gov't VIA elections. And you have a Bill of Rights and the parts of the Consitution meant to protect the political minorities rights unlike in direct democracies or attempts at Republics which failed that didn't protect. No Southerner was going to become less free because the Republicans won the election of 1860.  They could still speak what they wanted to, go to the church of their choice, write what they wish, etc etc. The Bill of Rights was perfectly intact. They lost a political fight and couldn't tollerate that and tried to engage in an illegal rebellion to get their way.

That would be up to the seceded state? Would Germany have the right to evict us from our bases?

Does Cuba have the right to evict us from Guantanamo?  No, the U.S. and Cuba signed a lease, and as long we maintain our end of it, the U.S. cannot be evicted.

The whole reason we had a crisis at Fort Sumter is that Governor Pickens was a greedy idiot.

Major Anderson and his troops were originally in Fort Moultrie.  Governor Pickens rather than occupy Fort Sumter when South Carolina seceded, let the workmen who were constructing Fort Sumter using Federal funds stay on the job.  It was only when Anderson moved his command from Moultrie, which was in no condition to be defended against a land attack, to Sumter that Pickens suddenly thought that the Federal government should have nothing to do with Sumter.  If Pickens had simply bothered to move a militia company into Sumter and evict the Federal workmen, there would have been no crisis over Fort Sumter.

Very true.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ahh and I see you totally ignored the part about why he wouldnt let the south go.

Because I knew you wouldn't like my answer.

His basic point is, if the South can legally go, any state would just leave instead of having to pay taxes (Tariffs were the main source of Gov't revenue then) and thus the union would continue to collapse.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Prove its fake. And Lincoln wasnt an abolitionist.

     If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution. – Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1861

Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision. -General Pat Cleburne, CSA

Actually quite the opposite is true. For instance, the Lost Cause mongers succeeded in achieving many historical revisions and also dominated Hollywood in its early years.

As has been established by posting more of tha very speech from Lincoln you realized that there was no such justification for secession or rebellion as the rights guarrenteed in the Constitution were still present protecting the south from the "Whims of the Majority" if you will. Which was the point I made week or two ago in reference to a previous quote from Lincoln which you had posted from the 1840's I beleive.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

My point with the Marx and Dickens quote is that even ppl over seas monitoring Mr. Lincolns war knew this wasnt about slavery.

The War was about preserving the union torn apart by secession.

The Secession was motivated by the realization that the South finally lost slavery debate as it relates to the territory and the acceptability of the insitution in general. It was the same motivation that led New England to consider secession in 1806 and in the War of 1812, which was being on the losing side of the dominant political winds. And just like it was for them it was unjustifiable. Losing a political debated is not a legitimate justification for rebellion or secession.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You up and decide you want to you leave using States Rights a justification. Slavery was the reason they claimed states rights and left the union.

Also the Consitution makes no mention of a "union of states" just a union of the "The people".

Also following Jefferson's logic of "first things" you would have to go back to the Declaration of Independence which makes no mention of the states rebelling and grievances motivating it but the people rebelling and the grievances which motivated them to do it. Thus the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions had no basis in the law.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There is nothing wrong with States rights or limited gov't. But the worst thing that has ever happened to the Conservative movement was an attempt by some to use it as a shield to cover a most embarrassing epsiode in history. The continued use of it to hide that blemish will lead to its destruction if not challenged and destroyed by those trully concerned with either a limited gov't or states rights. There was and is nothing that Conservatives have in common nor anything that they sould be concerned with defending, with regards to that. Those people proved clearly they didn't care about states rights once they formed the CSA, and as such I see no purpose in risking the entire movement in an effort to legitmize what they did or cover their true motives, not the to mention the numerous historical revision by "lost cause" mongers to make the attempt at the connection, which draw my ire as they would any true student of "real" history. This is what has guided my arguements in this thread and motivated me to take part in the discussion.




If you will look closely at the arguements of the James Madison and others at the Constitutional convention the effort and the final compromise over the structure of the Congress was to balance the interest of the states (senate) with those of the people (the House). Hence why people say the House is closest to the people and considering that Senators were elected by State Legislatures the arguement made perfect sense. And so that was clearly not the intention of the framers that the States and the People would be the same thing. They were clearly viewed as seperate by the founders and by most people who trully understand the document. And hence the use of the word People in the preamble declares the goal of the document to create a union of the people not the states.

There was no provision to break that union ever included in the Consitution. Meaning the intent was to create a perpetual union by creating the means to Amend the Consitution when necessary but not at the whims of simple majority but a widespread number of the people (Through the House) and the States ( though the Senate and the ratification process) as well as granting protections to political minorities and restricting the powers of the gov't to the point where leaving the union would be unecessary. Hence why a provision giving states the right to succeed was not included. It is why the VA and KY resolutions were incorrect assertions about a document which James Madison should have better understood considering his intimate involvement in its creation and likewise, Calhoun 30 years hence and Davis 30 years after that were also wrong when asserting that the states have the power to secede.

The 10th Amendment reverts all authority to the States and if the Consitution stated that it was a union of "states" then secession would have been lawfull, but it clearly puts the union out of the touch of the states by making clear that it was a union of the people not the states and by creation of the amendments process but not a means to break the union, indicates that power to the ever break the union was restricted from all concerned as long as the terms of the Constitution and the protections granted within are not infringed upon and there is no clear evidence of their violation in either 1799, 1806, 1812, 1832, or 1861. The people can theoretically end the union by amending the constitution out of existence. But that requires a vast majority of the people not the whims of a 51% majority or loud politically defeated Minority like the South whose rights were protected still by the Constitution but who had lost a political fight and couldn't stand it and deceided to try and leave and cover their tracks with faux reasons and misinterpreted sections of the Constitution.

The Founders wanted to create a democractic republic that would stand the test of time and not fly apart at the first political fight that was lost. All five of those years were motivated by political defeats not violations of the constitution.

Its called a Lost Cause for a reason. Let it go.

The schools teach states rights alright and thats the problem and why many young people are so anti-Conservative. The Schools fail to show the hypocracy of Confederates who hastilly wrote a consitution then proceed to sh**t on it at every turn. Tariffs on exports as well as imports, a draft (a year before the US resorted to one), no supreme court (mandated but never formed, how convenient). Like I said, contrary to being something to be defended by the right, the CSA is an anvil weighing the movement down and a clear effort should be made to expose the confederacy for the hypocracy on which it existed not to distort the historical record to defend it.