3 ms·

For what it’s worth, I spent a lot of time studying the CW for the past few years as a hobby. The states rights thing came down to equal enforcement of federal

For what it’s worth, I spent a lot of time studying the CW for the past few years as a hobby. The states rights thing came down to equal enforcement of federal policy. Around 1830 prior, South Carolina was denied the ability to set its own port tariff when it tried to assert states rights. See Tariff of Abominations. When the fugitive slave act wasn’t enforced it was seen as northern legal bias. This was a big deal because it was already seen as big problem. Around the time of the war, 80% of the US federal tax revenue came from the south while most spending benefited the north. The root cause of the war was absolutely slavery, but when people say there were a lot of contributing factors...they aren’t kidding. Including parts that nobody on either side wants to talk about. The history is really interesting and studying it goes a long way toward helping to understand how we got to where we are as a country today. 150 years ago or not, we still feel the effects today.

russdill 8y ago
Sure, states always have had causes against the federal government. But their declaration of causes didn't include anything but issues surrounding slavery. https://web.archive.org/web/20180312074805/http://www.teachingushistory.org/lessons/DecofImCauses.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20180312074805/http://www.teachi...
- brightball 8y ago
  The SC declaration was a bit more nuanced. You’re right that the other 3 declarations were almost entirely about slavery though. There’s a breakdown here: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secessio... Also, fwiw, that site used to be civilwar.org. I’m not sure when it was rebranded.
  - mannykannot 8y ago
    One might suspect that SC was a bit more savvy in how it presented its case to the world. Britain, a major trading party for the southern states (and having been as guilty as the US in establishing and profiting from slavery in the Americas, and was still profiting indirectly), had by then abolished slavery in its own colonies, and was divided in its attitude to the Confederacy. Regardless of what considerations went into that particular declaration, it is clearly a minority position and so should not be given greater weight than the majority.
    - brightball 8y ago
      I don’t think it’s a matter of weight so much as people just having different priorities. There were only 4 declarations of causes despite 11 states secession. 4 of them seceded specifically in response to being requisitioned for troops without congressional approval. Virginia’s articles even went so far as to say they would rejoin.
eumoria 8y ago
"80% of the US federal tax revenue came from the south while most spending benefited the north" That's super interesting was it mostly from cash crops? What benefits were paid to the north exclusively from that?
- brightball 8y ago
  I’ll have to go dig up the citation but if I recall the benefits were mostly paid out to the northern fishing industry. There are several really interesting reads on the economics aspects that go into much more detail.

russdill 8y ago

Sure, states always have had causes against the federal government. But their declaration of causes didn't include anything but issues surrounding slavery. https://web.archive.org/web/20180312074805/http://www.teachingushistory.org/lessons/DecofImCauses.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20180312074805/http://www.teachi...

brightball 8y ago
The SC declaration was a bit more nuanced. You’re right that the other 3 declarations were almost entirely about slavery though. There’s a breakdown here: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secessio... Also, fwiw, that site used to be civilwar.org. I’m not sure when it was rebranded.
- mannykannot 8y ago
  One might suspect that SC was a bit more savvy in how it presented its case to the world. Britain, a major trading party for the southern states (and having been as guilty as the US in establishing and profiting from slavery in the Americas, and was still profiting indirectly), had by then abolished slavery in its own colonies, and was divided in its attitude to the Confederacy. Regardless of what considerations went into that particular declaration, it is clearly a minority position and so should not be given greater weight than the majority.
  - brightball 8y ago
    I don’t think it’s a matter of weight so much as people just having different priorities. There were only 4 declarations of causes despite 11 states secession. 4 of them seceded specifically in response to being requisitioned for troops without congressional approval. Virginia’s articles even went so far as to say they would rejoin.

eumoria 8y ago

"80% of the US federal tax revenue came from the south while most spending benefited the north" That's super interesting was it mostly from cash crops? What benefits were paid to the north exclusively from that?

brightball 8y ago
I’ll have to go dig up the citation but if I recall the benefits were mostly paid out to the northern fishing industry. There are several really interesting reads on the economics aspects that go into much more detail.