It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Norths protective Tariffs Fault in causing the civil war.

page: 1
33
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+16 more 
posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Well this is a better place for this since some people cant read or understand unless beat side the head with it.

Lincoln was Scum. The first president to ever betray his oath of office by Ignoring the Constitution. Oh sure It was for a good cause we are told.
That patriotic lie about keeping the country together. And he freed the slaves. Im not doubting his accomplishments,just that they need to put a Asterisk next to his name because he was anything but a good man.

Anyway. The real scum and bastards of this tragedy existed before Lincoln even became president. The Northern elitist and their financial backers. They had a stranglehold on the countrys monetary wealth at the exspense of the South.

I do not know what is worse. You trade one slave master for another it seems. the below is a article i found that explains it fairly well what brought about the civil war.

Although they opposed permanent tariffs, political expedience in spite of sound economics prompted the Founding Fathers to pass the first U.S. tariff act. For 72 years, Northern special interest groups used these protective tariffs to exploit the South for their own benefit. Finally in 1861, the oppression of those import duties started the Civil War.

In addition to generating revenue, a tariff hurts the ability of foreigners to sell in domestic markets. An affordable or high-quality foreign good is dangerous competition for an expensive or low-quality domestic one. But when a tariff bumps up the price of the foreign good, it gives the domestic one a price advantage. The rate of the tariff varies by industry.

If the tariff is high enough, even an inefficient domestic company can compete with a vastly superior foreign company. It is the industry’s consumers who ultimately pay this tax and the industry’s producers who benefit in profits.

As early as the Revolutionary War, the South primarily produced cotton, rice, sugar, indigo and tobacco. The North purchased these raw materials and turned them into manufactured goods. By 1828, foreign manufactured goods faced high import taxes. Foreign raw materials, however, were free of tariffs.

Thus the domestic manufacturing industries of the North benefited twice, once as the producers enjoying the protection of high manufacturing tariffs and once as consumers with a free raw materials market. The raw materials industries of the South were left to struggle against foreign competition.

Because manufactured goods were not produced in the South, they had to either be imported or shipped down from the North. Either way, a large expense, be it shipping fees or the federal tariff, was added to the price of manufactured goods only for Southerners. Because importation was often cheaper than shipping from the North, the South paid most of the federal tariffs.

Much of the tariff revenue collected from Southern consumers was used to build railroads and canals in the North. Between 1830 and 1850, 30,000 miles of track was laid. At its best, these tracks benefited the North. Much of it had no economic effect at all. Many of the schemes to lay track were simply a way to get government subsidies. Fraud and corruption were rampant.

With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in the North, the South rightly felt exploited. At the time, 90% of the federal government’s annual revenue came from these taxes on imports.
Historians Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffer found that a few common factors increase the likelihood of secession in a region: lower wages, an economy based on raw materials and external exploitation. Although popular movies emphasize slavery as a cause of the Civil War, the war best fits a psycho-historical model of the South rebelling against Northern exploitation.

Many Americans do not understand this fact. A non-slave-owning Southern merchant angered over yet another proposed tariff act does not make a compelling scene in a movie. However, that would be closer to the original cause of the Civil War than any scene of slaves picking cotton.
Slavery was actually on the wane. Slaves visiting England were free according to the courts in 1569. France, Russia, Spain and Portugal had outlawed slavery. Slavery had been abolished everywhere in the British Empire 27 years earlier thanks to William Wilberforce. In the United States, the transport of slaves had been outlawed 53 years earlier by Thomas Jefferson in the Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves (1807) and the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in England (1807). Slavery was a dying and repugnant institution.

The rewritten history of the Civil War began with Lincoln as a brilliant political tactic to rally public opinion. The issue of slavery provided sentimental leverage, whereas oppressing the South with hurtful tariffs did not. Outrage against the greater evil of slavery served to mask the economic harm the North was doing to the South.

The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant’s moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.

Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states’ rights. The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause.

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.




posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

How do you explain this (Alexander Stephens an Confederate Official stated this himself):



Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. [Crowd applauded.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.



What Georgia said:



The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.


What Texas said:




Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union... She was received into the confederacy...as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery — the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits — a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.


Slavery was one of the main reasons the Confederacy was formed.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:43 PM
link   
America Has Been At War 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776.
The U.S. has never gone a decade without war.
war is just another business and wars will continue to rage on for as long as there are money to be made from them....nice history lesson though



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Finally, someone dares to tell the truth of why the southern states tried to secede from the union. They were getting financially screwed royally.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Why did some slave states fight for the north?

Can anyone find southern diary entries talking about fighting for slavery



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:30 PM
link   
It's Heresy in this politically correct age to argue anything other than slavery and only slavery was the cause of the US Civil War. I was fortunate enough to have had history teachers growing up who actually mentioned that there were other causes as well. I guess it' too much for today's youth to wrap their heads around the idea that a multitude of causes contributed to the rift the nation experienced in 1860. Tariffs and Trade, Agrarian vs Manufacturing societies, States Rights, Northern Banks that constantly needed government bailouts, Immigrant vs Natural Citizens, and Slavery- All were sources of division in 1860. In my opinion Slavery was probably the biggest.

That being said, the South's embrace of the institution of Slavery gave the North a moral high ground that kept European powers from interfering in the War Between the States. Winners get to write the history books, and they always leave out their own faults.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:47 PM
link   
The name of the conflict was the War of Succession . Old Abe had already sent Federal troops into some States to confiscate the crop production there. Which is anti-Constitutional at least.
At first , the North was getting their collective arses handed to them . They had to make the war more popular.
Thus , the change in terminology and their reasoning.(and the cover-up of the original reason)

IE - you are correct.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: starwarsisreal

How? Those men were a minority even though they were high placed. They didnt speak for the average southerner. In short they were mistaken on the cause.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: starwarsisreal

How? Those men were a minority even though they were high placed. They didnt speak for the average southerner. In short they were mistaken on the cause.


While that is true. The north held the MEANS for production yet the south controlled the raw materials. The sort of production that would not be able to be sustained if it were not for slave labors. It's quite easy to see... There was almost no mechanization in the south. It wasn't needed because there were slaves to plant, harvest and tend to the crops. Granted there were plantations that didn't use slave labor, but there were over 3 Million slaves to tend to roughly 500,000 plantations.

Removal of slaves would have had a devastating effect upon the largest plantations which, of course, were owned by the wealthiest and most influential southerners.

So yes, slavery did play an important role in the formation of the confederacy though it was only one part of the economic reasons for secession.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Ironically, it was slave labor that kept the South from Industrializing along with few deep water ports and a shortage of railroads and canals. The North had an enormous advantage in public works; having something on the order of 12x the mileage of railroad and nearly all the canal (including the 300 mile Erie). Cheap labor came from immigration and factory conditions were such that calling them "free" people would be an abuse of the word.

The other fuel for the war came in the form of new states entering the Union; especially Kansas and Missouri. New states threatened to change the balance of power that had existed since the founding. The North had more people and better transportation to get settlers out West. The tension between abolition and slavery advocates exploded in to violence with a good deal of outside meddling. Atrocities were committed by both sides and might properly be called the first shots of the Civil War rather than Fort Sumter - an event Lincoln maneuvered the South in to firing the first shots. It was a duties port more than anything, the reason the people and troops of Charleston were angry Lincoln would not vacate it. It sat there like a fat middle finger to Southerners.
edit on 23-8-2018 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 04:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlesT
Finally, someone dares to tell the truth of why the southern states tried to secede from the union. They were getting financially screwed royally.


Oh please. Not this again.

It's the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Just because Lincoln won the election the states that had slaves went off on a hissy fit. If you actually defend the confederate states, you defend slavery.

The sole reason why the southern states wanted to secede was to uphold the economic and political institution of slavery a dying and struggling archaic way to go about business. The cotton gin had more impact on the southern slave owning states than Lincoln ever had, and Britain was already planning to stop imports from a confederate nation.

It doesn't matter how many facts and who pushed who over the edge, EVERY confederate state that signed a declaration of secession explained in words it was to keep their slaves and they were willing to rip the union apart because of it.
The confederates were literally traitors, and lost. And thank god they did.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Excellent OP! Good research and data and put together very well -- really excellent


I just want to reiterate your point that slavery was an issue -- but not the only issue, and it was the ONLY moral high ground the north could muster and they did and they made the absolute most of it. Which was easy enough to do.

I once read there were more slave owners fighting for the north than for the south. And, in fact, General Ulysses S Grant's wife did not give up her slaves until she was forced to by the Emancipation Proclamation, well into the war.

Strictly speaking, it was the tarriff's and similar tactics that led the southern states to secede... and it was the secession which led the north to invade the south. The states tried to talk to Lincoln but Lincoln refused to talk to them. The states tried to secede peacefully, but Lincoln would not let them. The southern states never tried to take over the federal government. The southern states tried to secede much like Britain is seceding from the European Union today. And they had every right to do so.

The south was defending their sovereign states from invasion by the north. And it was a brutal terroristic war that the north waged.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Why do conservatives still get hung up on a war more than 150 years ago? The Confederacy lost. 10 years prior to that Mexico lost after her lands were annexed. It's history.




Although they opposed permanent tariffs, political expedience in spite of sound economics prompted the Founding Fathers to pass the first U.S. tariff act. For 72 years, Northern special interest groups used these protective tariffs to exploit the South for their own benefit.


Never mind the fact the South exploited the free labor of blacks right? Fun fact, a third of the population in the South were enslaved blacks. That's 3 million out of 9 million people. Check the stats.


Finally in 1861, the oppression of those import duties started the Civil War.


Tariffs were their lowest since 1816 thanks to the Tariff of 1857, passed by the then pro-south pro slavery Democrat majority congress. Prior to that the last dispute over tariffs were in the 1830s and this matter was resolved with the compromise with South Carolina. In the 10 years leading up to the civil war congress was majority Southern and pro-slavery and the president was a Democrat. Only when it became apparent that Lincoln was going to win that the South reacted and it was baseless. Lincoln promised to preserve slavery at the time.

The facts of history are contrary to your posts.


Slavery was actually on the wane.


Everywhere but in the South of the US. Fun fact, the Republican party proposed buying out the slaves but the pro-Southern dems and their slaveholding contributors refused to budge.


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 funny thing is the pro-southern majority congress at the time had more than enough votes to stop the morrill tariff from passing. So it boggles the mind how this is an excuse. The morrill tariff of 1861 only passed because of absence of the southern wing of congress due to secession.

Logic for ya eh?


The South did not secede primarily because of slavery.


Yes they did, made clear in the declaration of causes of secession. The one people like you continue to willfully ignore.

I deserve another one.

:cheer:



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:32 AM
link   


Anyway. The real scum and bastards of this tragedy existed before Lincoln even became president. The Northern elitist and their financial backers. They had a stranglehold on the countrys monetary wealth at the exspense of the South

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



Follow the money...

'The Real Lincoln




In 1832 Andrew Jackson ended Rothschild’s 2nd privately owned central bank ...

"When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. I will rout you out.”


The Whigs were initially united by their opposition to Jackson, but became a major party by expanding their platform to include support for rechartering the Second Bank of the United...

From the early 1830s, Lincoln was a steadfast Whig and professed to friends in 1861 to be "an old line Whig...The party, including Lincoln, favored economic modernization in banking





edit on 24-8-2018 by Tellurian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian


The funny thing is the pro-southern majority congress at the time had more than enough votes to stop the morrill tariff from passing. So it boggles the mind how this is an excuse. The morrill tariff of 1861 only passed because of absence of the southern wing of congress due to secession.


Yup! The north proved the south's point. The southern states PEACEFULLY secede because they are sick and tired of the northern states' gross violations of their Constitutional rights and sovereignty, and when they do secede, the northern states double-down on their mob rule...


Logic for ya eh?


Quite logical.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Tellurian

Thank you for the link!

I gotta admit though, I'm surprised to see it's from WND. Conservative sources tend to gloss over the truth about Lincoln as much as liberal sources.

Lincoln's assassination sure made it easy to mythologize him, eh?



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Yup. Peacefully, until they attacked fort sumter. And started the civil war, and then lost. They tried and failed, all for what, to keep slavery intact.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Boadicea

Yup. Peacefully, until they attacked fort sumter. And started the civil war, and then lost. They tried and failed, all for what, to keep slavery intact.


Nope. The south was defending themselves from northern aggression -- including the north's attempts to re-supply Fort Sumter. Plain and simple. The north was determined to go to war and willfully and deliberately provoked that war.

And for what it's worth, there is some reason to believe that the southern states did try to propose a phase out of slavery that would allow the south to gradually convert to a wage-based labor force, without completely destroying their economic base.... and it's reasoned that this is why Lincoln refused to meet with the southern representatives. The slavery issue was the ONLY moral high ground Lincoln and the north had; if they allowed a voluntary and peaceful end to slavery, they would have no leverage over the south -- and no emotional hook for the public to approve war against their brothers.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Why would you put internal tariffs on any state in the union, your the same country....this makes no economic sense.

Can you imagine the outcry today if Florida put 25% tariffs on all California wines ?
edit on 24-8-2018 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Tellurian

Great article -- thank you again!

I was struck by this comment:


That was always Lincoln’s agenda. He was a Whig, and that was the Whig Party agenda. Today, we call “internal improvements” corporate welfare. Lincoln was a very successful trial lawyer, and among his clients were the Illinois Central Railroad, other railroads and some big corporations. For decades the Whigs and Lincoln advocated doling out tax money to corporations for building railroads and canals. Presidents from James Madison on vetoed this, because Madison said he could find no place in the Constitution where you could justify giving any private business taxpayer money. This was a big, ongoing political debate during the last half of the 19th century that was ended at gunpoint when Lincoln was elected president.


I've always believed that Lincoln was really a Whig at heart, but the Whig party had so fallen out of favor that he ran on the Republican ticket because it was the only way to get elected. I suppose we could call him the first RINO -- Republican in Name Only!

The goal was always to pillage and plunder the resources of the south -- and the people in general -- for the benefit of the few crony capitalists.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join