In Defense of Lee And Jackson

Discussion
21

Because….as the articles state clearly, there is an editorial bias within Wikipedia itself that enforces itself against conflicting opinions. There doesn’t seem enough time in a day to fight uphill battles against an establishment that controls the playing field. They will eventually lose credibility in certain matters as Google is losing theirs for doing the same thing. No need to waste any time fighting it.

Mike

22

I wasn't going to say any more, but it bothers me that Mike Denny doesn't acknowledge my points: (1) it doesn't matter what Lincoln thought or what he was going to do; all that matters is why the south seceded. I maintain it was because they were sure Lincoln was going to harm the legal status of slavery; (2) if they seceded because of tariffs, why didn't they do that earlier? Why did they wait until Lincoln was elected? Tariffs had been an issue for decades. Republicans got a big majority in the US House in 1858, and also ran the US House for two years after the 1854 election.
Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

23

Richard,

Sorry if you don’t feel I acknowledged your points. It seems they were acknowledged but only as your opinion without references other than Wikipedia.

Michael Edelstein recommends bringing Jeffery Hummel into the discussion. Should we do that? He is certainly a qualified and published expert on the subject. And a solid Libertarian. I’d support that.

Mike

24

By the way Richard…again, we don’t have to speculate about the reasons for the Civil War. The reason is that the South attacked Fort Sumter. As with all wars, once started, the next casualty is the Truth.

Unless there are some journals that chronicle the process by which the decision was made to attack Fort Sumter, we may never know. Maybe they exist. I don’t know.

Mike

25

This subject has been written about more extensively than any subject in
the history of the universe.
Apparently, you have not taken the time to do any reading on the matter.
Sam Sloan

26

Enough with the personal attack Sam. Pls provide the specific reference for the reason the South began the war by attacking Fort Sumter. In all I've read, never had it explained. That would be a useful contribution from a smart guy like you.

27

Following this discussion from the suburbs, I thought, at first, that I had learned all about tariffs supposedly provoking the civil war in the Eighth Grade.

Then I noticed this:

... collecting taxes from unwilling exporters was a different matter that required war.

The US cannot tax exports. Is the argument that Southern people wanted to tax the export of cotton? The US Constitution forbids taxing exports at all, but one of the few differences in the Confederate Constitution allowed a super-majority of their Congress to lay tariffs on exported goods. Did the Southern people expect to get a piece of the action, so to speak? They saw the slave owners getting rich by exporting every-increasing crops of cotton, while wage earners could hardly compete with slave labor. Did the South implement or have plans to tax exports, such as cotton?
Harland Harrison

28

Harlan….welcome into the fray. Smile. Thanks for bringing that up.

It appears I had the tax issue a little confused. To clarify, here is an article that discusses the issue thoroughly. The tariffs protected manufacturing businesses of the North. But it was free trade on global commodities which also benefited the North. This forced the South to buy everything manufactured from the protected North while the South competed in the open global commodities market without protection.


“The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional.
The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.
In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries like Lincoln's favorite, Pennsylvania steel.
The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.
The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.
Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.“

Mike

29

Slight correction.

“This forced the South to buy everything manufactured from the protected North or pay duties if imported.”

Mike

30

Well, from the perspective of the secessionists, Lincoln was probably as bad if not worse on the tariff issue as on the slavery issue – he was a strong supporter of Henry Clay and the protectionist so-called "American System" [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan)].

  Or if you prefer a source other than Wikipedia, here's a much longer discussion of 19th century tariff controversies and Lincoln's role in them. Personally I'm not so down on Wikipedia. There are many left-leaning editors, but I've found that editing can be productive; many changes I've made have stuck. I'm StarchildSF on there if you want to say hello or check out my edits.

  This is just speculation, but I think it's possible that the seceding southern legislatures focused on slavery rather than tariffs in their secession statements because they felt a cultural issue would be more effective than an economic one in rallying southerners to their cause, i.e. appeal to popular racism and play up threats to "southern culture" rather than try to get people riled up about taxes that (as now) may have been largely invisible to the masses and too abstract an issue for them to care enough about.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

31

Thanks Starchild....you make a point about motivations for the way the secession statements were drafted. But as far as the idea the taxes were not being felt by the South in general, this article and newspaper cartoons from the era suggest otherwise.


Also note, the first mentions of secession were related to "The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional. The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law. "
Richard Wingers statements about the timing of secession talks is nearly 30 years later. Still waiting to hear any documentation regarding motivations for the South attacking Fort Sumter, a tax collection facility, to start the war rather than Northern troops being directed to go from plantation to plantation to free the slaves.
Mike
32

Mike,

  I agree tariffs were a major cause of the War Between the States – whether they or slavery were the primary cause is harder to say, and it may even be that the decision to secede had one primary cause and the decision to fight had another primary cause.

  I don't see anything in the article you linked suggesting that tariffs were seen as a major issue by ordinary people in the South however, any more than inflation or FICA taxes are seen as major issues by most ordinary people in the United States today (despite the fact that they actually are being significantly hurt by them). Newspaper cartoons of the era were presumably published generally by wealthier elements in society, and thus are not necessarily a good indicator of popular sentiments.

  I'm suggesting it's possible that tariffs may have been the main factor motivating Southern state governments to secede, but that they may have recognized that the cultural/racial issue of slavery would be more effective in getting people to support the step and therefore decided to emphasize it and not the taxes in their official declarations of secession and other public statements.

Love & Liberty,
                                  ((( starchild )))

33

Thank you Starchild....until someone finds the chronicle of the events leading up to the decision to attack Fort Sumter, there appears to be no clear path to the truth in this discussion. Taxes / Slavery
One thing for sure, at least as it pertains to the evidence provided so far, the first mention of secession was The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun who warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.
Mike

34

WTF? Only a dogmatic propertarian would put tariffs and slavery on the same moral (or political!) plane. No wonder so many lefties have a tendency to lump you guys in with racists (and even with fascists)!

FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm a Bernie bro with extremely strong civil libertarian, anti-authoritarian leanings -- and I don't consider that an oxymoron!

35

Well hello, Mitch, glad to find you in a good mood. :wink:

  I'm not sure to which comment(s) you're responding, but any coercively imposed tax IS a form of slavery in my book – though not as morally evil as full-on chattel slavery. I don't recall seeing anyone here arguing that the former is as bad as the latter.

  Fascists want more government controls – more stuff like protectionist tariffs, in other words – not fewer. By opposing tariffs along with traditional plantation slavery, we are being anti-fascist, not pro-fascist.

  Ditto I would say with regard to racism, for not giving Abraham Lincoln a pass (as most people seem to do) on things like emancipating the slaves only as a desperation tactic well into the war, and favoring sending blacks back to Africa. Not to mention having a worse overall record on civil liberties than Donald Trump. Of course Trump does have the advantage of coming later in history, and is definitely creepier in terms of his personality AFAIC.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

36

The Confederacy was arguably closer to a "minarchist" libertarian regime than the "confiscatory" North. After all, the governments of slave states were merely protecting property rights as that culture defined them. Meanwhile, the North was committing unmitigated evil by collecting... heaven forbid!... TAXES!

In the above context, slaves simply were not considered fully human. That doesn't strike me as any more preposterous than the notion that when one has nothing else to sell, one can ("voluntarily") sell one's freedom or one's life in increments -- i.e., one's time.

Anti-authoritarian? Have you ever heard the word "boss"?

PS: As I wrote, "Lincoln, like Jefferson, recognized that Blacks would bear a legacy of resentment that would make it difficult for them to assimilate to the very nation that had subjugated them. That understanding -- rather than 'racism' -- was largely responsible for their support of 'back-to-Africa' movements."

37

This just has to be one of the most unlibertarian posts I have ever read. The property rights the South was protecting was the right to own people. I thought the right to own yourself was the bedrock principle of libertarianism. That slaves were not considered to be fully human and thus not persons is NOT exculpatory, but just another damning indictment of the Confederacy.

Bad as Lincoln and the Union may have been, the Confederacy was many times worse.

1 The secession ordinance themselves referred to the protection of slavery as the reason for secession, not tariffs or states rights.

2 The South collected taxes too and to boot created money so fast that inflation destroyed the value of any month that citizens were left with.

3 Northerners who felt that Lincoln violated their rights were FREE to leave the country, something that slaves could not do.

Les