Thought y'all might like an extremely short followup on that Civil War thread from a while back. I just finished reading "When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession" by Charles Adams (a northerner and expert on tax history). One of the most informative books I've ever read and thoroughly cited. It's been interesting to be able to followup on some of the citations thanks to Google's efforts to scan historical documents too. There are so many citations that are never referenced in popular discussions.
I could write a much longer and more detailed post about this, but it breaks down simply to this: the Civil War was an embarrassment to our entire country and it was about...money. Money that was possible because of...slavery.
The problem is when you pay attention to how people frame questions:
Why did the south secede?
Why did the north invade?
Popular opinion goes:
Why did the south secede? A: SLAVERY
Why did the north invade? A: TO STOP SLAVERY...MY HERO!
Historical accuracy goes:
Why did the south secede? A: Money and Fear
Why did the north invade? A: Money and Fear
Here are the critical points that factor into the mindset of the time:
1. The Haitian Massacre of 1804 was HUGE and is never discussed. You want to talk about a reason to make people fear abolition...this will pretty much do it.
From Wikipedia:
"The 1804 Haiti massacre was a genocidal massacre carried out against the remaining white population of French Creoles (or Franco-Haitians) in Haiti by the black population on the order of Jean-Jacques Dessalines. Throughout the nineteenth century, these events were well-known in the United States where they were referred to as the horrors of St. Domingo and particularly polarized Southern public opinion on the question of the abolition of slavery.
The massacre, which took place in the entire territory of Haiti, was carried out from early February 1804 until 22 April 1804, and resulted in the deaths of between 3,000 to 5,000 people of all ages and genders.
Squads of soldiers moved from house to house, torturing and killing entire families. Even whites who had been friendly and sympathetic to the black population were imprisoned and later killed. A second wave of massacres targeted white women and children."
2. The Morrill Tariff
Lincoln campaigned on a protective tariff to insulate northern manufacturers from cheaper European goods. The tariff would have a huge negative effect on the southern exports of cotton to Europe as well. When the south seceded the first order of business was to have a low tariff ports.
From Lincoln himself:
“But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on… [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?” ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.
The Morrill Tariff is what's being referred to there, adopted March 2nd, 1861 as a protective tariff to block imported goods to benefit northern manufacturers.
The south was responsible for over 80% of federal revenue in those days, which was only possible because of the huge profit margin on slave labor. Lincoln approved of the Corwin Amendment which would have Constitutionally protected slavery just as a concession to keep the south in the union so that the tariff could pass as a reversal to a relatively equal tariff in 1857. The tariff is easier to gloss over until you realize that it was the ONLY thing that gave value to Fort Sumter was it's ability to ensure enforcement of tariffs. This isn't clear until you see it on a map.
3. Lincoln's First Inaugural Speech
In Lincoln's inaugural address , he reiterates his protection for escaped slave laws:
"There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
And then later he reiterated:
"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
That right there, in black and white validates the case that slavery could have and would have remained if the south had stayed in the union and that he was willing to use for to collect the duties and imposts. From the mouth and pen of the man himself.
4. Northern Economic Panic
March 18, 1861 the Philadelphia Press wrote: "Blockade Southern Ports. If not a series of customs houses will be required on the vast inland border from the Atlantic to West Texas. Worse still, with no protective tariff, European goods will under-price Northern goods in Southern markets. Cotton for Northern mills will be charged an export tax. This will cripple the clothing industries and make British mills prosper. Finally, the great inland waterways, the Mississippi, the Missouri and the Ohio Rivers, will be subject to Southern tolls."
March 22, 1861 the economic editor of the New York Times wrote, "At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate states."
Clearly, he was all bent out of shape to free the slaves.
5. Charles F'n Dickens
Charles Dickens. Legendary novelist and literary genius saw fit to publish a 2 part pamphlet about the war in December 1861.
Part 1: "What the cause of the Disruption is NOT: Slavery? Ah Humbug!"
Part 2: "What the cause of the disruption IS: Money!"
SUMMARY
The south seceded due to money and fear but each state seceded for different reasons. The 4 border states seceded only when Lincoln requisitioned troops because they would not go to war against the south. Money because of the impact the new tariff would have on trade and fears that slavery was under threat even though it wasn't. Fears garnered the same way "they're coming for your guns" fears are pushed today. The fears of the end of slavery came from both the economic impact and the fear of a Haiti-like uprising.
But the north did not enter the war to end slavery. The north entered the war for taxes, for money, for economic protection from what a free port would do to the entire northern economy. The narrative of the war changed two years in to keep European countries from intervening to stop the bloody conflict. The north also entered the war because they thought it would be over in under 3 months time, so the commitment to the conflict seemed minimal comparatively to the impact that would come from it.
I'm going to stop there before even getting into the reconstruction period and more detail, but Adams lays out the evidence plain as day with over 250 verifiable citations that people would like to forget.
The entire war was an embarrassment that should never have happened. It shouldn't be celebrated. Neither side's motive was noble. The way it was fought was awful. Lincoln's actions up to and during the initial part of the war are to the point of horrifying. He order a Supreme Court Chief Justice, Robert Taney imprisoned because the justice ruled he couldn't imprison people without habeas corpus! The marshall refused to enforce the order. Reconstruction and everything that came after it was awful. Union Leagues and the Klan started a race war.
The only respectable, uncompromising figures through the entire episode were the Justice and Robert E. Lee himself.
The war should be studied, deeply by people in this country to understand the lows that we sank to a nation and to understand the forces that shaped the country we live in today.
The next time anyone says the war was over slavery, correct them. Secession was over slavery because of money and fear of uprising because of Haiti. The war was to protect the northern economy from free trade.
It's when people try to conflate the cause of secession as the cause for war when the problem occurs.
I could write a much longer and more detailed post about this, but it breaks down simply to this: the Civil War was an embarrassment to our entire country and it was about...money. Money that was possible because of...slavery.
The problem is when you pay attention to how people frame questions:
Why did the south secede?
Why did the north invade?
Popular opinion goes:
Why did the south secede? A: SLAVERY
Why did the north invade? A: TO STOP SLAVERY...MY HERO!
Historical accuracy goes:
Why did the south secede? A: Money and Fear
Why did the north invade? A: Money and Fear
Here are the critical points that factor into the mindset of the time:
1. The Haitian Massacre of 1804 was HUGE and is never discussed. You want to talk about a reason to make people fear abolition...this will pretty much do it.
From Wikipedia:
"The 1804 Haiti massacre was a genocidal massacre carried out against the remaining white population of French Creoles (or Franco-Haitians) in Haiti by the black population on the order of Jean-Jacques Dessalines. Throughout the nineteenth century, these events were well-known in the United States where they were referred to as the horrors of St. Domingo and particularly polarized Southern public opinion on the question of the abolition of slavery.
The massacre, which took place in the entire territory of Haiti, was carried out from early February 1804 until 22 April 1804, and resulted in the deaths of between 3,000 to 5,000 people of all ages and genders.
Squads of soldiers moved from house to house, torturing and killing entire families. Even whites who had been friendly and sympathetic to the black population were imprisoned and later killed. A second wave of massacres targeted white women and children."
2. The Morrill Tariff
Lincoln campaigned on a protective tariff to insulate northern manufacturers from cheaper European goods. The tariff would have a huge negative effect on the southern exports of cotton to Europe as well. When the south seceded the first order of business was to have a low tariff ports.
From Lincoln himself:
“But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on… [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?” ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.
The Morrill Tariff is what's being referred to there, adopted March 2nd, 1861 as a protective tariff to block imported goods to benefit northern manufacturers.
The south was responsible for over 80% of federal revenue in those days, which was only possible because of the huge profit margin on slave labor. Lincoln approved of the Corwin Amendment which would have Constitutionally protected slavery just as a concession to keep the south in the union so that the tariff could pass as a reversal to a relatively equal tariff in 1857. The tariff is easier to gloss over until you realize that it was the ONLY thing that gave value to Fort Sumter was it's ability to ensure enforcement of tariffs. This isn't clear until you see it on a map.
3. Lincoln's First Inaugural Speech
In Lincoln's inaugural address , he reiterates his protection for escaped slave laws:
"There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
And then later he reiterated:
"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
That right there, in black and white validates the case that slavery could have and would have remained if the south had stayed in the union and that he was willing to use for to collect the duties and imposts. From the mouth and pen of the man himself.
4. Northern Economic Panic
March 18, 1861 the Philadelphia Press wrote: "Blockade Southern Ports. If not a series of customs houses will be required on the vast inland border from the Atlantic to West Texas. Worse still, with no protective tariff, European goods will under-price Northern goods in Southern markets. Cotton for Northern mills will be charged an export tax. This will cripple the clothing industries and make British mills prosper. Finally, the great inland waterways, the Mississippi, the Missouri and the Ohio Rivers, will be subject to Southern tolls."
March 22, 1861 the economic editor of the New York Times wrote, "At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate states."
Clearly, he was all bent out of shape to free the slaves.
5. Charles F'n Dickens
Charles Dickens. Legendary novelist and literary genius saw fit to publish a 2 part pamphlet about the war in December 1861.
Part 1: "What the cause of the Disruption is NOT: Slavery? Ah Humbug!"
Part 2: "What the cause of the disruption IS: Money!"
SUMMARY
The south seceded due to money and fear but each state seceded for different reasons. The 4 border states seceded only when Lincoln requisitioned troops because they would not go to war against the south. Money because of the impact the new tariff would have on trade and fears that slavery was under threat even though it wasn't. Fears garnered the same way "they're coming for your guns" fears are pushed today. The fears of the end of slavery came from both the economic impact and the fear of a Haiti-like uprising.
But the north did not enter the war to end slavery. The north entered the war for taxes, for money, for economic protection from what a free port would do to the entire northern economy. The narrative of the war changed two years in to keep European countries from intervening to stop the bloody conflict. The north also entered the war because they thought it would be over in under 3 months time, so the commitment to the conflict seemed minimal comparatively to the impact that would come from it.
I'm going to stop there before even getting into the reconstruction period and more detail, but Adams lays out the evidence plain as day with over 250 verifiable citations that people would like to forget.
The entire war was an embarrassment that should never have happened. It shouldn't be celebrated. Neither side's motive was noble. The way it was fought was awful. Lincoln's actions up to and during the initial part of the war are to the point of horrifying. He order a Supreme Court Chief Justice, Robert Taney imprisoned because the justice ruled he couldn't imprison people without habeas corpus! The marshall refused to enforce the order. Reconstruction and everything that came after it was awful. Union Leagues and the Klan started a race war.
The only respectable, uncompromising figures through the entire episode were the Justice and Robert E. Lee himself.
The war should be studied, deeply by people in this country to understand the lows that we sank to a nation and to understand the forces that shaped the country we live in today.
The next time anyone says the war was over slavery, correct them. Secession was over slavery because of money and fear of uprising because of Haiti. The war was to protect the northern economy from free trade.
It's when people try to conflate the cause of secession as the cause for war when the problem occurs.
