reply to post by MrInquisitive
I don't think I said that slavery was not an issue. Just pointing out that the reasons behind and leading up to the Civil War were much more complex
than a simplistic/two dimentional soundbite.
Obviously you have a tenuous grasp on the history involved, otherwise you would not have to resort to personal insults to prove a "point." I'm from
Michigan and my family emigrated to the US long after the civil war, so your accusations of regional and cultural bias are rather stupid and
unfounded. My interest is in understanding the history as a whole, not as simplistic soundbite, because when we give short shrift to history, we
cannot learn from it and all the juvenile, idiotic smileys in the world will not change that fact.
Now, you apprently did not understand what Georgia was trying to put out, and that's okay, not many people understand the economic issues and changes
preceeding the war. You are correct that slaves did count for the numbers of representation, however, you forget the 3/5ths compromise and, even with
slaves being counted, the northern population was still larger and growing very rapidly with European immigrants coming over to fuel the industrial
revolution. The comment about being outnumbered regionally in representation in the house was quite real. The Union had more than double the
population of the Confederacy (including slaves).
Tariffs: the agricultural south was against tariffs. Southerners generally favored low tariffs because this kept the cost of imported goods low, which
was important in the South's import-oriented economy. Southern planters and farmers were concerned that high tariffs might make their European
trading partners, primarily the British, raise prices on manufactured goods imported by the South in order to maintain a profit on trade.
In the North, however, high tariffs were viewed favorably because such tariffs would make imported goods more expensive. That way, goods produced in
the North would seem relatively cheap, and Americans would want to buy American goods instead of European items. Since tariffs would protect domestic
industry from foreign competition, business interests and others influenced politicians to support high tariffs.
Incidents such as the Southern protests against the "Tariff of Abominations" in the 1820s and the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s demonstrated how
deep a rift the tariff controversy was creating between North and South.
In the northeast, where 60 percent of the banks were located, there was strong movement for banks to be chartered by the federal government, the south
was concerned by this as this would have created a northern monopoly on the supply of capital.
With restrictive tariffs designed to protect Northern mills, the south actually did attempt to start industrilization of their own and start textile
mills in the south, but then taxation on mill equipment designed to protect northern economic interests stopped this.
When the recession of the 1850's (largely brought on by reduction of demand for American manufactured good by the Europeans) led to the panic of
1857, which lead to even more protectionist tariffs, federalization of the banks, and increased taxation of southern cotton to shore up failing
There is no doubt that slavery was a part of secession, but it is a very superficial and two dimentional notion that it was the only cause. Had there
been no slavery in the US at all, such economic disparities may very well had led to war all by themselves.