The Georgia SCV has posted some videos that tell some real whoppers about history. It’s all about heritage, after all. Apparently their heritage is to spread lies.
Here’s one about the Morrill Tariff:
So let’s take a look at what this claims.
First, that the Morrill Tariff a major cause of the Civil War. They claim the tariff was passed in 1859.
The Morrill Tariff passed the House of Representatives on May 10, 1860, with the House voting 105-64.
Republicans voted for the tariff, 89-2. So did Henry Winter Davis of Maryland. There was one vote for it from Tennessee, four from Kentucky, and one from Delaware. That didn’t make it law, though. When it got to the Senate it was held up in committee by the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia. Hunter could have kept it bottled up, except that in December and January the seven states of the deep south seceded and their senators left the Senate. This allowed the Senate to take up the bill. It came to a vote on February 20, 1861, and it passed by a vote of 25-14. James Buchanan signed the measure into law on 2 Mar 1861. So the tariff was not passed in 1859. It wasn’t passed by the Senate until 1861.
They claim it increased the tariff on the south from 15% to nearly 50%. This is another lie. First of all, there was not a tariff on the south. The tariff was paid only on imports, not on any specific section of the United States. Secondly, the Morrill Tariff raised rates to around 26% overall, and around 34% on dutiable goods. It wasn’t until after the war began that the tariff began to rise much higher, and the reason for that was to pay for the war started by the confederacy.
Related to this is the claim we often hear that the south paid the tariff. The idea that the south paid the tariff is preposterous. Andy Hall has a great illustration showing where the tariff was collected.
In 1860, Charleston only had $2.0 million in imports, Savannah had only $800,000 in imports, Mobile had only $600,000 in imports, New Orleans had only $20.6 million in imports, and other southern ports had only $3.0 million in imports. In the same year, New York City alone had $231.3 million in imports and all other northern ports had $95.3 million in imports.
New Orleans was the southern port that collected the most in the tariff, and it was only $3.1 million. The total south only collected $4.0 million in tariff revenues, whereas New York City collected $34.9 million in tariff revenues and the total for northern ports was $48.3 million. [Source: Douglas B. Ball, Financial Failure and Confederate Defeat, p. 205, Table 18, “Trade Figures by Port in 1860” and “Customs Collections by Major Port (1860)”]
One may claim that where the tariff was paid does not determine who paid it. It was paid by importers, and the cost of that was passed onto whoever bought the goods. So who bought the goods?
“There were difficulties to be overcome before direct importations could be established other than deficiency of capital and credit, the long credit system, or the absence of a thoroughly Southern mercantile class. One lay in the comparatively small amounts of foreign goods consumed in the South. There is no way of calculating accurately the value of the foreign imports consumed in territory naturally tributary to Southern seaports; but the probabilities are that it did not so greatly exceed the direct importations as Southerners generally supposed. Some Southern writers made the palpably untenable assumption that the Southern population consumed foreign goods equal in value to their exports to foreign countries, that is about two-thirds or three-fourths of the nation’s exports or imports. More reasonable was the assumption that the per capita consumption of imported goods in the South was equal to that of the North; but even that would seem to have been too liberal. A much higher percentage of the Northern population was urban; and the per capita consumption of articles of commerce by an urban population is greater than the per capita consumption by a rural population. Southern writers made much of the number of rich families in the South who bought articles of luxury imported from abroad; but there is no doubt that the number of families who lived in luxury was exaggerated. That the slaves consumed comparatively small quantities of foreign goods requires no demonstration. Their clothing and rough shoes were manufactured either in the North or at home. Their chief articles of food (corn and bacon) were produced at home or in the West. The large poor white element in the population consumed few articles of commerce, either domestic or foreign. The same is true of the rather large mountaineer element, because if for no other reason, they lived beyond the routes of trade. Olmstead had these classes in mind when he wrote: ‘I have never seen reason to believe that with absolute free trade the cotton States would take a tenth part of the value of our present importations.’ One of the fairest of the many English travelers wrote: ‘But the truth is, there are few imports required, for every Southern town tells the same tale.’ ” [Robert R. Russel, Economic Aspects of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861, pp. 107-108]
The most the southern states could have paid, then, was a per capita percentage of the tariff, and even that was likely an overestimate of the amount they paid. The percentage of the population in the 11 states of the confederacy was 29% of the total US population in 1860, according to the US Census, and 40% of THAT population were slaves who didn’t use imported goods. So we have the most southerners in the confederate states would have paid being just about 17%. Again, this is most probably an overestimate.
In addition: “The idea that the South would pay a disproportionate share of import duties defies common sense as well as facts. The majority of imports from abroad entered ports in the Northeastern US, principally New York City. The importers paid duties at the customs houses in those cities. The free states had sixty-two percent of the U.S. population in the 1850s and seventy-two percent of the free population. The standard of living was higher in the free states and the people of those states consumed more than their proportionate share of dutiable products, so a high proportion of tariff revenue (on both consumer and capital goods) was paid ultimately by the people of those states–a fair guess would be that the North paid about seventy percent of tariff duties. There is no way to measure this precisely, for once the duties were paid no statistics were kept on the final destination of dutiable products. But consider a few examples. There was a tariff on sugar, which benefited only sugar planters in Louisiana, but seventy percent of the sugar was consumed in the free states. There was a tariff on hemp, which benefited only the growers in Kentucky and Missouri, but the shipbuilding industry was almost entirely in the North, so Northern users of hemp paid a disproportionate amount of that tariff. There were duties on both raw wool and finished wool cloth, which of course benefited sheep farmers who were mostly in the North and woolen textile manufacturers were who were almost entirely in the North, but it was Northern consumers who ultimately paid probably eighty percent of that tariff (woolen clothes were worn more in the North than in the South, for obvious reasons). Or take the tariff on iron–it benefited mainly Northern manufacturers (though there was an iron industry in the South as well), but sixty-five percent of the railroad mileage and seventy-five percent of the railroad rolling stock were in the North, which meant that Northern railroads (and their customers, indirectly) paid those proportions of the duties on iron for their rails, locomotives, and wheels.” [James M. McPherson, “The Truth About Tariffs,” North and South Magazine, Vol 7, No. 1, Jan, 2004, p. 52]
The video claims that Lincoln declared he would collect the taxes no matter what, and to prove this they take one phrase of his First Inaugural out of context.
“I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
“In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. 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. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.”
Quite clearly, Lincoln is saying he will enforce the laws of the United States–all of them, including the revenue laws–and he will hold, occupy, and possess the property of the government. We have to remember that at the time of Lincoln’s Inaugural there were states that had taken over US Government property and wanted to take more. Indeed, it was the firing on Fort Sumter, not the tariff, that led to Lincoln’s call for troops.
The video calls the war an “illegal invasion of the Southern States.” That’s an out-and-out lie. It was a legal case of putting down a rebellion, which Lincoln, as Commander-in-Chief, had the authority to do. The video claims the states had legally seceded. That’s another lie. There was nothing legal about the attempted secession of those 11 states. They claim the war was fought “just to keep money flowing into Washington.” That’s another lie. The goal, for the first half of the war, was to preserve the Union.
The video ends saying that this was the “grounds that sparked the first meeting of secession.” The first meeting of secession was sparked by the election of Abraham Lincoln, an antislavery president.
Anyone who believes this nonsense has no clue about what really happened in US history. Of course, as we know, it’s not about history, it’s about heritage–and we find that in this case, the heritage is about telling lies.
Student of the American Civil War 
The makers of the video appear never to have heard of Ft. Sumter.
Actually, their take may be the topic of a future post. They think it was “the North’s” fault.
Al, did you ever cover this with a post? People including George Purvis keep spouting the nonsense that the North started the war…
Yes, I have a whole series of posts. Perverse doesn’t know what he’s burbling about.
Yes I think it is very easy to see that. He thinks that Jeff Davis quotes from 1864 and later claiming he didnt fight for slavery are evidence that war was not about slavery…Then he says Lincoln saying it is the only “substantial dispute” is just justification for the war he started…the irony…it hurts. And he does insist that Lincoln started the war…
Anyways, I only found “he started the war on purpose” post, is that part of the series you mentioned? What are the others titles? Or what is the title of the series? Id like to read them.
Thanks in advance.
Just search for Fort Sumter and you’ll find them all.
The one the GaSCV did on “Religious Differences” is pretty incredible. When did Unitarianism become the majority religion of Northerners. Also, I believe that Humanism was an outgrowth of Renaissance Catholicism and did not originate in 19th Century New England. If it was a recent innovation,, somebody better go tell Thomas More and Erasmus.I like the fact that the video describes Northern industrialists as socialists. In another video they claim that a majority of New Englanders lived in cities. You would think someone down there would open a book before they produced this sort of nonsense.
Lying is more important to them, apparently.
The next thing you know they’ll be claiming history is written by the victors or that you’re a scalawag, carpetbagger, or traitor…or all three at once.
We hear the aphorism that history is written by the victors all the time. I guess that’s why all the books about the Vietnam War in the bookstores are written by Vietnamese historians, and why no confederate soldier could ever get a memoir published after the war.
“The next thing you know they’ll be claiming history is written by the victors. . . .”
There’s never been a lack of access to the “Southron” narrative. In fact, I’d guess that with several publishers that specialize in such works (Pelican, Searaven, etc.), and things like self-publishing, print-on-demand and Google books, I doubt there’s ever been more of that material available than there is right now, today.
True, Andy, but they are ignored by the dreaded “PC academics,” doncha know. 🙂
History is witten by the Victors and that’s a fact. When did we lose the Vietnam war? We didn’t! Also the article above’s arguments are really weak.
You don’t think we lost the Vietnam War? Really? What were the US objectives in the Vietnam War? What were the objectives of the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong? Who achieved their objectives and who failed to achieve their objectives? Sorry, but you haven’t shown that you can correctly evaluate any arguments at this time.
I just think it’s interesting to read what was written and said all the way to 1863 and then compare that with what they wrote and said from 1865 onward. “Let the facts speak for themselves.” We do all the time. The facts don’t support the Lost Cause myth.
I think the victors line is a cop out by those who get their lies wiped out by the facts. I have reached the point where I call the Lost Cause exactly what it is…a lie.
Yes, but to be fair a lot of those folks actually believe it.
I think they need to get a historian to proof read and go over their dating. The Georgia secession speeches have been published. There were arguments for and against secession in the Georgia legislature. I would simply suggest reading the published arguments for and against secession and come to a conclusion from that.
That assumes they are interested in what actually happened. They appear to me to only be interested in putting forward their spin. I’ve seen no evidence they care about what actually happened.
That’s the problem with most heritage groups, it goes further than just the SCV. I think the very nature of ‘heritage groups’ in many cases is to high light the good parts and sweep the not so good parts under the rug. Companies call it ‘damage control’. A lot of heritage groups are like some families and their family heritage , never talking about the old crazy uncle they keep out of sight 🙂 .
Your comment that the Morrill Tariff to around 26% overall and 34% on dutiable goods is inconsistent with the data in your referenced source.
I disagree. I talked about what the Morrill Tariff did immediately. What the chart shows is the tariff at the beginning of 1862 as a result of the total effect of increases throughout the year 1861, and we have to remember the tariff was increased at the July session of Congress due to the requirements of the war. See pages 99-100 of this.
I believe 100% that the tariff dispute was the real reason for secession of the cotton states. I would like to know how we can arrange a public debate between us. I’ve stuidied the issues since 1971 and have debate the topic against historians here in NY. Please tell me we can go about getting apublic debate.
Show us where they said they were seceding because of the tariff. Why did Mississippi say they were seceding? Why did Alabama say they were seceding? Why did the official representatives of Louisiana say states should secede?
Since the Morrill Tariff did not pass until AFTER the Lower South seceded and was only able to do because the Lower South seceded, saying this tariff caused secession is simply a matter of one not doing one’s homework. It is a famous Lost Cause article of faith and one that shows why the Lost Cause is built on fiction, not fact.
And, in addition, the earth is round, not flat. 🙂
The civil war was not over slavery, even Lincoln said that he had no legal authority over the sovereignty of the states. And is it not even stranger that the northern states kept their slaves ?
Please do better
Please learn some history for a change.
Without the issues surrounding slavery there would have been no secession. Had there been no secession there would have been no war.
By the way, Nathan Bedford Forrest called and said you have no idea what you’re talking about. “I said to forty-five colored fellows on my plantation that it was a war upon slavery, and that I was going into the army; that if they would go with me, if we got whipped they would be free anyhow, and that if we succeeded and slavery was perpetuated, if they would act faithfully with me to the end of the war, I would set them free.” [Nathan Bedford Forrest, testimony to US Joint Committee on Reconstruction]
“When I entered the army I took forty-seven Negroes into the army with me, and forty-five of them were surrendered with me. I told these boys that this war was about slavery, and if we lose, you will be made free. If we whip the fight and you stay with me you will be made free. Either way you will be freed.” [N. B. Forrest, interview in Cincinnati Commercial, August 28, 1868]
John S. Mosby also says you don’t have a clue: “The South had always been solid for slavery and when the quarrel about it resulted in a conflict of arms, those who had approved the policy of disunion took the pro-slavery side. It was perfectly logical to fight for slavery, if it was right to own slaves.” [John S. Mosby, Mosby’s Memoirs, p. 20]
And “the North” didn’t have slaves in 1860, with the exception of 18 slaves still in New Jersey as it was in the very last stage of gradual abolition of slavery. Four southern states, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, stayed loyal to the Union. They had slaves, but Missouri and Maryland both abolished slavery prior to the end of the war.
One has to be ignorant of actual history in order to be a neoconfederate.
Again Mr. Al Mackey, I happen to be very educated, just as you say you are and done my own research as you have. And again here is something for you to research and try to poke holes in, if you can :
[edit]
Five weeks later, on April 12, Fort Sumter, a tariff collection point in Charleston Harbor, was bombarded by the Confederates.
[edit]
“I happen to be very educated”
Your posts show a decided lack of education in Civil War history.
Repeating the tariff lie does not make the tariff lie true. It simply shows a lack of integrity and knowledge on your part.
“Five weeks later, on April 12, Fort Sumter, a tariff collection point in Charleston Harbor, was bombarded by the Confederates.”
Fort Sumter was not a tariff collection point. Fort Sumter was still under construction, and the tariff collection point was at the customs house located at 200 E Bay St. in Charleston. This shows you have no idea what you’re talking about whatsoever.
The rest of your cut-and-paste inanity was off topic for this post. This post is about the tariff only. I’ve already addressed the falsehoods you wrote about the Morrill Tariff.
“I” never said that Fort Sumter was a tariff collection place your so called facts of someone else did
You said it. It was in your comment. At least have the honesty and manhood to own your own comments.
A true Southerner knows the Civil War was not over slavery as so many have been taught or told. Most of us True Southerners know that by educating our self and not just believing in what we’re told or handed down through ignorance of others or by what others would want us to believe, know that the Civil War was actually over the Union passing higher tariffs(taxes) upon the Southern States of over 40% under the Morrill Tariff Act 1861 which passed March 2nd,1861 and the Civil War started Friday April 12th,1861.
The import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being spent in the North. The South was being plundered by the tax system and wanted no more of it. Then along comes Lincoln and the Republicans, tripling (!) the rate of tariff taxation (before the war was an issue). Lincoln then threw down the gauntlet in his first inaugural: “The power confided in me,” he said, “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 force against, or among the people anywhere” (emphasis added).
“We are going to make tax slaves out of you,” Lincoln was effectively saying, “and if you resist, there will be an invasion.” That was on March 4. Five weeks later, on April 12, Fort Sumter, a tariff collection point in Charleston Harbor, was bombarded by the Confederates. No one was hurt or killed, and Lincoln later revealed that he manipulated the Confederates into firing the first shot, which helped generate war fever in the North.
With slavery, Lincoln was conciliatory. In his first inaugural address, he said he had no intention of disturbing slavery, and he appealed to all his past speeches to any who may have doubted him. Even if he did, he said, it would be unconstitutional to do so. the South before the War funded probably 75 to 80% of all the taxes. But the North wanted a 40% tariff. The south said no. The most we will ever agree to is a 10% tariff. And what Lincoln and the radical republicans were doing was this: They were saying we would give you the thirteenth amendment. We will let you keep your slaves if that is what you want. You just let us keep our tariffs. In other words, the North was willing to sell the blacks out for money, for higher taxes! They could care less. You see, Hapgood’s book, Abraham Lincoln, The Man of The People, on page 273, quotes Abraham Lincoln as saying, If I could save the Union without freeing any of the slaves I would do it. Abraham Lincoln later said that slaves are property and if freed they should be paid for. Later on Lincoln said, I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.? Now here Lincoln is acknowledging that he has no lawful right to interfere with slavery. Slavery, by the way, was constitutional. All thirteen colonies agreed on it and by the way, in 1776, all thirteen colonies held slaves, not just the South, all of them! Lincoln said, I have no lawful right to interfere nor, he says, do I have an inclination to do so. In a letter to Alexander Stevens who happened to be later the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote and said this, Do the people of the South really entertain fear that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly interfere with their slaves, or with them about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you that once, as a friend, and still I hope not as an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington. So once again, Lincoln is saying it’s not over slavery.
Lincoln’s proposed thirteenth amendment said Congress shall not have the power to interfere with any institutions within any state including those held to labor or service by the laws of that State. In other words, what Abraham Lincoln was saying to the South, if you will accept this proposed thirteenth amendment, you may forever keep slaves. Folks, Beauregard never fired on Fort Sumter until April 9. This was in March of 1861! If the War had been about slavery and if the South wanted just to keep slaves and that was it, why fire a gun? Why fire a shot? Just simply accept his proposed thirteenth amendment and it would all be over. This resolution was passed unanimously by Congress on July 23, 1861.
YOU may read it for yourself in the Congressional Record ! Here is what this resolution says: The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union. Congress said the War is not about slavery! I will even give you a thirteenth amendment that will allow you to make slavery permanent.
So,don’t believe everything you hear someone says they know, search the truth out yourself. Also look for the “Original 13th Amendment To The U.S. Constitution” about the “Titles Of Nobilities” that was legally ratified and was the Law forbidding titles of nobility which means lawyers and Lincoln was a lawyer holding a public office which was forbidden. Look it up !!!
“A true Southerner knows the Civil War was not over slavery”: Then a “true southerner” is a moron with no ability to understand history. I guess the confederate soldiers who fought the war must not be “true southerners,” then, since they realized the war was over slavery. I fail to see how lying about confederates is supposed to be honoring them.
Instead of simply cutting and pasting from lying websites, you ought to have read my post and tried to digest what it was saying. The claim the south was paying anything more than 17% of the tariff is an out and out lie.
Partial, out-of-context quotations prove nothing other than the dishonesty of the person snipping those quotations out of context.
You people never fail to show ignorance and dishonesty.
I guess these guys weren’t “true southerners,” too:
“The vandals of the North . . . are determined to destroy slavery . . . We must all fight, and I choose to fight for southern rights and southern liberty.” [Lunsford Yandell, Jr. to Sally Yandell, April 22, 1861 in James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, p. 20]
“A stand must be made for African slavery or it is forever lost.” [William Grimball to Elizabeth Grimball, Nov. 20, 1860, Ibid.]
“This country without slave labor would be completely worthless. We can only live & exist by that species of labor; and hence I am willing to fight for the last.” [William Nugent to Eleanor Nugent, Sept 7, 1863, Ibid., p. 107]
“Better, far better! endure all the horrors of civil war than to see the dusky sons of Ham leading the fair daughters of the South to the altar.” [William M. Thomson to Warner A. Thomson, Feb. 2, 1861, Ibid., p. 19]
“A captain in the 8th Alabama also vowed ‘to fight forever, rather than submit to freeing negroes among us. . . . [We are fighting for] rights and property bequeathed to us by our ancestors.’ ” [Elias Davis to Mrs. R. L. Lathan, Dec. 10, 1863 Ibid., p. 107]
“Even though he was tired of the war, wrote a Louisiana artilleryman in 1862, ‘ I never want to see the day when a negro is put on an equality with a white person. There is too many free [n-word]s. . . now to suit me, let alone having four millions.’ ” [George Hamill Diary, March, 1862, Ibid., p. 109]
“A private in the 38th North Carolina, a yeoman farmer, vowed to show the Yankees ‘ that a white man is better than a [n-word].’ ” [Jonas Bradshaw to Nancy Bradshaw, April 29, 1862 Ibid.]
“A farmer from the Shenandoah Valley informed his fiancée that he fought to assure ‘a free white man’s government instead of living under a black republican government.’ ” [John G. Keyton to Mary Hilbert, Nov. 30, 1861, Ibid.]
“The son of another North Carolina dirt farmer said he would never stop fighting the Yankees, who were ‘trying to force us to live as the colored race.’ ” [Samuel Walsh to Louisa Proffitt, April 11, 1864, Ibid.]
“Some of the boys asked them what they were fighting for, and they answered, ‘You Yanks want us to marry our daughters to the [n-word]s.’ ” [Chauncey Cook to parents, May 10, 1864, Ibid.]
“An Arkansas captain was enraged by the idea that if the Yankees won, his ‘sister, wife, and mother are to be given up to the embraces of their present dusky male servitors.’ ” [Thomas Key, diary entry April 10, 1864, Ibid.]
“Another Arkansas soldier, a planter, wrote his wife that Lincoln not only wanted to free the slaves but also ‘declares them entitled to all the rights and privileges as American citizens. So imagine your sweet little girls in the school room with a black wooly headed negro and have to treat them as their equal.’ ” [William Wakefield Garner to Henrietta Garner, Jan 2, 1864, Ibid.]
“[If Atlanta and Richmond fell] we are irrevocably lost and not only will the negroes be free but . . . we will all be on a common level. . . . The negro who now waits on you will then be as free as you are & as insolent as she is ignorant.’ ” [Allen D. Chandler to wife, July 7, 1864, Ibid.]
Some more “not true southerners:”
“Mississippi private John Foster, for instance, wrote to his aunt that ‘Frémont has done more for us than any General we have save [Sterling] Price,’ because his proclamation [of emancipation] reminded all southern whites that the North wished ‘to annihilate us by turning loose a servile population with arms in hand to commit the most outrageous ats of cruelty & barbarism,’ Less than one year earlier, Foster had ‘hated to give up the idea of the Union,’ but he changed his mind because the North’s true intentions toward slavery were now transparent.” [Chandra Manning, What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War, p. 51]
“Joseph Bruckmuller, a German immigrant saloon keeper who fought with the Seventh Texas, had almost nothing in common with the scion of the Palmetto State, yet Bruckmuller also saw the need to preserve slavery as a powerful glue binding all whites in the South. Scoffing at ‘improve-the-world ideas of emancipation,’ Bruckmuller urged his fellow ‘adoption citizens’ to stand by ‘your own countrymen and race’ against the ‘murder and arson, hanging and stealing’ that were sure to accompany the ‘liberation of the half-civilized cannibal.’ ” [Ibid., pp. 31-32]
“One January night in 1863, Arkansas soldier James Harrison dreamed of a big dinner at his Aunt Polly’s house. Suddenly, the dream turned sour when Harrison realized, ‘I had too [sic] eat by the side of a negro.’ Even worse, the black man ‘had a plate to eat on and I had none.’ Harrison had his dream just days after President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, as bondmen and bondwomen continued to chip away at slavery and the Union Army enlisted black soldiers. Harrison’s nightmare encapsulated much of what Confederate soldiers feared all those changes would mean. Blacks would not only ‘eat at table with white folks,’ but they would also enjoy new rights and benefits at the expense of ordinary whites like small farmer James Harrison, who sat helplessly without a plate while a black man used a plate that Harrison regarded as rightfully his. The Emancipation Proclamation and black enlistment in the Union Army pushed Confederate discontent into the shadows and steeled resolve in the Confederate Army by providing soldiers like James Harrison with fresh reminders of precisely why they must keep up the fight.” [Ibid., p. 81]
“Texas chaplain Robert Bunting sought to horrify Confederate civilians and soldiers alike with stories of marriages between slave women and white Union soldiers taking place in the homes of the slaves’ helpless white mistresses. ‘It is no unusual thing,’ Bunting claimed, ‘for the mistress to be compelled to witness, in her own parlor, the marriage of her likely house-maids to officers and privates of the army.’ After the ceremony, shameless brides helped themselves to articles from the home, and then departed from their rightful mistress ‘with the taunt that now they are as free as she.’
“No evidence suggests that marriages between white Union soldiers and slaves occurred at all, let alone became commonplace, but Bunting’s stories were powerful despite their falsehood. In fact, the stories helped explain why the defense of slavery continued to rally nonslaveholding soldiers whose families needed them at home, especially when measures like the twenty-slave law made plain exactly how little direct material interest nonslaveholders had in an institution that so clearly privileged the wealthy, but tales like the ones Bunting spun revealed that for nonslaveholders, slavery’s importance had little to do with its pecuniary benefits.” [Ibid., pp. 109-110]
“Confederates believed that their rebellion against a federal government that inadequately served white Southerners’ interest in slavery reenacted the colonies’ revolt against Great Britain. As Pvt. Ivy Duggan explained, ‘our Revolutionary fathers taught us … to resist oppression, to declare and maintain independence, to govern ourselves as we think best.’ The British attempt to tax colonists’ tea without colonial representation in Parliament constituted far less of an infringement on colonial rights than hostility toward slavery did on white southern rights. If the revolutionary generation ‘could not endure a tax on tea because it violated a sacred principle, how could WE submit to be governed by those whose steady determination is to sacrifice our happiness, and even our lives, in the abolition of an institution guaranteed to us by the constitution of our fathers?’ Duggan demanded.” [Pvt. Ivy Duggan, 15th GA, to Central Georgian, 13 Sep 1861, quoted in Ibid., pp. 28-29]
“When discussing reasons for the conflict, a Georgia regimental newspaper, The Spirit of ’61, pointed to personal liberty laws, ‘those grievous enactments of some of the free state legislatures in regard to fugitive slaves,’ as evidence that Northerners were ‘black hearted abolitionists’ who must be opposed before they crushed slavery.” [_The Spirit of ’61,_ the camp paper of the 18th Georgia, 25 Dec 1861, quoted in Ibid., p. 32]
“Georgia soldier A. H. Mitchell, for one, linked abolitionism in the North to other moral pathologies like ‘spiritualism and free love.’” [Georgia soldier A. H. Mitchell to father, 17 May 1861, quoted in Ibid., p. 35]
“One Georgia recruit fretted about rumors that slaves who thought the war meant freedom were already discussing ‘whom they would make their wives among the young [white] ladies.’” [Thomas, private in a Ga. Regiment, to mother, 10 May 1861, quoted in Ibid., p. 36]
“The most powerful motivator remained Confederate troops’ certainty that they must fight to prevent the abolition of slavery, the worst of all possible disasters that could befall southern white men and their families. Over and over, soldiers repeated the same refrains about the necessity of fighting for slavery that they had been sounding since the war began. Abolitionist tyrants would ‘force the yoke of slavery’ onto white men and their loved ones if Confederates ever gave up the struggle, one Texas chaplain warned.” [Chaplain Robert Bunting, 8th Tex. Cavalry, to Houston Telegraph, 11 Aug 1863, quoted in Ibid., pp. 138-139.]
“Alabama private Thomas Taylor insisted that his sister recall that if Northerners succeeded in emancipating black slaves, they would ‘place upon [white Southerners] the chains of slavery.’” Far from indulging in rhetorical flourish Taylor genuinely feared that abolition would destroy southern society and his place within it, and, like most of his fellow soldiers, he sincerely believed in the urgency of fighting to avoid such a fate.” [Pvt. Thomas Taylor, 6th Ala., to sister, 15 Aug 1863, quoted in Ibid., p. 139.]
“When Edward Brown confided to his wife that he ‘would not give a hundred dollars for any Negro’ while the Confederacy was in such upheaval, Mrs. Brown made the mistake of sharing the letter with a member of Brown’s regiment who was home on leave at the time. The soldier returned to camp and broadcast Brown’s views, leading the regiment to ‘condemn’ the hapless Brown as ‘an unsound southern man.’ “ [Sgt. Edward Brown, 45th Ala., 5 Feb 1864, quoted in Ibid., p. 172.]
“Alabamian Joseph Stapp worried about the high prices, food shortages, social unrest, and ‘desolation and ruin’ that plagued the Confederacy, but told his mother that white Southerners would have to ‘bear any hardships’ in order to ‘live independent of old Abe and his negro sympathizers.’ “ [Pvt. Joseph Stapp, 41st Ala., to mother, 6 Mar 1864, quoted in Ibid., p. 172.]
“The most we will ever agree to is a 10% tariff.”
So, the tariff in use before the Morrill Tariff was the Tariff of 1857, the lowest tariff the country had seen up to that point. Authored by Robert Hunter from Virginia. That tariff was around 17% on average. They were already accepting a tariff 7% higher than your claim.
To Al Mackey, you say learn history…
The north did have slaves before the civil war, so please, You learn history because the records prove it…
Learn how to read the US Census. You people really are dumb, aren’t you?
And I guess Lincoln wanting to relocate the negroes is false too ???
I also see that you use other peoples stuff too Mr. Mackey, just not a cut and paste …
Lincoln’s support for colonization had nothing to do with what the war was about. Learn some logic in addition to learning some history.
I do not call people ignorant Mr. Mackey and your posts of letters are not facts, nor public records. Also your proposed 17% tariff increase was on top of what was already being taxed.
You shouldn’t call people ignorant, because that would be the pot calling the kettle names.
You’re obviously not bright enough to understand the meaning of the letters.
Your claim about the tariff merely shows you’re just making things up.
Strange how the war started after the act
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
[edit]
Your comment is off topic on this post about the Morrill Tariff.
Yes I guess the U.S. Census is so very accurate,
[edit]
Your comment is off topic on this post about the Morrill Tariff.
[edit]
Your comment is off topic on this post about the Morrill Tariff.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, I really think that could fit you too
You obviously have no clue what it is. And you claim to be educated. Well, that’s another falsehood of yours we’ve uncovered. But we knew it already.
No clue to what it means, god you are so smart
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states “Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.” It is often shortened to simply post hoc fallacy.
Google must be your friend. Now we’ve established that it doesn’t apply to my posts.
[edit]
Your comment is off topic for this post on the tariff.
Well Mr. Smarty pants if the war wasn’t over slavery as honest Abe Lincoln stated then, then I guess your own Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy falls into play for you
This post is about the tariff. Obviously, since you still have no clue about what the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy means, even though you cut and pasted the definition after Googling it, you don’t have the ability to understand the concept of being on topic. From now on, if you want to comment on this blog, comment on topic or your comment will be promptly deleted with no response. If that happens two more times you will be placed in the troll file, meaning none of your comments will be posted, whether they are on topic or not, and they will go directly into the blog’s spam folder without being read.
On topic, well you profess that the morrill tariff act was not the cause of the civil war, so it must mean that you profess that slavery was and yet any mention of slavery and Lincoln’s actual words are off topic… How amazing is that… The morrill tariff act was alleged to have been to set up agricultural colleges and land grants, so how did it get to taxation ?
Once again we see your lack of knowledge. You confuse the Morrill Tariff with the Morrill land Grant Act, two completely different pieces of legislation passed a year apart.
Anything other than the Morrill Tariff is off topic.
You people are really dense.
[edit]
Sorry, but you’re not going to post a huge, multipage part of a published book here. I’m not going to allow you to inflict that on the readers here. Put together a position and properly support it with digestible portions of material. Be aware that if I get bored reading it, it won’t be approved.
Morrill Tariff
The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was an increased tariff in the United States, adopted on March 2, 1861, during the administration of President James Buchanan, a Democrat. It was a key element of the platform of the new Republican Party, and it appealed to industrialists and factory workers as a way to foster rapid industrial growth by limiting competition from lower-wage industries in Europe.
In the spring of 1860, Justin Smith Morrill, Republican of Vermont, proposed the tariff bill in the House of Representatives. Drafted to draw Northern industrial states to the Republican Party in that year’s election, Morrill’s bill was not an ordinary protective tariff that placed import duties on finished industrial goods. The act attempted to protect and support many sectors of the economy and all the regions of the country by placing tariff duties on agricultural, mining, fishing, and manufactured goods. Sugar, wool, flaxseed, hides, beef, pork, corn, grain, lead, copper, coal, and zinc all received protection by imposts, as did dried, pickled, and salted fish. In general, the tariff increased duties 20 percent on certain manufactured goods and 10 percent on specified raw materials. The bill reflected the Republican Party’s commitment to general economic growth and expressed its belief that business interests interacted harmoniously and positively in the economy.
The tariff also differed in that it distributed the burden of protection across society rather than placing it on specific regions or poorer classes. Morrill instituted a graded system of duties on a series of enumerated goods. The bill placed a 10 percent duty on goods considered necessities and a 20 percent impost on products that were less necessary. Congress authorized a 30 percent tax on luxury items based on their value. Morrill believed that this system did not gouge consumers but taxed their ability and willingness to pay.
The House passed the bill May 10, 1860, when Western states rallied to it. However, Southern opposition defeated it in the Senate. After December 1860 when South Carolina seceded from the Union, Congress passed the tariff bill on March 2, 1861. The government enacted the tariff to raise revenues during the Civil War.
And you were saying ???
Plagiarizing Wikipedia doesn’t help your case much.
I was and still am saying you’re committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
But if it weren’t for fallacious thinking, I suppose neoconfederates wouldn’t do any thinking at all.
If you would take the time to look at the facts you would see what I typed in 2014 about this. The tariff was stuck in a committee and went nowhere. It was dead. When some states started to secede, those senators resigned their seats in the Senate. When they did that, action was taken to bring the tariff out of committee which then set the rest of it in motion.
The Morrill Tariff only became law because of secession. It did not cause secession because it had no opportunity to do so. That is why you see no reference to the Morrill Tariff in the secession declarations of the Lower South states. What you do see is a lot of references involving slavery as the cause of those states secession. It’s all there in black and white. Look it up in the Congressional Globe. Then go read the secession declarations.
You wrote to me : The Morrill Tariff only became law because of secession. It did not cause secession because it had no opportunity to do so. That is why you see no reference to the Morrill Tariff in the secession declarations of the Lower South states. What you do see is a lot of references involving slavery as the cause of those states secession.
Then I had shown you : Inauguration
Abraham Lincoln took the oath as President on March 4, 1861. Among the first words of his Inaugural Address was a pledge (repeating words from an August 1858 speech) intended to placate Southern apprehensions: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Referring to the proposed Crittenden amendment, which would make explicit constitutional protection of slavery where it already existed, he said, “I have no objection to its being made express, and irrevocable.” He also promised to support legislation for the capture and return of runaway slaves.
So if the war wasn’t caused by this Morrill Tarriff Act, and it wasn’t caused by slavery according to Lincoln, then what was the real cause ???
We all know that war is usually over money or conquest(control), history has proven that…
You don’t understand what Lincoln was talking about. He never said the war was not caused by slavery. In fact, he very clearly stated that it was indeed caused by slavery.
I realize you don’t have a clue about history, but even you should know the war started over a month after Lincoln gave that speech, so quite obviously in his First Inaugural he wasn’t saying anything about the cause of the war. But then again, neoconfederates have no grasp of logic either.
The confederates themselves said the tariff did not cause the war.
[edit]
That’s one. One to go.
[edit]
That’s two. Welcome to the spam folder, troll.
If it wasn’t about slavery, then why was Lincoln talking about slavery? You may notice he was not talking about the Morrill Tarriff. Al got it right. The subject was slavery. The slave owners said it was. Study the secession convention documents. The word slavery is used an incredible amount of times. If it wasn’t about slavery, why did the secession delegates talk about it so much? Why did they write it down so much? Why did they say that was the cause of their dispute with the federal government?
It was only at the end of the war that a defense began to develop to about the cause of the war being about something other than slavery because as Jubal Early said, the historians were going to write that we fought this war over slavery. He did not want to be remembered as a man who plunged his nation into a war over slavery.
Too bad for him, but that is exactly what he helped do, plunge the nation into a war over slavery. And that is how he is going to be remembered.
Here is a revealing exchange on the tariff as a cause of secession. This is taken from the reported proceedings of the South Carolina secession convention as published in the Charleston Courier:
Maxcy Gregg: “Not one word is said about the tariff, which has caused us so many years of contest. The main stress is made upon the unimportant point of fugitive slaves, and the laws passed by various Northern States obstructing the recovery of fugitive slaves.”
Lawrence Keitt: “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 go for the address, because, I believe it does present succinctly and conspicuously what are the main primary causes.”
Excellent quote.
On November 29, 1860, the renowned Reverend Benjamin Morgan Palmer (1818-1902) preached a calm and measured Thanksgiving sermon, of “so vast an influence that it deserves a careful reading.” It lasted around two hours, was printed and reprinted numerous times in newspapers, and later appeared in pamphlet form. Palmer, who ordinarily avoided political topics in his pulpit, made the case to the congregation of his First Presbyterian Church of New Orleans, that Louisiana must secede. He was a South Carolinian born and bred, and as a teenager supported Nullification. He declared that the providential trust of the southern people was “to conserve and to perpetuate the institution of domestic slavery as now existing,” and invoked “the principle of self-preservation, that ‘first law’ which is continually asserting its supremacy over all others.”
Palmer believed this perpetuation was a duty to the slaves, to the “vigorous Saxon race,” to the civilized world, and to Almighty God. Again, the trust bestowed on the south was “to preserve and transmit our existing system of domestic servitude, with the right, unchallenged by man, to go and root itself wherever Providence and nature may carry it….If modern crusaders stand in serried ranks upon some plain of Esdraelon, there shall we be in defence of our trust. Not till the last man has fallen behind the last rampart, shall it drop from our hands; then only in surrender to the God who gave it.” Economics demanded secession: the south’s prosperity was built upon slavery. Lincoln? Despite his conciliatory words to slaveholders, his party would insist that the institution be attacked. Abolition would summon up “the history of St. Domingo [Haiti],” and that would become the history of Louisiana. “May the Lord God cover [the south’s] head in this her day of battle!” [All quotations from “The Life and Letters of Benjamin Morgan Palmer” (Richmond, 1906), by Thomas Cary Johnson, pp. 209-219].
Nowhere in all this argument of a former Nullification advocate is the tariff mentioned. I encountered the volume cited only recently, and thought it might be of interest.
One wonders if those who push the tariff myth will even pay attention. They seem to be emotionally invested in the phony tariff claim to the point where the actual words of the secessionists denying tariffs played a role simply go into one ear and out the other.
Al,
I was wondering if you could point out where they deny tariffs playing a role. I always thought it was more because they didnt declare it as a reason. But if they denied it, thats much stronger. Would you be willing to share?
Look at the Georgia Declaration of Causes. They specifically state the tariff issue had been solved.
“But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded– the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.”
I think I might have found it.
Is that what you are referring to?
That’s it. Notice that they don’t mention the tariff becoming an issue again. Rather, the Republican Party gets its power from being an antislavery party.
the south went to war to preserve slavery.
the north went to war to preserve the union.
all else logically follows.
(Unless I have completely misunderstood this point) I understand that the southern states exported most of their agricultural products to Europe and they were worried about retaliatory tariffs placed on what they were trying to sell abroad. Is there any evidence of retaliatory tariffs being placed on southern goods sold overseas? Thanks in advance
That’s not the claim. The claim being made is that the South paid 75% or more of the tariff for the US, which is a complete lie.
True…just a general tariff question I suppose ;).
Bob, unless im missing something from what your saying, how can there be tariffs placed on southern goods sold overseas? That doesn’t make sense.
He’s talking about other nations placing retaliatory tariffs on US products going to their nations.
Ok for some reason I thought he was talking about export tariffs…which wasnt possible. Ok so, in retaliation to…the morrill tarrif? I guess I’d be mildly interested to know as well then. I say mildly because it feels sort of a moot point, in the end the south could have just voted against it whatever their reason for not liking it. I already know how they felt about the morrill tarriff.
You’re right it is a moot point…I had just heard that that was a reason the southern states’ panties were in a wad. They believed (so the story goes) that European nations would retaliate sort of the same way China has threatened to do now with the Trump steel tariff. So, they thought they would be getting screwed twice, having to pay more for stuff they wanted from Europe and having to sell their stuff for less profit in Europe.
The thing to do is ask whomoever you “heard” that from to tell where the people at the time actually said that. I don’t think they’ll be able to give you an actual source from the middle of the 19th Century.
Right I basically say it was sort of a moot point because all 11 southern states left the Union before the vote for the tariff, and they had the numbers in the senate to vote against it thus they shirked the opportunity (even if it would have passed it wouldn’t have without favorable revisions for the south). So, while i’m still interested if you can fetch that source Al is asking about, it sounds like regardless, they had their panties in a wad for much bigger “reasons”.
Q: If the war was about slavery, then why did the north offer up the Corwin amendment which would have protected slavery into perpetuity? “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” While Lincoln didn’t “offer it up”, he also certainly didn’t object to it. That means it had his CONSENT. Yes, the south fired on Fort Sumpter, but Lincoln instigated that as well. before that event, most of the northern opinion was on the side of the south’s right to succession.
A: The Morrill Tarriff. So the north gave the south every opportunity to keep slavery as long as they stayed in the union and paid their tarriffs. Your argument is thereby MOOT. See also the Tariff of Abominations. The Tariff of 1828 was a protective tariff passed by the Congress of the United States on May 19, 1828, designed to protect industry in the Northern United States. The first time the south threatened to secede.
Mr. Darby, all one has to do is read what the secessionists wrote to see why they wanted their independence. They wanted to protect slavery from a threat they perceived in an antislavery president being elected. As to the Corwin Amendment, it did nothing more than codify the prevailing constitutional interpretation of the time–that slavery was a state matter and the Federal government had no authority to abolish slavery in a state. However, the amendment did nothing about expansion of slavery, which was the crux of the problem in 1860 and 1861. Lincoln and the Republicans wanted to cut off slavery’s expansion into the territories. The Corwin Amendment would do nothing about that. In cutting off expansion, the theory is that slavery would then be on the road to eventual extinction. Southerners believed this as well, which is why they saw it as an existential threat to slavery. In addition, if you read what they wrote, they feared Lincoln would appoint antislavery postmasters who would allow antislavery literature to flow freely through the mail. They feared he would appoint antislavery U.S. Marshals who would not be so industrious about enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law. They feared a southern Republican Party would emerge and grow to the point where it would gain enough power within a slave state to enact an abolition of slavery in that state.
Your argument about taxes is incompetent, I’m sorry to say. The so-called “Tariff of Abominations” had nothing to do with the Civil War, being enacted over three decades prior to the war. Only South Carolina threatened to secede, not the South. If you actually investigate it, you’ll find the South Carolinians, led by His Satanic Majesty, John C. Calhoun, wrote the worst aspects of that tariff bill. After the Nullification Crisis, Calhoun admitted the whole reason for the crisis was the protection of slavery.
Also, it was not the first time the South threatened to secede. There were numerous threats to secede over slavery during the 1820 Missouri Crisis. Indeed, there were threats by southern states to not ratify the Constitution if it didn’t provide sufficient safeguards for slavery. Southern states threatened to withhold their support for independence if Thomas Jefferson’s antislavery statement was not stricken from the Declaration of Independence.
Read history books, not SCV nonsense and lies.
Nobody said the tariff of abominations had anything to do with the civil war. That would you attempting to put words in my mouth. What I said was that it nearly caused the south to secede at that point as well. That would be called a precedent. Now, again, the Corwin amendment would have allowed slavery permanently. What a few slave owners opinions were compared to the rest of the southerners has little bearing. The point is, the south could have kept their slaves. But Lincoln had a war planned all along if the south failed to go along with the tarriffs.
Lincoln met secretly on April 4, 1861, with Colonel John Baldwin, a delegate to the Virginia Secession Convention. Baldwin, like a majority of that convention would have preferred to keep Virginia in the Union. But Baldwin learned at that meeting that Lincoln was already committed to taking some military action at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. He desperately tried to persuade Lincoln that military action against South Carolina would mean war and also result in Virginia’s secession. Baldwin tried to persuade Lincoln that if the Gulf States were allowed to secede peacefully, historical and economic ties would eventually persuade them to reunite with the North. Lincoln’s decisive response was,
“And open Charleston, etc. as ports of entry with their ten percent tariff? What then would become of my tariff?”
Mr. Darby,
Apparently you didn’t read where I told you the South didn’t threaten to secede. South Carolina stood alone in the Nullification controversy. It’s no precedent for anything, especially since the whole crisis was manufactured by His Satanic Majesty, John C. Calhoun, for the purpose of protecting slavery. Here’s what Calhoun said: “I consider the Tariff, but as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick [sic] institutions of the Southern States, and the consequent direction which that and her soil and climate have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriation in opposite relation to the majority of the Union; against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states, they must in the end be forced to rebel, or submit to have . . . their domestick [sic] institutions exhausted by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves & children reduced to wretchedness. Thus situated, the denial of the right of the state to interfere constitutionally in the last resort, more alarms the thinking than all other causes.” [John C. Calhoun to Virginl Maxcy, 11 September 1830]
Even Andrew Jackson was on to them:
WASHINGTON, May 1, 1833.
MY DEAR SIR:
I have had a laborious task here, but nullification is dead; and its actors and courtiers will only be remembered by the people to be execrated for their wicked designs to sever and destroy the only good Government on the globe, and that prosperity and happiness we enjoy over every other portion of the world. Haman’s gallows ought to be the fate of all such ambitious men who would involve their country in civil war, and all the evils in its train, that they might reign and ride on its whirlwinds and direct the storm. The free people of these United States have spoken, and consigned these wicked demagogues to their proper doom. Take care of your nullifiers; you have them among you; let them meet with the indignant frowns of every man who loves his country. The tariff, it is now known, was a mere pretext—its burden was on your coarse woolens. By the law of July, 1832, coarse woolen was reduced to five per cent, for the benefit of the South. Mr. Clay’s bill takes it up and classes it with woolens at fifty per cent., reduces it gradually down to twenty per cent., and there it is to remain, and Mr. Calhoun and all the nullifiers agree to the principle. The cash duties and home valuation will be equal to fifteen per cent, more, and after the year 1842, you pay on coarse. woolens thirty-five per cent. If this is not protection, I cannot understand; therefore the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and a southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro or slavery question.
My health is not good, but is improving a little. Present me kindly to your lady and family and believe me to be your friend. I will always be happy to hear from you.
Andrew Jackson [Andrew Jackson to Rev. A. J. Crawford, 1 May 1833]
You talk about “a few slave owners,” but that is superficial thinking, which is something we’ve come to expect from apologists for the confederacy and other SCV types. Only the head of the household was a slave owner. The other members of the family counted, though, when it came to supporting slavery. About a third of households in the confederacy were slave owning households. That’s not a few people. Add to that all those who had been slave owners but were temporarily without slaves during the 1860 Census. Add to that all those who were not slave owners but aspired to be slave owners and who were working to that goal, much like Andrew Johnson did in Tennessee. Add to that all those whose livelihoods depended on the continuation of slavery because their jobs supported the institution. Then add to that all the white folks who looked on slavery as an institution of racial control, especially in South Carolina and Mississippi, where the black population outnumbered the white population. As DeBow’s Review said, even nonslaveholders had a stake in perpetuating the institution of slavery.
You apparently didn’t understand my explanation of the Corwin Amendment. The short answer, then, since you apparently tire when reading longer answers, is they didn’t believe they could keep their slaves.
The idea that Lincoln planned a war all along is a delusion deserving no respect. Only a moron would believe that nonsense.
You misquote Baldwin, and confederate colonel John Baldwin himself is less than fully reliable.
Here’s the actual quote from Baldwin, made after the war, and after Lincoln was dead and couldn’t contradict him: “He said something about the withdrawal of the troops from Sumter on the ground of military necessity. Said I, ‘that will never do under heaven. You have been President a month to-day, and if you intended to hold that position you ought to have strengthened it, so as to make it impregnable. To hold it in the present condition of force there is an invitation to assault. Go upon higher ground than that. The better ground than that is to make a concession of an asserted right in the interest of peace.’-‘Well,’ said he, ‘what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?’ Said I, ‘Sir, how much do you expect to collect in a year?’-Said he, ‘Fifty or sixty millions.’ ‘Why sir,’ said I, ‘four times sixty is two hundred and forty. Say $250,000,000 would be the revenue of your term of the presidency; what is that but a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of such a war as we are threatened with? Let it all go, if necessary; but I do not believe that it will be necessary, because I believe that you can settle it on the basis I suggest.’ ”
Confederate colonel John Baldwin is unreliable because he puts into Lincoln’s mouth the entire revenue from the tariff for a year as though it was the revenue solely from Charleston or solely from the South, when we know for a fact that only $2 million in imported goods passed through Charleston in a year, and over 90% of the revenue was collected in Northern ports. Additionally, Lincoln, during that meeting, offered to evacuate Fort Sumter in return for Virginia’s secession convention disbanding. After the interview with Baldwin, Lincoln spoke at length about it with John Minor Botts. Botts’ reporting of what Lincoln said, especially concerning the offer of evacuating Fort Sumter in return for Virginia staying in the Union, does not mesh with Baldwin’s account. Baldwin claims no such offer, but we know from C.S. Morehead of Kentucky and from John Hay’s diary that Lincoln made that very offer prior to his inauguration and from Botts that he made the offer at least one other time afterward, this time to a group including Francis Pierpont, Rep. John S. Millson, and Garrett Davis of Kentucky. Richard N. Current, in Lincoln and the First Shot, provides more evidence that Lincoln did indeed make the offer to Baldwin, but Baldwin didn’t recognize what Lincoln was talking about. So there is reason to doubt Baldwin’s account.
Additionally, Lincoln never tried to assert federal authority to collect revenue in Charleston from the time he took office all through the Sumter crisis. If it were so important to him, why didn’t he do anything about it?
The bottom line, Mr. Darby, is you have a warped understanding of the history and are in desperate need of some credible history books.
Please provide evidence/data to back up your seemingly presumptuous statement that the south didn’t believe they could keep their slaves. Did the south want to keep their slaves? Absolutely.
But all evidence points to that it was still all about the tariff. Also, I never claimed that was the first time the south threatened to secede. Again with the putting words in my mouth. And just so that we are clear, I am against slavery, racism and prejudice of any kind.
I just also happen to know that for most of our history, our government has been run by and operated for the control of rich white men. And answer me this common sense question. While our government was busy out there committing genocide on the native Americans (and murdering/raping/kidnapping civilian southerners) what makes you think they all of a sudden got the warm and fuzzies for the black man?
As Lincoln himself said: “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
-Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)
Then as now, big money rules our government. Robert E Lee predicted this country’s descent into despotism, and he couldn’t have been more correct.
“I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it. I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State papers of Washington and Jefferson, the representatives of the federal and democratic parties, denouncing consolidation and centralization of power, as tending to the subversion of State Governments, and to despotism.”
Letter to Lord Acton December 15, 1866
You must be in the SCV, Mr. Darby. I can tell because you know diddly squat about American history.
You don’t think the secessionists thought they were going to lose their slaves? I did a whole series of blog posts on it, with plenty of evidence from the secessionists themselves.
Take the time to read and learn.
Not a single one of them said they were seceding because of the tariff.
Here is a direct quote from your first comment, Mr. Darby: “The Tariff of 1828 was a protective tariff passed by the Congress of the United States on May 19, 1828, designed to protect industry in the Northern United States. The first time the south threatened to secede.”
So yes, you did indeed claim it was the first time they threatened to secede. You can’t even keep your wrongheaded beliefs straight.
There is zero evidence the secessionists acted because of the tariff. You’ve provided zero evidence they acted because of the tariff. You have nothing, yet you continue to close your eyes and hold your hands over your ears, screaming, “La, la, la, la” at the top of your lungs to prevent yourself from learning any credible history. You lack any evidence for your claim about the tariff so you go off on non sequitur tangents and create straw men to try to distract from your complete lack of evidence.
We’ll see if you want to remain ignorant of history or not. We’ll see if you have the ability to learn and intellectual integrity to admit you were wrong, or if you are merely a troll. I give you the benefit of the doubt this once, Mr. Darby. Let’s see if you prove worthy of it.
OK, Mr Mackey, you got me on a technicality.
I guess I did say that it was the first time the south threatened to secede. I’m human, I was busy, and I forgot I work a full time job, and I have a 3 year old. That will scramble your short term memory sometimes. I did look up your statements about other occasions of the south threatening to secede, and found only data that backed my statement. And it also appears you try to minimalize the Morill tariff saying that it was low to begin with and was only increased to pay for the cost of war. No, it was much like a cable TV contract.
In May of 1860 the U. S. Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Bill (named for Republican Congressman and steel manufacturer, Justin S. Morrill of Vermont) raising the average tariff from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. Although this was remarkably reminiscent of the Tariffs of Abomination which had led in 1832 to a constitutional crisis and threats of secession and armed force, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Bill 105 to 64. Out of 40 Southern Congressmen only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it.
Now back to business. I read through one of your links, expecting to find your silver bullet, and saw that while yes Georgia mentioned slavery, a whole lot more of the time it was about states rights. And I saw a complete lack of proof of your claim that the south didn’t trust the Corwin amendment. And I note that you didn’t address my statement about Lincoln’s army’s treatment of civilians and native Americans. Sorry, but if you are willing to mow down women and children, along with other races, it seems disingenuous to claim that they care about black people. I’m not here to win an argument. I am more interested in getting to the truth. You however callously disregard and berate anyone who disagrees with you. At any rate, I have no more time or energy to expend on someguywithablog.com.
So have the last word if you will. But you have failed to change my mind. Lincoln was a tyrant who spit on our constitution, and destroyed what our forefathers had so ingeniously assembled. He didn’t free the slaves, instead he made all of us slaves to the government that no longer represents us. he was a 19th century George Bush. Complete with false arrests, censorship, and committing terrorist acts on innocent people.
That said I am not a member of the Georgia or any other SCV. I grew up in Iowa, which is a northern state. Nor am I a troll.
Good day, sir.
Well, Mr. Darby it’s not a technicality. It’s your clear comment to which I responded. But I understand how life can get in the way. May I suggest before you say you never made a claim you check the claims you’ve made.
Now, I believe I’ve been very patient with you, Mr. Darby. But now here you are plagiarizing another’s writing. Whichever worthless website you plagiarized your paragraph about the Morrill Tariff from plagiarized it from the person who originally wrote it, Mike Scruggs. It’s been floating around the internet at least since 2005, and it’s wrong. It’s nothing but a bunch of baloney that anyone who knew the first thing about the Morrill Tariff would laugh at. First of all, Justin Morrill wasn’t a steel manufacturer. He operated a farm in Vermont when Congress wasn’t in session. Secondly, the Morrill Tariff wasn’t passed in May of 1860. It did pass the House of Representatives, but not the Senate because enough anti-tariff senators were able to bottle it up. It passed the Senate only after the first seven states seceded and their senators left Washington. Had those states not seceded, the Morrill Tariff would never have passed. So you see, the Morrill Tariff couldn’t possibly have caused secession because it was only secession that allowed it to pass. Next, your claim about the tariff being “like a cable TV contract” shows incredible ignorance of the history of the tariff.
The classic study of the history of tariffs is Frank W. Taussig’s Tariff History of the United States. In that book, Taussig writes, “The tariff act of 1861 was passed by the House of Representatives in the session of 1859-60, the session preceding the election of President Lincoln. It was passed, undoubtedly, with the intention of attracting to the Republican party, at the approaching Presidential election, votes in Pennsylvania and other States that had protectionist leanings. In the Senate the tariff bill was not taken up in the same session in which it was passed in the House. Its consideration was postponed, and it was not until the next session–that of 1860-61–that it received the assent of the Senate and became law. It is clear that the Morrill tariff was carried in the House before any serious expectation of war was entertained; and it was accepted by the Senate in the session of 1861 without material change. It therefore forms no part of the financial legislation of the war, which gave rise in time to a series of measures that entirely superseded the Morrill tariff. Indeed, Mr. Morrill and the other supporters of the act declared that their intention was simply to restore the rates of 1846.” [F. W. Taussig, The Tariff History of the United States, pp. 158-159] Notice he said the war gave rise to new tariff measures that “entirely superseded the Morrill tariff.” He goes into that: “Hardly had the Morrill tariff act bee passed when Fort Sumter was fired on. The Civil War began. The need of additional revenue for carrying on the great struggle was immediately felt; and as early as the extra session of the summer of 1861, additional customs duties were imposed. In the next regular session, in December 1861, a still further increase of duties was made. From that time till 1865 no session, indeed, hardly a month of any session, passed in which some increase of duties on imports was not made. During the four years of the war every resource was strained for carrying on the great struggle. Probably no country has seen, in so short a time, so extraordinary a mass of financial legislation.” [Ibid., p. 160]
Note that Taussig tells us the Morrill Tariff was only in effect a short time, and then other tariff measures were passed by Congress to raise money to pay for the war. Taussig tells us, “it must be borne in mind that these changes were only a part of the great financial measures which the war called out.” [Ibid., pp. 160-161] Taussig has an entire chapter of his book dedicated to all the changes in the tariff the war caused. If you are so inclined, you can look through the Statutes at Large of the United States and see each bill the Congress passed to increase the tariff. The Morrill Tariff was nothing like a “cable TV contract.”
I’m sorry you couldn’t comprehend what was being told to you in those links. Your non sequitur about Lincoln was duly ignored because it has nothing to do with the tariff, which this post is about. Suffice to say your historical ignorance doesn’t end at the Morrill Tariff. I’ll no doubt have a post on Lincoln and the Native Tribes at some point in the future, and you can be educated on that subject then.
I’ll end with telling you you seriously need to read a real history book, because you’re completely clueless about what happened during the Civil War.
Iowa is a midwestern state, and it remains to be seen if you are a troll.
So this is really about your modern political ideology and how you want the past to represent that instead of the actual facts? You said state’s rights? How about you use primary sources from 1860-61 that explain exactly what those state’s rights were? Don’t tell me. Show me.
Show me exactly what state rights were being threatened. Show me those primary sources that explain what those state’s rights were.
You’ve already shown us you don’t know much about the tariffs. I’ve already explained that to you and you ignored the facts in favor of your lies. If you can’t use facts, then there is no point in explaining anything to you because you are refusing to learn.
Kind of hard for the secessionists to act on the Morrill Tariff when it only was able to pass out of committee, and then be passed by the Senate as the direct result of the secession of six states and the resignation of those twelve senators along with the two senators from Texas who did not vote when the bill came to the Senate floor.
This is basic history backed up by primary sources such as the journal of the US Senate which can be found in the Congressional Globe maintained here at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcg.html
I wrote a nice term paper on this subject following my research on the issue. The speeches by the secessionists at the secession conventions were almost all about slavery. There was next to nothing about tariffs because the tariff in existence at that time was one created and passed by Southern congressmen. It was the lowest tariff to that point in US history short of not having one at all.
There is nothing to show any support for the Civil War’s cause being about a tariff other than delusions of people who reject thousands of primary sources written by the very people who caused the Civil War in which they stated they were doing so over slavery. In essence, those people are calling the secessionists liars.
Isn’t it funny how there are those who “honor” confederates by calling them liars? And then there are those who “honor” R. E. Lee by claiming he was a senile, dottering old man who had no clue there were black soldiers in his army.
It is amazing to me how those “historians” who want secession and war to be all “about slavery,” will stoop to calling those who disagree with their position “liars.”
There is so much spin in this article with the apparent intention to deceive, that it would take me far too much time to brake the rotation here. What the writer does not mention is that while the Morrill Tariff did not immediately raise rates 50%, it had built-in automatic increases that would get it there in a few short years if a pro-tariff President was elected. And with Lincoln’s election, who ran on a promise of high tariffs, yhe writing was on the wall.
But to claim that protectionist tariffs on imports did not affect the South much more than the North is simply wrong! It caused Southerners to pay more for both foreign and domestic goods, with all the profits returning to the North’s manufacturing economy. And the reduction of imports created by high tariffs, cut deeply into the amount of cotton exported by the South. The Northern economy as a whole saw a boost by protectionist tariffs while the South saw its economy shrink. And then 75% of the revenue generated by the Southern export trade, flowed North in the form of bounties, subsidies, internal improvements, etc….
Even if the author of this article does not believe the tariff acted as an unfair tax on the South, the Southern people certainly did, and it is what they believed that matters because it was they who voted to secede! And the vote counters in the South repeatedly said that with the result of the 1860 elections, they would not have the votes in the Senate to use as a firewall against Northern economic exploitation. Two Southern Representatives argued on the House floor that the Morrill Tariff was grounds for secession, and was the most important issue to ever come before Congress (slavery included)!
If Southern secession was “all about slavery,” why did every action post-secession say they did NOT secede to “preserve and extend slavery?” The South seceded from any claim to the territories; so much for secession being about extending slavery there. The South turned down the Corwin Amendment that was a rock solid guarantee that they could preserve slavery as long as they desired. The South rejected Lincoln’s offer in his EP to return to the Union before January 1863, and keep slavery. The South turned down Lincoln and Seward’s suggestion at the Hampton Roads Peace Conference that if it returned to the Union, it would have enough votes to defeat the Amendment banning slavery. And perhaps most significant of all was the willingness of the South to gradually end slavery beginning in January of 1862, if the Brits and French would join them as allies against the North. The Brits and the French agreed to the offer but the Brits wanted to wait until France’s military involvement in Italy with the “Roman Problem” ended. Unfortunately for the South, the Roman Problem was not resolved until 1872. The offer to end slavery remained on the table from 1862 to 1865 when the South upped the ante to immediate emancipation of all its slaves in the Duncan Kenner mission, but while in negotiations Lee surrendered making the offer mute.
What this offer to end slavery reveals is, as difficult as ending slavery was going to be both socially and economically, given the North was determined to keep all those blacks bottled up in the South, the South was yet willing to make that sacrifice if it meant independence from the North. Secession was not “about slavery.” It was about gaining independence from a section of the country that sought political and economic control over the entire Union.
For more info on the South’s 1862 offer to end slavery go here:
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/secession-was-not-about-slavery/
It’s because pseudo historians like you ARE liars. You simply wave away the clear words of those who were seceding who told us exactly why they were seceding–slavery–and instead substitute your own fantasy and smokescreen to somehow try to absolve the confederates from what they clearly and loudly proclaimed. That so-called “article” at the Abbeville Institute website [a website that needs the disclaimer, “Has no truth posted here,” on it, has no credibility because it selectively cherry picks information while ignoring the inconvenient fact that the confederates themselves said they were acting to protect slavery, that the confederate constitution had an ironclad guarantee of slavery, and that the confederate government had no power whatsoever to end slavery. It also ignores the well documented fact that the confederates were conducting a disinformation campaign of propaganda in order to get recognition and European aid.
One place to look is Richard Harwell’s The Confederate Reader. Harwell reproduces Judah Benjamin’s letter to James Mason in Paris regarding the peace mission of Colonel James F. Jacquess and J. R. Gilmore. Benjamin wrote, “Mr. Gilmore then addressed the President, and in a few minutes had conveyed the information that these two gentlemen had come to Richmond impressed with the idea that this Government would accept a peace on the basis of a reconstruction of the Union, the abolition of slavery, and the grant of an amnesty to the people of the States as repentant criminals. In order to accomplish the abolition of slavery, it was proposed that there should be a general vote of all the people of both federations, in mass, and the majority of the vote thus taken was to determine that as well as all other disputed questions. These were stated to be Mr. Lincoln’s views. The President answered, that as these proposals had been prefaced by the remark that the people of the North were a majority, and that a majority ought to govern, the offer was, in effect, a proposal that the Confederate States should surrender at discretion, admit that they had been wrong from the beginning of the contest, submit to the mercy of their enemies, and avow themselves to be in need of pardon for crimes; that extermination was preferable to such dishonor. He stated that if they were themselves so unacquainted with the form of their own government as to make such propositions, Mr. Lincoln ought to have known, when giving them his views, that it was out of the power of the Confederate Government to act on the subject of the domestic institutions of the several States, each State having exclusive jurisdiction on that point, still less to commit the decision of such a question to the vote of a foreign people; that the separation of the States was an accomplished fact: that he had no authority to receive proposals for negotiation except by virtue of his office as President of an independent confederacy; and on this basis alone must proposals be made to him.” [pp. 307-308] It is interesting to compare this response with the so-called “Kenner Mission,” in which a confederate emissary named Duncan Kenner went to Europe to ask for intervention in return for confederate abolition of slavery. Seeing here that Davis acknowledges he had no authority over slavery in the confederacy, we see the Kenner mission was nothing more than an attempt to deceive the Europeans, an attempt for which they didn’t fall, primarily because by that time [February of 1865] it was clear the confederacy would lose.
Another place to look is William C. Davis’s book, Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America. Davis does a good job in eviscerating the cynical ploy known as the “Kenner mission.” “It did not matter that neither the administration itself nor Congress possessed the constitutional power to enact such a measure. Indeed, it was highly unlikely that the legislature could have passed anything of the sort coming on its floor, especially given the difficulty it had in passing the black soldier bill. And strictly interpreted, their constitution all but forbade individual states to abolish slavery, and perhaps did not even allow a convention of all the states to do so unless the Constitution itself was first amended. This slow, cumbersome process would be made even slower with the disruptions to travel and communications. Who, then, had the power? Did anyone?” [p. 402] No one. It was nothing but a cynical ploy where they offered what they had no intention or ability to provide.
Your mischaracterization of the Hampton Roads conference is funny. Lincoln’s instruction to Seward was that there would be no retreat from the actions on slavery. In his book, The Union Reader, Richard B. Harwell reproduces Secretary of State William H. Seward’s February 7, 1865 letter to Charles Francis Adams, the US Minister to the Court of St. James in London, regarding the Hampton Roads Peace Conference. In that letter, Seward writes, “The Richmond party approached the discussion rather indirectly, and at no time did they either make categorical demands, or tender formal stipulations, or absolute refusals. Nevertheless, during the conference, which lasted four hours, the several points at issue between the government and the insurgents were distinctly raised, and discussed fully, intelligently, and in an amicable spirit. What the insurgent party seemed chiefly to favor was a postponement of the question of separation, upon which the war is waged, and a mutual direction of efforts of the government, as well as those of the insurgents, to some extrinsic policy or scheme for a season, during which passions might be expected to subside, and the armies be reduced, and trade and intercourse between the people of both sections resumed. It was suggested by them that through such postponement we might now have immediate peace, with some not very certain prospect of an ultimate satisfactory adjustment of political relations between this government and the States, section, or people now engaged in conflict with it. This suggestion, though deliberately considered, was nevertheless regarded by the President as one of armistice or truce, and he announced that we can agree to no cessation or suspension of hostilities, except on the basis of the disbandment of the insurgent forces, and the restoration of the national authority throughout all the States in the Union. Collaterally, and in subordination to the proposition which was thus announced, the anti-slavery policy of the United States was reviewed in all its bearings, and the President announced that he must not be expected to depart from the positions he had heretofore assumed in his proclamation of emancipation and other documents, as these positions were reiterated in his last annual message. It was further declared by the President that the complete restoration of the national authority everywhere was an indispensable condition of any assent on our part to whatever form of peace might be proposed. The President assured the other party that, while he must adhere to these positions, he would be prepared, so far as power is lodged with the Executive, to exercise liberality. His power, however, is limited by the Constitution; and when peace should be made, Congress must necessarily act in regard to appropriations of money and to the admission of representatives from the insurrectionary States. The Richmond party were then informed that Congress had, on the 31st ultimo, adopted by a constitutional majority a joint resolution submitting to the several States the proposition to abolish slavery throughout the Union, and that there is every reason to expect that it will be soon accepted by three-fourths of the States, so as to become a part of the national organic law. The conference came to an end by mutual acquiescence, without producing an agreement of views upon the several matters discussed, or any of them.” [pp. 329-330]
It’s completely laughable to try to compare the confederates to Oskar Schindler. It proves your own dishonesty. It’s no surprise to find out you’re a member of that white supremacist organization known as the Sons of Confederate Veterans. They regularly lie about history.
The claim that the Morrill Tariff had built-in increases is another lie. The act has no such provisions. You can see it here: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/tariff-1861-morrill-tariff-5871
You also ignore the fact that it was secession itself that allowed the act to pass the Senate. Had the seceding cotton states not seceded, and had their senators not resigned from the Senate, the act would never have gotten a vote, let alone pass.
It’s interesting that none of the seceding states said they were seceding because of the tariff. Georgia specifically said in their Declaration of Causes that the tariff issue had been solved.
C’mon, true historians know that the war wasn’t really about slavery. It doesn’t matter which post-war propaganda you cite, twist out of context , or cherry pick to make your argument. At the end of the day, northerners have not just its identity, but its birthright tied to the morale high ground. The North as good and the South as bad, regardless of fact and detail is too big to fail. This is why anything other than slavery as a cause of the war is potentially devastating and must be supressed at all costs.
It never fails. You people just can’t help showing your ignorance. There isn’t a credible historian around who would not say the ultimate root of the war was slavery. As Mississippi said when seceding, “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.” If you people ever read a real history book your heads would probably explode. You wouldn’t know a real historical fact if it hit you on the head.
please cite a ‘ true historian ‘ revealing the war wasnt about slavery .
Al Mackey has the incorrect amount of import monies from tarriffs, 70 % of tariff income in 1860, came into the country
From SOUTHERN States ports of entry…Als report is FALSE
he must be a sho nuff Liberal Blue Belly Liar, he needs to be RE EDUCATED On Historical facts in American History.
As usual, these people who support confederate heritage live in an alternative world where facts mean nothing and only they only believe what they wish was true. In other words, they live in a world of lies and ignorance, as is the case with this commenter.
Let me reiterate from the post: “In 1860, Charleston only had $2.0 million in imports, Savannah had only $800,000 in imports, Mobile had only $600,000 in imports, New Orleans had only $20.6 million in imports, and other southern ports had only $3.0 million in imports. In the same year, New York City alone had $231.3 million in imports and all other northern ports had $95.3 million in imports. New Orleans was the southern port that collected the most in the tariff, and it was only $3.1 million. The total south only collected $4.0 million in tariff revenues, whereas New York City collected $34.9 million in tariff revenues and the total for northern ports was $48.3 million. [Source: Douglas B. Ball, Financial Failure and Confederate Defeat, p. 205, Table 18, ‘Trade Figures by Port in 1860’ and ‘Customs Collections by Major Port (1860)’]”
Significantly, the lying, ignorant confederate heritage idiots have no credible sources they can cite.
Mr. Al Mackey you are my hero!
This post was fantastic
Thanks again,
Rob
Rob, thank you so much for your too kind words and the effusive praise I surely don’t deserve. I’m sorry I had to edit most of your post out, but I reiterate you were way too kind. Have a great day, sir.
Love your work and appreciate what you offer on your site. I don’t comment much but I am always reading your informative words.
Thanks,
Rob
Thank you, Rob. I’m honored and humbled by your kind words.