What Was the Result of the War for Southern Independence?

[Serragon]

The Civil War was about one question. Did the States have the ability to secede from the Union?

If both sides had agreed in the affirmative then there would have been no war. If in the negative, then no secession. They disagreed on this fundamental point, hence the civil war.

Slavery was the greatest motivating factor for secession, but was not the reason for the war.

[ajax]

The Morrill tariff and the Confederate's Constitution of a free trade zone was a no small issue and radicalized many northern business interests in March of 1861.

From John Denson's A Century of War:

New-Haven Daily Register, which editorialized on February 11, 1861, that:

There never was a more ill-timed, injudicious and destructive
measure proposed, (so far as northern interests are concerned)
than the Morrill tariff bill, now pending before Congress. It proposes
to greatly increase the duties on all imported goods, and
in many articles to carry up the increase to the prohibitory
point . . . so that while Congress is raising the duties for the
Northern ports, the Southern Convention is doing away with
all import duties for the Southern ports. . . . More than three
fourths of the seafront of the Atlantic States—extending from
the Chesapeake inclusive, to the furtherest boundary of Texas,
would be beyond the reach of our Congress tariff. Their ports
would invite the free trade of the world! And what would the
high tariff be worth to us then, with only a one-fourth fragment
of our former seacoast left?

Tax historian Charles Adams analyzes this Northern realization of what the comparative tariffs of the North and South would do to their industries:

The war started, not because of the high Morrill Tariff, but just
the opposite: it was the low southern tariff, which created a free
trade zone. That tariff and its economic consequences for the
North—disastrous consequences—were what aroused the
anger of northern commercial interests and turned their apathy
toward the seceding states into militant anger. It united the
money interests in the North, and they were willing to back the
president with the capital needed to carry on the war. Here is
the scenario:

1. On March 11, 1861, the Confederate Constitution was
adopted. It created what was essentially a free trade zone in the
Confederacy, in contrast to the new high-tax, protective zone
in the North.

2. Within less than two weeks, northern newspapers grasped
the significance of this and switched from a moderate, conciliatory
policy to a militant demand for immediate action.

The New York Evening Post, a Republican newspaper, published an editorial on March 12 as follows:

There are some difficulties attending the collection of the revenue
in the seceding states which it will be well to look at attentively.
That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the
ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations
from abroad, it is generally admitted. If neither of these
things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the
sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall
have no money to carry on the government; the nation will
become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. . . . Allow
railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten
percent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of
laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be
imported at New York; the railways would be supplied from the
southern ports.

What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding
states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this
manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign
commerce destined for these ports where we have no custom-
houses and no collectors, as contraband, and stop it,
when offering to enter the collection districts from which our
authorities have been expelled? Or will the president call a
special session of Congress to do what the last unwisely failed
to do—to abolish all ports of entry in the seceding states?

The Philadelphia Press, on March 18, 1861, demanded a war by calling for a blockade of all Southern ports. The paper pointed out that the vast border from the Atlantic Ocean to West Texas would have no protective tariff and European goods would underprice Northern goods in Southern markets, and that this would ruin Northern business.72 Previously, on January 15, 1861, the same paper had been against any military action, arguing that the South should be allowed to go peacefully, but this was before the Morrill Tariff passed with its call for a high protective tariff and the Southern Confederacy passed its Constitutional prohibition against protective tariffs.73 The New York Times also changed its position over the tariff issue, and on March 22 and 23, stated, “At once shut up every Southern port, destroy its commerce, and bring utter ruin on the Confederate states. . . . A state of war would almost be preferable to the passive action the government had been following.”

The most explicit article on this issue which now faced the Lincoln administration appeared in the Boston Transcript for March 18, 1861:

It does not require extraordinary sagacity to perceive that trade
is perhaps the controlling motive operating to prevent the
return of the seceding states to the Union which they have
abandoned. Alleged grievances in regard to slavery were originally
the causes for separation of the cotton states; but the
mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of
the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence.
They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed
from Northern to Southern ports. The merchants of New
Orleans, Charleston and Savannah are possessed with the idea
that New York, Boston, and Philadelphia may be shorn, in the
future, of their mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging
on free trade. If the Southern Confederation is allowed to
carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon
imports, no doubt the business of the chief Northern cities will
be seriously injured thereby.

The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union
and that of the Confederate States that the entire Northwest
must find it to their advantage to purchase their imported
goods at New Orleans rather than New York. In addition to
this, the manufacturing interests of the country will suffer from
the increased importation resulting from low duties. . . . The
[government] would be false to its obligations if this state of
things were not provided against.

A wise institute teacher once taught us, most, if not all wars are economic in nature.

Lincoln stated, “I am in favor of the internal improvement system and a high protective tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles." He was in the pockets of northern business interests from the get go.

[gclayjr]

Ajax,

Your problem is that you don't read and think logically. And you are stubborn and wont let me leave you alone.


You Said

I guess this means you were for the Brits against the slavery owning colonies

And I said

You mean the Slave Holding Brits. In 1776, Slavery was still legal and common in Britain

And you responded several times with variations on this idiocy

have no problem admitting error, even on an admittedly meaningless stat. I had asked you the difference between seceding slave holding states in 1776 vs seceding slave holding states in 1861. You said because slavery was legal in 1776.

However, you don't seem to follow my simple point. We weren't fighting the Brits in 1861, we fought them in 1776, and both nations had slavery. I was willing to just let it go, but you want to smugly pound your non-sequitur as if it added something to your argument.

On one side I don't feel like pointing out every illogical, statement you make, or every false assertion you make based upon so well known facts, but you don't let it be, you keep pounding it, even though it is either irrational or false.

Regards,

George Clay

[ajax]

Ajax,

And you are stubborn and wont let me leave you alone.

Spoken like a true northerner. ;)

btw - you posted first today. I just jumped in to correct my error.

[jbalm]

You can leave ajax, but you can't leave him alone.

[ajax]

You can leave ajax, but you can't leave him alone.

:)) :ymblushing:

That must mean I'm true.

[jbalm]

I can't prove otherwise, so yes!

[ajax]

I've never been true before. Does that mean I need to start producing essays explaining past bad behavior and contradictions?

[jbalm]

As long as you don't sign anything. True-ness is best maintained by plausible deniability.

[ajax]

#:-s I was about to not want to be true anymore.

[JohnnyL]

Ajax,

Thanks for the link to Abbeville Institute--one of the best websites on these topics I've seen (but hadn't found).