Slavery vs. Tariff: From a neutral standpoint

From a famous British authors viewpoint

       You can't read a response to any Civil War video on youtube or other websites without reading the continuing arguments about which side was right and which was wrong. Just like in that war, almost all northern people believe the war was fought to free the slaves. Most southerner's believe the war was fought over states rights and the tariff, except for the few who believe everything they've been taught in school. The war was complicated. If it was a war over simple black and white, then we wouldn't be arguing over it today, one-hundred and fifty years after the fact. 

       It seems to be the same arguments repeated over and over again. I had a discussion with an Arizona State University history professor who was completely sold on slavery being the only reason of the war. He attempted to make fun of any opinion I had regarding the war because he has two more years of college than I do. Regardless of those two years of college, I can guarantee I have studied and read more about the American Civil War at least three times more than he ever will. I did ask him a simple question that he played off completely that actually helps with the argument I am making. I asked if he was born in a New England state. His reply was, "Don't even act like you don't know I'm from New York." Enough said in my opinion. 

       Mr. "S" insisted that the American Civil War had nothing to do with anything except the northern states being more moral and upright than the evil slave holding states. He doesn't have the intellectual ability to understand that you cannot compare 19th century culture to today's version. This is a mistake made quite often with today's historians or so called historians. They tend to ignore those parts of history that don't fit their perfect world version and insert what they want. 

       I decided to take a different approach, an approach any true historian should appreciate. I decided to go outside the country and read what a foreigner would think the war was about. Surely, someone neutral and famous would be totally honest with the world over what that war was fought about. I doubt Mr. "S" would want to hear him, but the man did live in that time period, was not from New York, and spoke from a neutral vantage point. 

Famous author Charles Dickens

       I was recently reading some of British author Charles Dickens letters when I found some very interesting comments made by the man. Dickens was born in 1812 and lived until the year 1870 when he died of a stroke. For those that have never heard of him, he has written several books including A Christmas Carol, Oliver Twist, and A Tale of Two Cities. 

       You would be surprised what opinions Charles Dickens had about the reason the American Civil War occurred to begin with. In his letters he stated that "slavery has in reality nothing on earth to do with it. The North having gradually got to itself the making of the laws and the settlement of the Tariffs, and having taxed the South most abominably for its own advantage" was basically out of control. What he meant was that once the northern states had more free states than slave states, they passed the most ridiculous taxes on the southern states without the southern states having the ability to defend themselves. What he basically was saying was that the Confederate states were being bullied by the northerners. He went on to say that neither side of the conflict cared a bit for the black race. He understood what Lincoln was saying when he said, “I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way 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."

       

Justin Smith Morrill

      What did Charles Dickens know about slavery and the tariff? We know that the majority of England was against slavery and this prominent citizen seemed to be going against the grain. The question is "why?" 

       Perhaps the United States helped him come to his decision. With the South still serving in Congress, the Tariff of 1857 was passed and had lowered the tariff to 17% which benefited the South. Once the majority of the southern states had left the union, the northern states were free to pass any tariff they wanted. Thus, we come to the Morrill Tariff of 1861. The passage of this tariff raised the taxes on exports from 17% to 38%. At this date, Mr. "S" still insists the war had nothing to do with money, but the holy north against the evil slave holding south. 

       He is entitled to his opinion, but is he entitled to force his students to agree to his way of thinking to pass an American Civil War course? I have several questions for Mr. "S," but he would simply turn my questions into some smart joke if I asked him. Here are two of them if I knew he would take me seriously. #1 Was Charles Dickens an idiot for believing the same thing that most southerners do? #2 If the northern states fought the war because they were so humane, why did they go wipe out the American Indians in the 1870's? 

       Thanks for your input Mr. Charles Dickens, but I'm sure your opinion means as much to the northern historians as it does to some alien from Mars.

Charles Dickens

The Civil War was only fought for Slavery, money had nothing to do with it?

The Greatest President ever?

       I recently visited several Civil War blogs and only one have I had an argument with. Brooke Simpson has a blog called 'Crossroads' and he is one of those New England (historians you might say) who believes the South was entirely wrong and the North was entirely right. He refers to the Southerners who believe the war was a result of anything other than slavery as Neo-Confederates and we are all ignorant rednecks. 

       I attempted to discuss the war with Mr. Simpson in a polite way, but he refused to talk unless I agreed with everything he wrote. He then said that he didn't recognize me as a student of his and therefore I didn't have a clue what I was talking about. He asked me in a nice way to leave his blog by saying "thanks for stopping by" and therefore since I'm from Alabama, I'm an ignorant redneck. He is correct by assuming I'm not one of his students. I have over 400 books on the War Between the States and I'm no "ignorant redneck" as he believes. 

       He asked me to prove in my blog that the war was over something besides slavery. Mr. Simpson has led readers to believe he has a doctors degree. He even has to correct one writer with the fact that he has a masters degree. I have only three years of college and yet I can assure Mr. Simpson that I have read far more books than he has on that war. 

       Here is my side of the argument. I will not lower myself to the level of saying I don't believe slavery had anything to do with the war, yet unlike Mr. Simpson, I won't try and convince you that the war was entirely over the holy North waging a war against the South because slavery was wrong. As a Christian I believe slavery is wrong and would never own another human being. I have enough common sense to know that the war was fought over much more than slavery. If the war was fought over slavery, then someone needs to explain to me why 190,000 blacks fought in the Confederate Army.

       If money had nothing to do with the war, then someone needs to explain the tariff issue to me. The arguments over tariff's had begun in the early 1800's. In 1828, the Tariff of Abominations was passed through Congress. Things began to heat up and in 1832, Congress passed another tariff that was intended to calm South Carolina, but it was too little, too late. South Carolina declared these tariff's null and void according to the Constitution of the United States. The constitution gave the Federal government the right to regulate commerce, coin money and defend the national boundaries. 

       As soon as the Southern states left the Union (a right that had been taught at West Point in 1828), the United States Congress passed the Morrill Tariff. Passage was possible because many low-tariff Southerners had left Congress after their states declared their secession. The Morrill Tariff raised rates to protect and encourage industry and the high wages of industrial workers. Two additional tariffs sponsored by Morrill, each one higher, were passed during Abraham Lincoln's administration. The high rates of the Morrill tariff inaugurated a period of continuous trade protection in the United States that lasted until the Underwood Tariff of 1913. In its first year of operation, the Morrill Tariff increased the effective rate collected on dutiable imports by approximately 70%.

       According to Mr. Simpson the above had nothing to do with the war. It is just a coincidence that the passage of a high tariff occurred during the war while the Southern Congressmen were absent. But, let's see if slavery really ended with the defeat of the South in 1865 as Mr. Simpson would want you to believe. Here is a quote from wikipedia on slavery. "A few captives from other tribes who were used as slaves were not freed when African-American slaves were emancipated. Ute Woman, a Ute captured by the Arapaho and later sold to a Cheyenne, was one example. Used as a prostitute for sale to American soldiers at Cantonment in the Indian Territory, she lived in slavery until about 1880 when she died of a hemorrhage resulting from 'excessive sexual intercourse'."

       So, in the New England world of ignoring what really happened in this nations past the above never happened. The South, along with the American Indians deserved what they got because they did not bow down to the almighty Federal government. According to Mr. Simpson, money had nothing to do with the war and because I'm not one of his students, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

       

Who was the "Father of Secession"?

John C. Calhoun

       Since the 1830's, John C. Calhoun has been known as the "Father of Secession" because of his strong commitment to states rights, a limited central government, nullification of Federal laws by the state and free trade. This had not always been the case. He had been a proponent of a strong Federal government after the War of 1812. 

       The Tariff of 1828 or Tariff of Abominations began to change Calhoun's mind. The tariff was passed for no other reason than to protect northern industry and was harmful to the Southern economy. It was at this point that Calhoun stated that any state had the right to nullify any law made by the Federal government which was unconstitutional. 

       By 1832, the tariffs had become such an issue that the South Carolina legislature declared these taxes unconstitutional and refused to collect them for the Federal government. Congress quickly passed the Force Bill giving the President power to send a military force into any state who did not comply with Federal law. South Carolina quickly nullified the Force Bill. The U.S. Navy was dispatched to Charleston Harbor. 

       War was averted by the Compromise Tariff of 1833. This gradually lowered the tariff rate to just 20% on imported goods over the course of the next ten years. But, was John C. Calhoun truly the "Father of Secession"?

Timothy Pickering

       Timothy Pickering was a senator from the state of Massachusetts and a member of the Federalist Party. In 1803, he got into an argument with President John Adams because the president planned to make peace with France. He then attempted to get the New England states to secede from the Union and form a separate Confederacy. 

Josiah Quincy

       In 1811, Louisiana was applying for statehood, Massachusetts Congressman Josiah Quincy was bitterly opposed admitting another Southern state. He stated that it was his "deliberate opinion, that if this bill passes, the bonds of this Union are virtually dissolved; that the States that compose it are free from their moral obligations; and that, as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some, to prepare definitely for a separation, amicably if they can, violently if they must." He is given credit as the first person to speak of secession on the floor of congress. 

       But, what have others said about the right of a state to secede from the Federal government?

James Buchanan

       Just before the Civil War began, President James Buchanan in a message to congress said, "The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force." 

Thomas Jefferson

       President Thomas Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.' " 

Did this man believe in secession?

       When the United States went to war with Mexico, most Northerners believed the South supported the war out of greed for Mexican land. Illinois Congressman Abraham Lincoln stood on the floor of congress and announced, "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most sacred right — a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit”. 

       Ironically in 1861, he would change his opinion of the legality of secession. Why? When told by New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley that the Southern states should be allowed to go in peace, Lincoln replied by asking where the Federal government would get its revenue.

       Also in 1826, the United States Military Academy at West Point had a text book called Rawle's View of the Constitution. This book taught the right of a state to secede. 

       It's interesting to note that John C. Calhoun wasn't the first man to propose a state's right to secede, but he is the most famous and that is because South Carolina eventually did secede and a war resulted that cost the country over 650,000 lives.