The Civil War

[WillK]

The proclamation did not name the slave-holding border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession, and so it did not free any slaves there. The state of Tennessee had already mostly returned to Union control, so it also was not named and was exempted. Virginia was named, but exemptions were specified for the 48 counties that were in the process of forming West Virginia, as well as seven other named counties and two cities. Also specifically exempted were New Orleans and thirteen named parishes of Louisiana, all of which were also already mostly under Federal control at the time of the Proclamation.

Nice cut and pate job from Wikipedia.  

Did you get to the part which says "Although most slaves were not freed immediately, the Proclamation did free thousands of slaves the day it went into effect in parts of nine of the ten states to which it applied (Texas being the exception).  In every Confederate state (except Tennessee and Texas), the Proclamation went into immediate effect in Union-occupied areas and at least 20,000 slaves were freed at once on January 1, 1863."

[Derek]

You know the civil war had nothing to do with slavery until politics was involved at the end. The Republicans at the time used it as a political tool to stay in power once the south was allowed to enter the country again.

[cpeeks]

Republicans have always been for big business and the civil war was no different, the republicans got rich.

[HappyWarrior]

You know the civil war had nothing to do with slavery until politics was involved at the end. The Republicans at the time used it as a political tool to stay in power once the south was allowed to enter the country again.

Why do you think the south left the Union in the first place other than simply wanting to keep their slaves?

[dead0man]

How many times are the goal posts going to move in this thread?  Did you all go to the Libertas School of Debate?  I'm waiting on proof the South paid 80% of all taxes and all of a sudden we're back to debating why the South left the Union and oddly, everybody is right.  Yes, the South left because of "states rights"....the only problem is the "right" they wanted was to continue to keep slaves.  If they were fighting for the "right" to keep and bear arms or even the "right" to set their own speed limits (yes I know not an issue at the time and probably not one worth dying over because really, it is a silly thing...but it makes a million times more sense than the "right" to keep another individual as property) then maybe I could get behind them.

Now, get back to showing me proof the South had 80% of the tax burden before the war because northern industrialists were complete douchebags or whatever...which is also something I could get behind.  Rich people from the NorthEast are the most annoying rich people anywhere in America.  Compare Trump to Buffet or Gates.

[Bo]

Republicans have always been for big business and the civil war was no different, the republicans got rich.

The GOP was not the party of big business between 1901 and 1913.

[The Mikado]

Republicans have always been for big business and the civil war was no different, the republicans got rich.

The GOP was not the party of big business between 1901 and 1913.

A highly debatable proposition at best.

[cpeeks]

U.S. Congress immediately passed the Morrill Tariff (the highest import tax in U.S. history), more than doubling the import tax rate from 20% to 47%. This tax served to bankrupt many Southerners. Though the Southern states represented only about 30% of the U.S. population, they paid 80% of the tariffs collected. Oppressive taxes, denial of the states' rights to govern their states, and an unrepresentative federal government pushed the Southern states to legally withdraw from the Union.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

cpeeks, I strongly suggest you pick a better source for your data than Thomas J. DiLorenzo or LewRockwell.com.


Here is one of many rebuttals made of Thomas J. DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln, but it is the one that goes directly to your claim.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The relevant page of the source cited in the rebuttal is readable on Google Books so you can check it for yourself.

[cpeeks]

That was not the source of my quote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That was not the source of my quote.

Then what was?  It's a simple question, and given that other sources, which I have provided, directly contradict your assertion, there's no reason to believe your assertion unless you can back it up with a source.

[cpeeks]

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

[dead0man]

You typing or cutting and pasting something isn't a cite.  We need actual links here Batman.

[WillK]

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. 

[Derek]

Republicans have always been for big business and the civil war was no different, the republicans got rich.

The GOP was not the party of big business between 1901 and 1913.

Yea learn your history!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What this meant was, the South could not sell their goods to other countries at a world price.

I would hope you would be aware that the tariffs were being collected only on imported goods, not exported ones.  Indeed, the original Constitution itself forbids export duties from being imposed.  So the tariff could do nothing to affect the price the South could sell its goods for abroad.

[cpeeks]

http://www.madisonjournaltoday.com/archives/966-OPINION-Journalists-write-first-draft-of-history,-but-seldom-get-it-right.html

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

http://www.madisonjournaltoday.com/archives/966-OPINION-Journalists-write-first-draft-of-history,-but-seldom-get-it-right.html

Since we won't accept your unsourced statements, we should accept this guy's unsourced opinion instead.  I don't think so.  A lack of source is still a lack of source.

[cpeeks]

Sir I have checked your source also, and I was  not overly impressed with his "opinion" either.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sir I have checked your source also, and I was  not overly impressed with his "opinion" either.

So what did you find lacking in the figures of the amounts and locations of customs revenues the U.S. government itself recorded during 1858-1859?  Those figures aren't opinion, they're sourced data.  You have yet to produce any source for your claim based on actual data, just more hearsay.

[cpeeks]

I read what you sent me I have not yet had a chance to research it through the Southern Historical Society as of yet, but from what I have gathered it seems that this gentleman was cherry picking in an attempt to discredit DiLorenzo.

[dead0man]

le sigh

[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.

[Devilman88]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Since this thread was generating enough discussion on one aspect of the Civil War, I used my moderator magic to split it off into a separate thread: The Value of Stonewall Jackson in the Civil War.