September 16, 2021
So few people undertake the effort to understand all the intricacies of the War for Southern Independence; as with many other things their view is narrowed by misdirection and sloganism.
One of the great minds of our country's history was the Honorable General Robert E. Lee and he foretold what would become of this country with such accuracy that upon reading his writings I'm still astonished.
"The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it."
--Robert E. Lee
Tim adds:
Lee was prescient, no doubt. I agree; since the North won the issue has largely come to be about slavery, but the War was about so very much more; about the shape of our nation, about the scope of government, about the destiny of our people. The North had only one moral issue on their side - ending slavery. They promoted all sorts of evils to accomplish that one goal. And in fact they did not even promote that one goal - they slipped it in after the fact. Most northern soldiers did not fight to end slavery, but rather out of spite for the South. Theirs really was a poor motivation. I never understood most of the brave Northern soldiers. The Southerners were fighting for their homes and their freedom. The few abolitionishsts
Oh, my great something grandfather was a man named Louis Borginon. He disappeared during the war and turned up a few years later named Birdnow. Native Americans were exempt from the draft, so he probably opted out in this manner by choosing an Indian-sounding
Chester adds:
One of the most common and apparently intentional misconceptions is that slavery was the primary cause of the conflict however, that simply cannot be the case when reading the events of the period.
If you read the actual events, the proposals given by numerous high-ranking politicians of the day and editorials that plastered the newspapers of the time then it is absolutely impossible for one to come to the conclusion that slavery was the cause of the war.
The first and perhaps the strongest evidence that the war had absolutely nothing to do with slavery was Lincoln himself. Had slavery been the primary cause of the war, or even an ancillary cause then Mr. Lincoln would have never attempted to make a deal with the Southern States to support the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution to forever protect the institution of slavery, all they had to do was agree not to Secede and return to the Union. It was a deal that the South could have easily accepted, especially if that was the reason for the South's Secession, but that was not even the reason the South craved disunion. The Southern People could have avoided the entire conflict and destruction of their country had they simply accepted Lincoln's deal, but the deal did not address the real reasons behind the South's desire to Secede from the Union.
To reiterate, slavery could not have been the reason for Lincoln waging war on the South since he offered to save and protect slavery forever if only the South remain in the Union. On the other hand, slavery could not have been the reason for the South's Secession since they could have easily saved and protected the institution of slavery simply by agreeing to Lincoln's deal and remaining in the Union. Lincoln even suggested that the institution of slavery could last another 30 years or more if the South would simply agree to return to the Union. The history taught is far from the history lived.
Richard Cronin adds:
The Constitution has always been subject to a Higher Power.
Money.
"Preserve the Union†was promoted by the banks because the southern
plantation owners were up to their eyeballs in debt held by the New
York banks. The plantation owners would just default on their loans and
what could the banks do ? Seize the property ? The Brits would be happy
to finance the Confederacy in exchange for cotton.
The average
schmo in the north didn’t have a beef with the south. In fact, the
northern factory worker was afraid of low cost labor from freed slaves.
Draft riots abounded. It was the Irish immigrants who took the
enlistment bonus and marched away to get their legs blown off.
Like Ft. Sumter, who owns all the military bases strewn across the south ?
Like it or not, money and military muscle trump the Constitution.
Exactly, so if slavery and secession were not the real reasons behind the War, what was? It appears that money was the only reason for the War; it was the only reason behind Lincoln's actions. This fact becomes evident when reading excerpts from many of the Northern Newspapers, many expressing the view even prior to Lincoln's Inauguration. For a few years prior to 1860 many of the Northerners, including newspapers and politicians, including Lincoln expressed that the South should Secede and the sooner the better in their minds.
So what changed? It was one of those "eureka†moments that caused a drastic change in the hearts and minds of the Northern people when they realized that without the heavy and unequal tariff income levied on the South that the North and indeed, the federal government itself would be forced into economic ruin by the disunion of the South. So, the real reason was the utter devastating prospect that if the South left the Union that the government's coffers would be bled dry with the lost of revenues and likewise, that the Northern economy would be decimated.
Lincoln himself stated that if the South was allowed to secede: "What then will become of my tariff?â€
Now, it was evident that the Northern newspaper editors were well aware of the issues at hand and also aware of what was needed to secure the Tariffs for the federal government and protection of Northern manufacturers, even as far back as 1860 will:
"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufacturers would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system or that of a tariff for revenue and these results would likely follow.â€
"In the enforcement of the revenue laws [the heavy, one-sided Tariffs] the forts [like Fort Sumter] are of primary importance. Their guns cover just so much ground as is necessary to enable the United States to enforce their laws. Those forts the United States must maintain. It is not a question of coercing South Carolina, but enforcing the revenue laws. The practical point, either way, is whether the revenue laws of the United States shall or shall not be enforced at those three Ports, Charleston, Beaufort and Georgetown, or whether they shall or shall not be made free ports, open to the commerce of the world, with no other restriction upon it than South Carolina shall see proper to impose. Forts are to be used to enforce the revenue laws…not to conquer a State.â€
When South Carolina seceded on December 21, 1860, the Northern newspapers were quick to suggest:
"The government cannot well avoid collecting the federal revenues at all Southern Ports, even after the passage of secession ordinances; and if this duty is discharged, any State which assumes a rebellious attitude will still be obligated to contribute revenue to support the federal government or have her foreign commerce entirely destroyedâ€
Now, once again concerning the reasons behind the actions of the Southern States in their urge to cuts the binding ties of the union, if you look at the actions of the Congress of the 1860 and the platform of the Radical Republican Party of 1860 then you would quickly recognize that the South had very few alternatives. By early 1861 there was one of the highest tariffs in history imposed upon the South by Congress called the Morrill Tariff. In the House, Rep. John H. Reagan of the State of Texas stated about the long list of punitive tariffs:
"You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the milylions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of Northern Capitalist. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and our institutions.â€
Tim adds:
During the twenties and thirties New England threatened repeatedly to secede from the Union and the South bid them a fond adieu. There never was any notion the Union was indivisible.
And as you point out Chet, the North realized how much money they had to lose. They needed Southern agricultural products and needed to sell their goods to the South. The South could always buy from Europe. It was a horrifying prospect to be left as the backwater when the Breadbasket left.
I would add that there were those in the North who also wanted to Europeanize America and to make us more like the French. They couldn't do that as long as the South maintained the agrarian economy they enjoyed. They wanted to systemically rebuild America as a more European nation with large cities and they immediately started working on that with Reconstruction after the war. They were successful, I might add.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:18 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1704 words, total size 11 kb.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at September 16, 2021 10:07 AM (j5ngG)
Posted by: Bill H at September 16, 2021 02:59 PM (/sW5m)
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at September 18, 2021 08:36 AM (cldiK)
37 queries taking 0.2745 seconds, 186 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
