Ignoring the issue of slavery, who would you have wanted to win the civil war?

[Ramo]

That one is wrong though. If the duties were 42 percent in 1861 going to 47 in 1862 percent is not a doubling.

No, I'm not wrong. I was referring to the later version of the tariff passed in 1861, not the second piece of tariff legislation.

They didn't say a thing about the tariffs.

Because of propaganda reasons, as pointed out by my source.

Which is false. It does NOT require the consent of all states.

You're correct, I was mistaken.

My point is that it DIDN'T exist before the election. It was passed AFTER the election and AFTER the secession.

That's a semantic argument. I think a tariff bill can exist without being passed.

But the point is that it passed the House, and was almost certainly going to be passed. Remember, only the Deep South seceded by the time the tariff was passed; both the rest of the future Confederacy and the border states were still in the Union. Over half of the South was still in the Union. Despite this fact, the largest tariff increase in US history got through the Senate. You don't think that the North couldn't get a milder tariff increase passed?

Only if a compromise was made.

No compromise was made in 1828 when Congress passed the Tariff of Abominations. It was only after the Nullification Crisis was a compromise made.

More rampant speculation unsupported by evidence and denied by what the South said.

It was not speculation. I see you're having more trouble.

From Lincoln's first inaugural:
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. "


There you have it. The South refused Lincoln's offer to add an Amendment to the Constitution that guaranteed that the federal government would never interfere with slavery.

All you have to back your position up is propaganda.

While we're talking about comrpomises and Lincoln's inaugural, he also tried to use the Fugitive Slave Act as a carrot for the South:

"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."
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution-- to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up", their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath? "

You insistance that a tariff that is never mentioned was the cause of the secession. Its really hard to swallow something with no support at all. Especially when the evidence is clearly to the contrary.

Evidently, you still have not read the quote I gave you in the last post. Again (cutting down some of the more extraneous bits):
"The Whig party, thoughout all the States, have been protective Tariff men, and they cling to that old issue with all the passion incident to the pride of human opinions. Are we to go off now, when other Southern States are bringing their people up to the true mark? Are we to go off on debateable and doctrinal points? Are we to go back to the consideration of this question, of this great controversy; go back to that party's politics, around which so many passions cluster? Names are much -- associations and passions cluster around names.

I can give no better illustration than to relate an anecdote given me by a member from Louisiana. He said, after the election of Lincoln, he went to an old Whig party friend and said to him: We have been beaten -- our honor requires a dissolution of the Union. Let us see if we cannot agree together, and offered him a resolution to this effect --Resolved, That the honor of Louisiana requires her to disrupt every tie that binds her to the Federal Government. [Laughter.]

It is name, and when we come to more practicability we must consult names. Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it. I believe the address, in this respect, cannot. The gentlemen from Chesterfield (Mr. Inglis) says that certain constructions of the Act of Pennsylvania are denied. He might have gone further and have said that certain constructions of the Personal Liberty Bills are denied. I have never seen any Abolitionist yet who did not say that these Acts had no reference to fugitive slaves.

I, myself, have very great doubts about the propriety of the Fugitive Slave Law. The Constitution was, in the first place, a compact between the several States, and in the second, a treaty between sections, and, I believe, the Fugitive Slave Law was a treaty between sections. It was the act of sovereign States as a section; and I believe therefore, and have very great doubts whether it ought not have been left to the execution of the several States, and failing of enforcement , I believe it should have been regarded as a causi belli. "

It never hurts to give a clue as to why you post a link.

I gave you a summary of what I was referring immediatly before the link.

Even HE says the declaration had the primary causes.

And he explains why he does not mention the tariff as a primary cause! This is like debating with a wall.

The issue of balance has a lot do with states rights. The South wanted to force at least some new states to accept slavery even if they didn't want it. If thats not a states rights issue what the heck is?

I only mentioned the balance as anticipating an argument from your side.

If you spent more time reading my argument instead of skimming it for minor errors, you might've caught that.

You brought up and dropped without actually making a point.

I didn't bring up or drop states rights as an argument.

My point has to do with the legitamacy of your tariff arguement.

How so? The tariff argument specifically implies tariffs on industrial goods. The fact that the South liked to a very limited extent tariffs on agricultural goods (protective tariffs were prohibited by the Confederate Constitution) impairs my argument in no way whatsoever.

Perhaps if you read what you post before doing so you wouldn't make silly errors like when you previously edited out the property remarks which were the main point of the whole comment. You incorectly place the emphasis on the taxes.

How can you possibly justify this?!

I have to disagree seeing as how the Northern industry relied on protective tariffs and a large market to exploit with them.

Whats with bones anyway? That should be on a evolution thread. I like those too. If you want to pick bones how about you start another evolution thread. They tend to get a lot of posts.

Riiiight...

Jeferson Davis's compromise was ALL about slavery.

So was Lincoln's. The South didn't like it, though.

He didn't seem to think tariffs had anything to do with stopping secession.

Or maybe he knew that the North wouldn't give up their tariffs, and tried to prevent secession as realistically as possible.

[quote]The NY Chamber of Comerce had its own reasons for lowering tariffs. [/qote]

What's your point? The North undermined their attempt at compromise.

I think that could be because there WAS NO federal law about abolition.Don't you think that could be why he didn't mention a non-existant law?

He didn't say that the South had to respect ANY federal law other than providing the North with tariff duties and giving up federal propery. Which does not include any future abolition laws.

The things he dealt with all involved the South admitting that the US government was the true law of the land and not the CSA.

All I saw mentioned were federal property and tariff duties. I didn't see anything regarding the US government being the supereme authority of the land.

And Lincoln did not seek to abolish slavery until in the midst of the Civil War, when he changed his policy towards the issue of slavery and began the process with partial abolishment with the Emancipation Proclamation.

No ****.

[MrFun]

Some quotes from Abraham Lincoln:

about the Union refusing to initiate agression:

"There will be no bloodshed unless it be forced on the government. The government will not use force unless force is used against it."


from his first inagaural address:

"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 on imports; but beyond that what may be necessary for these objects there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among people anywhere. The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union."


It shows that Lincoln was not going to surrendure the functioning of the federal government, yet at the same time, he believed that the Northern states did not need to initiate the war.

[Ramo]

What's your point?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo
Because of propaganda reasons, as pointed out by my source.

As was NOT pointed out by your source. Your source made it clear that the primary reasons were allready in the declaration and rather than make it a very long document they should not put in every single grievance.

That was a totally unrealistic fear. The North would have to almost triple in size for that to happen.

Realistic or not they clearly feared it. Perhaps they feared some of the slave states voters, especially outside the deep south, would figure out that owning people was not a good thing. That wouldn't take all that much change in voting patterns in some of the states.

That's a semantic argument. I think a tariff bill can exist without being passed.

Sure it can. It doesn't mean much till its passed both Houses though. Lots of House bills die after being amended in the Senate when a compromise isn't reached.

But the point is that it passed the House, and was almost certainly going to be passed. Remember, only the Deep South seceded by the time the tariff was passed; both the rest of the future Confederacy and the border states were still in the Union. Over half of the South was still in the Union. Despite this fact, the largest tariff increase in US history got through the Senate. You don't think that the North couldn't get a milder tariff increase passed?

Sure. I said a compromise could be managed. I think the bill would have been different if the all the Southern states had participated. Without them around it not only made things easier its likely the remaining members of Congress were rather annoyed and went farther than they otherwise would have.

No compromise was made in 1828 when Congress passed the Tariff of Abominations. It was only after the Nullification Crisis was a compromise made.

As I said a compromise was made. The problems created in that crisis made it more likely that a compromise would happen before a crisis the next time. Not certain just more likely.

It was not speculation. I see you're having more trouble.

From Lincoln's first inaugural:
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. "


There you have it. The South refused Lincoln's offer to add an Amendment to the Constitution that guaranteed that the federal government would never interfere with slavery.

All you have to back your position up is propaganda.

Seven states had allready seceded at that point. They were not likely to turn back. They did not turn back. What I have to back up my position is pretty much every document and statement by anyone involved. Not mere propaganda but real votes, real editorials, real speaches and even your attempt to support yourself actually supported me.

All you have managed is to undermine your own position and call the heartfelt statements of most of the South propaganda.

While we're talking about comrpomises and Lincoln's inaugural, he also tried to use the Fugitive Slave Act as a carrot for the South:

Too late. Most of the South had seceeded by that point and the rest was only days from seceeding. Tariffs weren't mentioned as being the cause then either.

Evidently, you still have not read the quote I gave you in the last post.

I did. Thats how I knew it disagreed with you.

From your own quote:

It is name, and when we come to more practicability we must consult names. Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it.

Here again he says slavery is the central point. Thank you for your support.

You realy should read your sources. All of it and not just selected bits.

More from your own quote:

I, myself, have very great doubts about the propriety of the Fugitive Slave Law. The Constitution was, in the first place, a compact between the several States, and in the second, a treaty between sections, and, I believe, the Fugitive Slave Law was a treaty between sections. It was the act of sovereign States as a section; and I believe therefore, and have very great doubts whether it ought not have been left to the execution of the several States, and failing of enforcement , I believe it should have been regarded as a causi belli. "

Here we have him saying the failure to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act was a causi belli. Thats two statements by your source supporting my contention and denying yours.

I gave you a summary of what I was referring immediatly before the link.

Actually you appeared to pointing at the document itself. To me anyway. It doesn't really matter though as the debate also supports me and not you. You have been highly selective in your reading to think otherwise. Three seperate times he said the slavery was the most important issue. Not once did he say tariffs were even equally important.

And he explains why he does not mention the tariff as a primary cause! This is like debating with a wall.

Yes because it wasn't a primary cause. You really should lay of that rolleyes smiley when you are posting things that help me and not you. It looks

I only mentioned the balance as anticipating an argument from your side.

If you want to give me leverage like that go right ahead.

If you spent more time reading my argument instead of skimming it for minor errors, you might've caught that.

I found major errors, not minor ones. Like your source saying three seperate times that the slavery was the major issue.

I didn't bring up or drop states rights as an argument.

You brought up something that was related without making a point. I took the opportunity to actually make a point. If you don't want to deal with the hypocrisy of the South proclaiming on States Rights thats OK by me but I am not limited to what you are willing to deal with.

How so? The tariff argument specifically implies tariffs on industrial goods. The fact that the South liked to a very limited extent tariffs on agricultural goods (protective tariffs were prohibited by the Confederate Constitution) impairs my argument in no way whatsoever.

It shows the South was not against protective tariffs on priniciple prior to secession.

How can you possibly justify this?!

I have to disagree seeing as how the Northern industry relied on protective tariffs and a large market to exploit with them.

I justified it by reading what you posted and finding multiple statements that support me. You ignored the line I quoted from your post. The line where he said.

"I go for the address, because, I believe it does present succinctly and conspicuously what are the main primary causes. "

Dodging that made it look like blindness on your part. That was the third time in his speach that he agreed with me that slavery was the main cause as in this case he is refering to the Declaration of Secession which clearly had slave issues as the cause.

Whether the North relied on tariffs or not does not make the tariffs the primary issue. As I have made clear even the man you are quoting(one single individual) thought that slavery was the primary issue. He said so three times in three different ways.

So was Lincoln's. The South didn't like it, though.

They had allready made up their collective minds. The die had been cast when they seceeded. Over slavery.

Or maybe he knew that the North wouldn't give up their tariffs, and tried to prevent secession as realistically as possible.

Or maybe he too thought, as almost all other Southerners thought, that slavery was the primary issue. Even that individual you quoted thought that.

What's your point? The North undermined their attempt at compromise.

The South wasn't looking for compromise after they seceeded. That is why Davis failed. The NY Chamber of Comerce is not the North. Its a group of people that were aided by tariffs or at least they thought tariffs helped them. They did not represent anyone except their own members.

He didn't say that the South had to respect ANY federal law other than providing the North with tariff duties and giving up federal propery. Which does not include any future abolition laws.

If the South had gone along on those things the rest would follow. It could not be otherwise. Going along with those things would show they were not in anyway an independent nation and that would kill any chance they ever had to get recognition and support from other nations. The South would be admiting that they had no right to seceed.

All I saw mentioned were federal property and tariff duties. I didn't see anything regarding the US government being the supereme authority of the land.

Then you aren't thinking of the consequences. That conclusion is unavoidable. The only way around it would be a major rewrite of the US Constitution and a declaration that the South was a Semi-Autonomous region. Of course when the South started the War they cut off any chance at further negotiation in any case.

No ****.

Your right. It wasn't fertilizer. It was the limit of what Lincoln could do at the moment. Thus giving more reason for the South to figure they were right about slavery being the issue.

[Boris Godunov]

Ramo:

You ahve no proof to offer that it was mere "propaganda." You just keep repeating that and expect us to believe it. Why should we disregard the secession documents, the words of Southern leaders, and the editorials of Southern publications, whom all asserted slavery as the driving force of the war, in favor of your notion it was propaganda, when there is no proof for that assertion? Show us evidence.

The evidence is vastly in favor of slavery being the root cause, no doubt about it. No leader of the CSA in 1861 would have denied this. Why do you think they were all liars?

Does it really make the South look any better that rather than really believing slavery was right, they merely used an institution they knew as unjust to rationalize a war based on economic policy? Isn't that much more cynical?

[TCO]

with the slavery issue, I'd be for the North. Without it, for the South...

[Ramo]

D

As was NOT pointed out by your source. Your source made it clear that the primary reasons were allready in the declaration and rather than make it a very long document they should not put in every single grievance.

No, he made it very clear that tariff rhetoric is a "doctrinal point," and that arguing about it would make them look unprincipled, and would undermine their cause. As you've pointed out, tariffs particularly on sugar were supported by the South. If the South declared that they seceded because of tariffs, not only would they lose their legal basis of secession they would've been viewed as hypocrites and would lose the support they had.

If you want to look at the real reasons for secession, the ultimate benefits to the South of secession, check out Jefferson Davis' inaugural address. I couldn't find a single reference to slavery; most of the meat was about trade policy.

Realistic or not they clearly feared it. Perhaps they feared some of the slave states voters, especially outside the deep south, would figure out that owning people was not a good thing. That wouldn't take all that much change in voting patterns in some of the states.

They already knew it wasn't a good idea. Except in Texas where plenty of land was still available, slavery was becoming unprofitable. There were more efficient ways of exploiting people. Some sort of gradual emancipation program, I'm certain, would've been enacted within a couple decades.

Sure it can. It doesn't mean much till its passed both Houses though. Lots of House bills die after being amended in the Senate when a compromise isn't reached.

Immediately after the tariff bill was passed in the House, a measure was passed in the Senate that postponed the vote of the Morrill Tariff until the next session of Congress met. So it was impossible for the tariff to be passed in Congress before it actually was. They knew they would lose the vote, so they postponed in the hopes that a strong anti-protectionist would claim the Presidency.

Sure. I said a compromise could be managed. I think the bill would have been different if the all the Southern states had participated. Without them around it not only made things easier its likely the remaining members of Congress were rather annoyed and went farther than they otherwise would have.

Again, I think that a compromise was not needed, and that a bill equivalent to what Morrill originally drafted (before the South seceded) would've been passed. A milder 33-66% increase, rather than a 200-300% increase.

The problems created in that crisis made it more likely that a compromise would happen before a crisis the next time. Not certain just more likely.

Would that not happen with respect to issues regarding slavery?

Seven states had allready seceded at that point. They were not likely to turn back.

That's all you have?

Assuming secession was about slavery, Lincoln gave the South almost everything they possibly could want - a Constitutional Amendment and a guarantee of the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act! And they refused his offer because "they already seceded?" That's insane!

Most of the South had seceeded by that point and the rest was only days from seceeding.

Bull****.

Here we have him saying the failure to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act was a causi belli. Thats two statements by your source supporting my contention and denying yours.

A casus belli is a term that has to do with the legality of war, as it did for centuries earlier (the term probably came from Aquinas), not with the real reasons for a war. A casus belli might be some dynastic inheritance issue, while the real reason would have to do with territorial ambitions.

Three seperate times he said the slavery was the most important issue. Not once did he say tariffs were even equally important.

He says that slavery (more to the point, a broken contract) is a reasonable casus belli, while federal tariffs are not, since they are justified by the Constitution itself. Try reading the thing instead of looking for out of context quotes that support you.

I justified it by reading what you posted and finding multiple statements that support me. You ignored the line I quoted from your post. The line where he said.

Incorrect. Again, you're not reading what I'm saying. What I was referring to was Lincoln's statement, not the Congressman from South Carolina's. You were saying that the "emphasis" was on property, not tariffs. I was wondering how you could possibly justify that seeing as how the Northern industry ultimately relied on tariffs.

If you don't want to deal with the hypocrisy of the South proclaiming on States Rights thats OK by me but I am not limited to what you are willing to deal with.

I know the Southerners were hypocrites (so were the Northerners, BTW). But repeating that over and over and over and over and over again despite the other person repeatedly explaining that he agrees doesn't get a debate very far, and eventually becomes annoying.

They had allready made up their collective minds.

If you really believed that, why were you emphasizing compromsies earlier?

The die had been cast when they seceeded. Over slavery.

Repeating that continously won't make it true.
Evidently slavery had nothing to do with secession, else they wouldn't do the very thing that might bring about abolition.

The NY Chamber of Comerce is not the North.

They offered a compromise to try to prevent a permanent split. They seemed to believe the war was about slavery.

Its a group of people that were aided by tariffs or at least they thought tariffs helped

Would you mind explaining how decreasing tariffs could help the nascent Northern industry other than undermining secession, and insuring that the South could continue to subsidize them?

Going along with those things would show they were not in anyway an independent nation

Why? They wouldn't have a tariff policy imposed on them, and they don't have access to a few forts in their territory. That's it.

and that would kill any chance they ever had to get recognition and support from other nations.

They wouldn't need any recognition or support if the North didn't invade.

The South would be admiting that they had no right to seceed.

Why?

The only way around it would be a major rewrite of the US Constitution and a declaration that the South was a Semi-Autonomous region.

Why? The US has ordered the trade policy, and built US bases, in multitudes of countries throughout our history. None of that required any rewriting of the Constitution.

It was the limit of what Lincoln could do at the moment.

He couldn't add "and respect federal laws" in as well? Why not?

Thus giving more reason for the South to figure they were right about slavery being the issue.

He insured that the Constitution would be amended to prevent federal intervention in slavery, and insured Northern execution of the Fugitive Slave Law. Slavery was obviously not the issue.

You ahve no proof to offer that it was mere "propaganda."

But I do. See the speech quoted from the dude from South Carolina.

Why do you think they were all liars?

That's their sense of war. A war is justified to them by breaking of a contract, not acting within the confines of the contract. It fits in with the whole midieval outlook they had on life.

Does it really make the South look any better that rather than really believing slavery was right, they merely used an institution they knew as unjust to rationalize a war based on economic policy? Isn't that much more cynical?[/

1. I never said they knew it was "unjust." Undoubtedly, the Confederate leaders thought that slavery was a magnificent Southern institution, and that they were the real defenders of freedom.
2. I don't care about what makes the South look "better" or "worse." I only care about what makes sense. And it does not make sense for people to start a war over an imagined threat, rather than a very real, very dangerous threat, that could easily undermine their plantations.

[SlowwHand]

I can't believe this is still going.
You'll never convince some Northerners it was ever about anything but slavery.
Luck to you, Ramo.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I can't believe this is still going.
You'll never convince some Northerners it was ever about anything but slavery.

Not without some evidence to support him. I haven't read his post yet. Maybe he has some now. He thought he did before and he didn't. He supported me and didn't notice.


The question is whether YOU will ever admit to truth. You sound a lot like the Japanese that are only willing to admit that WWII was a "mistake". They and you are hiding from the truth. Why you are doing this is hard to understand. Going to war over tariffs without even trying to make a compromise is not exactly the right thing to do. The South had slavery. They fought to keep it. They said so. Only modern Southerners deny it. And only some of them.

[SlowwHand]

Yeah, yeah. Yada yada.

[Ramo]

He thought he did before and he didn't. He supported me and didn't notice.

Actually, you've got some kind of reading disability.

Why you are doing this is hard to understand. Going to war over tariffs without even trying to make a compromise is not exactly the right thing to do.

The North passed the largest tariff increase in US history the moment almost immediately after some of the Southern states seceded. The North wasn't looking for a real compromise.

Going to war over the threat of abolition after recieving notice that the federal government would never interfere with slavery isn't exactly the right thing to do.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ramo

They already knew it wasn't a good idea. Except in Texas where plenty of land was still available, slavery was becoming unprofitable. There were more efficient ways of exploiting people. Some sort of gradual emancipation program, I'm certain, would've been enacted within a couple decades.


Assuming secession was about slavery, Lincoln gave the South almost everything they possibly could want - a Constitutional Amendment and a guarantee of the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act! And they refused his offer because "they already seceded?" That's insane!

Have you ever heard of one side on an issue misperceiving the other side? Have you ever heard of paranoia and extremism??

By this point that you're talking about, Ramo, Southern leaders and slave owners were so tensed and overly defensive in regards to slavery, that they would not believe anything that Lincoln told them.

Southern leaders felt that their economic basis (slavery) was being attacked at from ALL sides constantly over several decades.
By the time Lincoln tried to make these compromising proposals, there was no reassuring the Southern leaders.

Anyone with a basic understanding of psychology would have a better chance of understanding the state of mind that many Southerners were in at this point.

[Boris Godunov]

Ramo: One speech. So despite the overwhelming abundance of secession documents, newspaper editorials, and speeches of other, equally or more prominent politicians who say otherwise, this one speech proves it was all propaganda? Malarky. Here ya go:

The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment. About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it…if reason and argument, with experience, produced such changes in the sentiments of Massachusetts from 1832 to 1857, on the subject of the tariff, may not like changes be effected there by the same means, reason and argument, and appeals to patriotism on the present vexed question" (Speech of future CSA VP Alexander H. Stephens, Nov. 14, 1860, to Georgia secession convention on why the tariff was not just cause for secession)

Proof just as good as yours that the tariff was not the cause. It was slavery.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo
No, he made it very clear that tariff rhetoric is a "doctrinal point," and that arguing about it would make them look unprincipled, and would undermine their cause.

He said three different times that slave issues were the primary reasons. You are hiding your head in the sands of ignorance to evade what he said.

As you've pointed out, tariffs particularly on sugar were supported by the South. If the South declared that they seceded because of tariffs, not only would they lose their legal basis of secession they would've been viewed as hypocrites and would lose the support they had.

He didn't say that. He said the declaration covered the primary issues. You are ignoring that.

If you want to look at the real reasons for secession, the ultimate benefits to the South of secession, check out Jefferson Davis' inaugural address. I couldn't find a single reference to slavery; most of the meat was about trade policy.

Got a link? I am unimpressed though. His real trade policy was blockade running. Whether he mentioned it or not. He had no choice in the matter.

After all he had already tried to make a compromise ONLY addressed slave issues. It was now time to try to run a country and his stand on slavery was very clear allready.

They already knew it wasn't a good idea. Except in Texas where plenty of land was still available, slavery was becoming unprofitable. There were more efficient ways of exploiting people. Some sort of gradual emancipation program, I'm certain, would've been enacted within a couple decades.

Slavery was making a profit. Primarily in the increase in the value of the slave though. Slavery HAD BEEN becoming unprofitable prior to the cotton gin. That is when slavery made a comeback. It was always profitable in the sugar business. The job was dangerous and only forced labor was being used in it because of that.

Immediately after the tariff bill was passed in the House, a measure was passed in the Senate that postponed the vote of the Morrill Tariff until the next session of Congress met. So it was impossible for the tariff to be passed in Congress before it actually was. They knew they would lose the vote, so they postponed in the hopes that a strong anti-protectionist would claim the Presidency.

There was still the matter of Southern Senators. They could and often did filibuster. That is still a popular way to force compromise.

Again, I think that a compromise was not needed, and that a bill equivalent to what Morrill originally drafted (before the South seceded) would've been passed. A milder 33-66% increase, rather than a 200-300% increase.

That is a compromise. Considering that you have been useing the enacted bill to try to support yourself.

Would that not happen with respect to issues regarding slavery?

The South had clearly gone paranoid on the issue. They refused all the compromises after all.

That's all you have?

Thats rather a lot.

Assuming secession was about slavery, Lincoln gave the South almost everything they possibly could want - a Constitutional Amendment and a guarantee of the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act! And they refused his offer because "they already seceded?" That's insane!

I never pretended the South was rational anymore. They were very clear about why they were seceeding.

Bull****.

Nonsense. Seven states seceeded before Lincoln was elected. Jefferson Davis was inaugurated two weeks before Lincoln was. The last four Confederate states seceeded right after Ft. Sumter, which was 39 days after Lincolns inaugeration.

The CSA was a going concern before Lincoln was President.

A casus belli is a term that has to do with the legality of war, as it did for centuries earlier (the term probably came from Aquinas), not with the real reasons for a war. A casus belli might be some dynastic inheritance issue, while the real reason would have to do with territorial ambitions.

It was slavery that was the casus belli not tariffs. Even in his oppinion and he was not speaking for anyone but himself.

He says that slavery (more to the point, a broken contract) is a reasonable casus belli, while federal tariffs are not, since they are justified by the Constitution itself. Try reading the thing instead of looking for out of context quotes that support you.

I read it. He didn't agree with you. He said the declaration had the primary cause allready. And you have ignored that every time I mention it. Interestinly enough you exised that part in when you posted it again. So here it is again for you to pretend it was not said again.

"I go for the address, because, I believe it does present succinctly and conspicuously what are the main primary causes. "

Yes indeedy you don't want to address that final sentence of his at all do you? Right there he says the Declaration has the primary causes. The means clearly that he did not think tariffs were a primary cause.

How many times are you planning on evading that?

Of course even if he did back you he is still only person in one state. That cannot overturn the many voices that don't agree with your distorted version of his speech.

As I read his speach for the umpteenth looking for something that could be construed and showing the South thought tariffs was the reason to seceed I see I missed another that supports me.

But the Tariff is not the question which brought the people up to their present attitude. We are to give a summary of our causes to the world, but mainly to the other Southern States, whose co-action we wish, and we must not make a fight on the Tariff question.

He says CLEARLY that tariffs are not what got the people aroused to secession.

The Whig party, thoughout all the States, have been protective Tariff men, and they cling to that old issue with all the passion incident to the pride of human opinions. Are we to go off now, when other Southern States are bringing their people up to the true mark? Are we to go off on debateable and doctrinal points? Are we to go back to the consideration of this question, of this great controversy; go back to that party's politics, around which so many passions cluster? Names are much -- associations and passions cluster around names.

Nope that one doesn't suppot you either. You have wholly misinterpretated what he is saying. He again says the other states had the true mark. The other states were clear about slavery being the cause. What he is doing here is saying they shouldn't bring up tariffs because ITS NOT a primary cause. Its a cause but not the main cause.

How the heck can you read this and not see what he is saying?

It is name, and when we come to more practicability we must consult names. Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it

Here he says slavery is the great central point. READ THE SPEECH. Read what he actually says and quit rewriting it in your mind.

Incorrect. Again, you're not reading what I'm saying. What I was referring to was Lincoln's statement, not the Congressman from South Carolina's. You were saying that the "emphasis" was on property, not tariffs. I was wondering how you could possibly justify that seeing as how the Northern industry ultimately relied on tariffs.

You aren't reading what your posting from that site you linked to. I can say what I did because Lincoln dealt with the property FIRST and the tariffs second.

I know the Southerners were hypocrites (so were the Northerners, BTW). But repeating that over and over and over and over and over again despite the other person repeatedly explaining that he agrees doesn't get a debate very far, and eventually becomes annoying.

I didn't repeat it over and over. I take it you are bit sensitive on this point. You didn't agree with me. You protested that I mentioned it at all. Which is why it got mentioned again.

If you really believed that, why were you emphasizing compromsies earlier?

Some had not made up their minds. Some had hope. Hope is not always justified. It sure wasn't justifiable anymore after Jefferson Davis was inaugerated as the President of the CSA.

Repeating that continously won't make it true.
Evidently slavery had nothing to do with secession, else they wouldn't do the very thing that might bring about abolition.

Repeating the tariffs were the cause won't make it true either. You have posted NOTHING to support you. I repeat that statement AFTER I post something that supports me. Lots of things support me. You have no visible means of support.

They offered a compromise to try to prevent a permanent split. They seemed to believe the war was about slavery.

Are you getting confused? Did you really mean to say slavery there?

In any case the NY Chamber of Comerce has no legal force nor any legal way to even negotiate compromise. Considering the New York is a port city its not surprising that the Chamber of Comerce might be anti-tariff.

Would you mind explaining how decreasing tariffs could help the nascent Northern industry other than undermining secession, and insuring that the South could continue to subsidize them?

They are a Chamber of Commerce not industry. That means they sell things not make them. The main area that wanted protective tariffs was not New York City.

Why? They wouldn't have a tariff policy imposed on them, and they don't have access to a few forts in their territory. That's it.

You are confused. If Lincoln has the Feds collecting tariffs in the South how is that not having a tariff policy imposed on them? Thats saying you are not sovereign.

Do we collect tariffs in Canada? Could Canada possibly be construed as an independent nation if we did so?

As the Nicaruaguans about this. We took over their Customs houses then we told them who ran their country. They were not indepent at that point and no one thought they were.

They wouldn't need any recognition or support if the North didn't invade.

The North didn't start the War. Invading a country that has started a war with you makes sense to me. Otherwise you get a Viet Nam situation.

Most countries need international support. You can't engage in trade negotiations if the other nations won't reconize you as a Nation.

Why?

If let someone else run your custom houses (collecting tariffs requires that) you are in no way an independent state. Lincoln was not recognizing the South as independent. No one else would under those conditions.

Why? The US has ordered the trade policy, and built US bases, in multitudes of countries throughout our history. None of that required any rewriting of the Constitution.

Thats because they weren't part of the US. The South was not independent as far as the North was concerned. In any case no country that was really independent has ever alowed us to tax their imports. To do so would make the South a non-entity in international affairs. Much like Nicaragua became when Teddy took over the Customs houses.

He couldn't add "and respect federal laws" in as well? Why not?

What the heck are you talking about? He was freeing slaves in what was captured rebel teritory. That land came under martial law. They could respect the laws or get dead.

He insured that the Constitution would be amended to prevent federal intervention in slavery, and insured Northern execution of the Fugitive Slave Law. Slavery was obviously not the issue.

Lincoln can not make any such assurance. Remember an amendment requires 75% of the states to agree. Slavery was obviously the issue and the South said so.

But I do. See the speech quoted from the dude from South Carolina.

I saw it. I have now read it four times. It still supports me an not you. Even if it did support you it is only one man. However even that one man does not support you.

No wonder you are evading his final sentence. Maybe I should put in here twice but I leave it at once this time.

That's their sense of war. A war is justified to them by breaking of a contract, not acting within the confines of the contract. It fits in with the whole midieval outlook they had on life.

What was the contract? The fugitive slave law and the Dred Scott decision. Slave issues.

1. I never said they knew it was "unjust." Undoubtedly, the Confederate leaders thought that slavery was a magnificent Southern institution, and that they were the real defenders of freedom.

They sure did say that anyway. Even in their Session Declarations. Especially the Texas one.

2. I don't care about what makes the South look "better" or "worse." I only care about what makes sense. And it does not make sense for people to start a war over an imagined threat, rather than a very real, very dangerous threat, that could easily undermine their plantations.

Well you can't change the sense of the South by invention like you are trying. The South clearly and explicitly said it made sense to seceed and even go to war over slavery. It matters not one bit if it doesn't make sense to you that they would do that for they clearly thought it made sense at the time.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Yeah, yeah. Yada yada.

Gosh that was impressive.


It acutually makes more sense than Ramos does anyway. You didn't bother wasting time thinking and at last thats efficient.