19 ms·

It should be understood that the british empire was at the peak of economic dependence on the raw material coming from the "new world" at the onset of the civil

by gen220 4y ago

It should be understood that the british empire was at the peak of economic dependence on the raw material coming from the "new world" at the onset of the civil war; in particular, cotton exports for consumption by british textile mills [1]. > By the late 1850s, cotton grown in the United States accounted for 77 percent of the 800 million pounds of cotton consumed in Britain. It also accounted for 90 percent of the 192 million pounds used in France, 60 percent of the 115 million pounds spun in the Zollverein, and 92 percent of the 102 million pounds manufactured in Russia. One reason that there was support for the confederacy was the fear that the outcome of the war would lead to the end of access to abundant and cheap cotton (due to export duties, end of slavery, etc.). One of the outcomes of the US Civil War was that the British Empire realized a need to "diversify" their sources, resulting in increasingly imperialistic behavior in India and Egypt, among others. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-... the whole book is a fantastic peek behind the curtains of the history of global capital markets

klodolph 4y ago
And the reason why Britain wanted those raw resources was because it was the epicenter of the industrial revolution. Manchester was nicknamed "Cottonopolis"... full of cotton mills driven by water and then steam, and connected by the first inter-city railway. Cotton picked by slaves in the U.S. south was the main source of raw materials for these factories.
qiskit 4y ago
[flagged]
- skibble 4y ago
  I’m sorry but this is profoundly and aggressively incorrect. The civil war was not reframed after the fact to be about slavery, quite the opposite in fact. The ‘reframing’ is in fact what you’ve tried to assert, in that it was supposedly a matter of economics rather than slavery (though of course other factors were certainly at play). It’s part of the ‘lost cause’ narrative furthered by the southern states after the civil war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederac... https://imperialglobalexeter.com/2015/03/02/debunking-the-civil-war-tariff-myth/ https://imperialglobalexeter.com/2015/03/02/debunking-the-ci... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/the-lost-causes-long-legacy/613288/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/the-lost-c...
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    We can go ahead and cast it as an economic conflict if we really want -- the conflict between a system based on industrialization and an alternate one based on slavery. But slavery is, as you say, most certainly central to the conflict.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - piethesailorman 4y ago
    It is interesting that the emancipation proclamation did not free the slaves of the northern and northern occupied states, despite that being there "main concern"
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      The main concern of the southern states was slavery. The main concern of the north was continuance of the Union as such. That is, the intent behind seccession was to maintain slavery. The intent behind the emancipation proclamation wasn't (solely) to end slavery, but to encourage rebellion by enslaved southerners.
      - piethesailorman 4y ago
        South Carolina did succeede due largely to its fear that the federal government would nationally abolish slavery. President Buchanan, before leaving office, made a gentlemans agreement that he would leave alone a largely abandoned sand bar military base that was run by South Carolinians inside the boundary of said state. In the middle of the night, a federal navy ship, who took all the armamments from a well established nearby federal military base, went to fort sumter and forced out the occupants by bayonet(kind of aggresive?/s) Cabinet members of Lincolns presidency warned him not to send reinforcements, which they were sure would further provoke sentiments of military provocation. He did anyway. This pissed off the SCians who decided, to hell with it no one gets this sand bar, and so they destroyed the base by cannon fire with no one there to nullify either parties claim. No one died, largely because no one was supposed too. Lincoln, then, decided he should call on the remaining states to build one of the largest armies assembled by the federal goverment to forcibly take back south carolina. This extereme overreaction to the situation is the well known historical reason why the rest of the states promptly left the union in its fear of the clear millitary power grab that was occuring before their eyes. Many powerful southerners did not want their home states succeed, including Robert E Lee! Note: What I did not say in the second to last sentence was that there wasn't sentiment of the follower states of protecting slavery. Lincoln, like a good lawyer, modified the definition of a word, union, from (meriam webster 1. the formation of a single political unit[okay sure, but read on] from two or more separate and independent. Most dicts use the word "confederacy" for this definition as well) a voluntary agreement between indepenent parts, to involuntary permanance. Did he use trade embargoes like a peace seeking consolidator would? Regardless of your opinion on slavery's involvement, or how righteous either side was, Lincoln, at best, poorly* navigated the waters of the time and was the clear cause of military escalation bringing the greatest casualty of americans lives by population of its respective era.
- dayofthedaleks 4y ago
  There’s really not a lot of of discussion of foreign trade in the documents the states ratified to enact secession. [0] They sure do talk about slavery quite explicitly though. [0] - https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...
  - qiskit 4y ago
    > There’s really not a lot of of discussion of foreign trade in the documents the states ratified to enact secession. Because tariffs are a congressional matter, not a state matter. They were trying to justify secession via the states' rights angle. Also, politicians don't like using money as a justification for their actions. It comes off tacky. They want to appear noble and virtuous. Sorta like how nobody invaded iraq for oil. You invade iraq for democracy. Just like the american independence was about "liberty and freedom" not tariffs and the right to steal native land west of the appalachian mountains. "Liberty and freedom" by slave owners. Using your logic, the iraq war was about democracy and the american independence was about freedom. Do you believe russia is invading ukraine to free ukraine from nazis too?
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Sorta like how nobody invaded iraq for oil. You invade iraq for democracy freedom. Fictitious WMD, even more fictitious ties to al-Qaeda (and because, as distinct from North Korea, as described by then -Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Iraq “floats on a sea of oil“, notionally foreclosing leverage for non-military pressure against those fictions.) “Democracy” and “freedom” weren't cited as the reasons for going in, but as things we needed to assure in the aftermath of destroying the existing regime for other reasons. (And then later as “wins” that retroactively justified the invasion even if there never were WMD to protect against.)
    - majormajor 4y ago
      You're claiming they decided to pretend it was about slavery to "appear noble and virtuous." Really??? That's their way of getting GOOD PR? They knew slavery was unpopular with everyone else but them, but they're doubling down on pretending that's their reason instead of tarrifs because they want to look "noble"? OK. How goddamn stupid is anyone to believe that shit?
- nl 4y ago
  > Slavery was at best an afterthought. Markets and tariffs were the reason the south seceded. Tarrifs were the reason for the civil war. This is so wrong it's a wonder how anyone could think this. Put it like this: the reason the South wanted low tarrifs was because they were a low cost producer. And they were a low cost producer because of slave labor.
  - dayofthedaleks 4y ago
    One doesn’t storm Harper’s Ferry over Mercantilism.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > This is so wrong it's a wonder how anyone could think this. I and everyone I knew was taught this is school by people who wanted to push the narrative, and it took a long time to figure out it was false.
    - triceratops 4y ago
      > it took a long time to figure out it was false Yeah I mean you have to first ignore what those Southerners themselves said were their actual reasons for secession (slavery), and what they wrote down on paper (we're leaving 'cuz we want to keep our slaves). It obviously takes a long time to learn how to ignore actual facts. > push the narrative Those dastardly schools, pushing Confederate states' constitutions at young impressionable minds to convince them that the Confederacy was evil. We have to stop them! /s EDIT: I misunderstood the parent poster. Apologies.
      - ModernMech 4y ago
        Indeed, we went to great lengths to avoid confronting actual primary sources. It's not enough to just teach alternative history, you also have to teach learned helplessness, that only certain authorities are trustworthy, and to promote a general climate of proud ignorance (looking up things in books is for losers and caring about education is for suckers).
- idontwantthis 4y ago
  Read any state’s declaration of secession. Slavery was the direct cause of the war. Not by the North to end it, by the South to preserve it. > The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
- triceratops 4y ago
  > Markets and tariffs were the reason the south seceded. No, it was slavery. > Tarrifs were the reason for the civil war. No Southern secession, and the Northern response to prevent it, was the proximate reason for the Civil War. The South seceded due to slavery. Yes the North didn't go into the war to free slaves. They did it to keep the country together. But as the war progressed its position on abolition hardened until it became a war aim.
  - qiskit 4y ago
    You and dragonwriter keep repeating the false statement. > The South seceded due to slavery. No. They left after the north raised the tariff. They justified the secession on states' rights ( one of the notable being slavery ). The south didn't secede after the north freed the slaves, threatened to free the slaves, etc. They left after they lost a decades long tariff battle to the north. The fight in the first part of the 1800s wasn't over slavery. The major fight between the north and south was tariffs/trade. It was industrialization vs agricultralism. It was never about slavery because some northern states also had slavery before and during the civil war. If the civil war was about slavery, why didn't delaware and maryland also secede with slave owning states? Why did west virginia secede from virginia? Could it be because west virginia major industries sold minerals, coal, etc to the industrial north? While the rest of virginia was agriculturally based?
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      > No. They left after the north raised the tariff No, they didn't. Lincoln was elected in Nov 6, 1860. [0] South Carolina seceded around a month later, on December 20, 1860 [1]. Georgia began drafting a new constitution in January 1861[2], after voting to secede a few days earlier. The Morill Tariff passed in the senate on Feb 20, 1861, two months after SC seceded, and one month after GA.[3] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_presidentia... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Declaration_of_Secession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Declaration_of_... [2]: https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/georgia-secession-convention-of-1861 https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-poli... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff#Renewed_Senate_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff#Renewed_Senate_...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Markets and tariffs were the reason the south seceded. No, they weren't. > Lincoln didn't say "end slavery and we shall have the greatest nation on earth". The South didn't revolt over something Lincoln said, they revolted over the failure to secure their desire for expansion of slavery into the territories, which they read (probably accurately) as foreshadowing eventual abolition of slavery if they remained in the Union. Now, they misjudged the prospects of rebellion and so hastened the abolition of slavery by rebelling.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > The South didn't revolt over something Lincoln said, they revolted over the failure to secure their desire for expansion of slavery into the territories There was no such desire on the South's part, although the claim that there was was common in abolitionist propaganda of the time. The South already knew that none of the territories being added to the Union at that time were suitable for the kind of economy based on slavery that they had in the established Southern states. > which they read (probably accurately) as foreshadowing eventual abolition of slavery if they remained in the Union No, what they read (probably accurately) as foreshadowing eventual abolition of slavery if they remained in the Union was...the continuing vociferous demands on the part of abolitionists over decades for the abolition of slavery, which continued to gain more political traction over time. Lincoln's election as a Republican just pushed them over the edge (although another strong signal was sent a couple of years before when all of the abolitionists who kept talking about how we should let the legal process work and abide by its decisions, suddenly switched gears and started talking about ignoring the legal process after the Dred Scott decision). There is no need to attribute fictitious motives of "expansion of slavery" to the South to account for secession. The documented historical facts of the abolitionist movement are more than enough.
    - myko 4y ago
      Interestingly one of the reasons the south began their war over the right to own people was indeed because they were mad they couldn't force other states in the union to treat Black folks as slaves. Read up on the Fugitive Slave Act (https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/fugitive-slave-act https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/fugitive-...) Ironic considering the modern lost cause argument of the war being over "states' rights". There was one right they were primarily concerned with - owning people.
- gen220 4y ago
  I think the reason you’re getting so much vitriol is that you’re framing this issue without any room for nuance. It’s accepted that a disagreement over the future economic regime of the Union was core to the American Civil War. Part of that economic future was tariffs, as you highlight. But an even more foundational part was slavery, and it’s role in the economic future of the country. The elites of the North and South vehemently disagreed on the role of slavery in America’s future, and it’s absurd to say this didn’t escalate tensions. It is not correct to frame slavery as an afterthought. It is not correct to frame the moral issue of slavery as the only reason for the war, because it had enormous economic and political implications beyond its morality.
  - henrikschroder 4y ago
    > It is not correct to frame the moral issue of slavery as the only reason for the war, because it had enormous economic and political implications beyond its morality. I saw an article that said that by the mid-1800's, the southern states that seceded accounted for half the GDP of the entire US, and slave labour accounted for a majority of that. Abolishing slavery would cripple and impoverish those states, so of course they had to secede. From an economical-political perspective it was the only possible choice. Imagine that the federal US wanted to prohibit people in California from working with software or media. No more Silicon Valley, no more Hollywood. California would secede in a heartbeat, and every single HN reader living there would strongly support it. Threaten people's way of life, and they'll get kinda angry, regardless of morality. It's also important to realize that since the southern states were so dependent on slavery, and since people actually have a natural aversion to it, that there existed a system of constant brutal racist propaganda to protect itself. That propaganda was everywhere, it was scientific: Clearly, black people are better suited at working in the sun, cotton requires work in the sun, therefore it is the natural order of things that black people should work the cottonfields. Religious: God rewards the people he loves with prosperity, white plantation owners are the most prosperous, therefore God clearly loves this order of things and wills it so. Political: White nations originating in Europe have subjugated black nations in Africa, and since might makes right, black people from Africa are clearly better off as slaves in America, it's a more civilized life, and therefore the best order of things. Racism and slavery was simply woven into the fabric of society in a way that's very difficult to imagine today, which is why the reductionism is so misguided. Not being racist or not profiting off of slavery was simply not an option for people living there.
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  “Lost cause” theories are considered the actual revisionism by the vast majority of historians, due to the many pieces of strong evidence supporting slavery being the major issue driving the war. Let’s start with the articles of secession. Ctrl-F on these and you’ll find “slave” mentioned more than 80 times. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati... There were the journals of the actual soldiers fighting the war, who frequently mentioned how slavery was their motivation for fighting the war. There was the intense focus on slavery leading up to the war, like a slave state being admitted for every free state. There was the Caning of Summers where a man was nearly beaten to death on the senate floor over a very rude speech he gave over slavery https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner There were the northerners coming into slave states and inciting slave rebellions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist) In general, the idea that slavery wasn’t a motivator of the war was mostly pitched to Britain who was mostly abolitionist at the time, but overwhelmingly it was mostly pitched after the war had already concluded. Before and during the war the confederates were quite clear their motivation for waging the war was primarily slavery. They were very open about this, which is why historians tend to be doubtful about a theory which seemingly was only ever popularized to make the confederates save face. Historians aren’t keen to go “oh these people who mentioned slavery over and over when they were seceding didn’t care about slavery that was just a prank and I know how they really felt, checkmate Lincolnites!” Nobody doubts that economics weren’t a major factor in the war, but slavery was discussed far far far more often than tariffs. Tariffs are mostly brought up nowadays because they’re more palatable, not because of the strong evidence the average southerner or southern leader was fighting for tariffs. >Lincoln did nothing to free the slaves when the war started True. Lincoln’s initial goal was to keep the union together, whereas the confederates were fighting for slavery. Keep in mind the Civil war was by far the deadliest war in US history, I believe more Americans died in that war than every subsequent war combined. Ending slavery is a noble goal, so is preventing the 620k deaths that happened. It was only later on, largely due to the aforementioned British pressure that he gave his emancipation proclamation largely as a strategic move to prevent Europe from entering the war since after the proclamation their entrance into the war would be seen as supportive of slavery. However, Lincoln did want to end slavery eventually and many in the union fought for the sake of abolition. Note how a civil war was started soon after Lincoln was elected with the secessionists repeatedly mentioning slavery, his support of abolition was no secret.

by gen220 4y ago

klodolph 4y ago

And the reason why Britain wanted those raw resources was because it was the epicenter of the industrial revolution. Manchester was nicknamed "Cottonopolis"... full of cotton mills driven by water and then steam, and connected by the first inter-city railway. Cotton picked by slaves in the U.S. south was the main source of raw materials for these factories.

qiskit 4y ago

[flagged]

skibble 4y ago
I’m sorry but this is profoundly and aggressively incorrect. The civil war was not reframed after the fact to be about slavery, quite the opposite in fact. The ‘reframing’ is in fact what you’ve tried to assert, in that it was supposedly a matter of economics rather than slavery (though of course other factors were certainly at play). It’s part of the ‘lost cause’ narrative furthered by the southern states after the civil war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederac... https://imperialglobalexeter.com/2015/03/02/debunking-the-civil-war-tariff-myth/ https://imperialglobalexeter.com/2015/03/02/debunking-the-ci... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/the-lost-causes-long-legacy/613288/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/the-lost-c...
- emodendroket 4y ago
  We can go ahead and cast it as an economic conflict if we really want -- the conflict between a system based on industrialization and an alternate one based on slavery. But slavery is, as you say, most certainly central to the conflict.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- piethesailorman 4y ago
  It is interesting that the emancipation proclamation did not free the slaves of the northern and northern occupied states, despite that being there "main concern"
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    The main concern of the southern states was slavery. The main concern of the north was continuance of the Union as such. That is, the intent behind seccession was to maintain slavery. The intent behind the emancipation proclamation wasn't (solely) to end slavery, but to encourage rebellion by enslaved southerners.
    - piethesailorman 4y ago
      South Carolina did succeede due largely to its fear that the federal government would nationally abolish slavery. President Buchanan, before leaving office, made a gentlemans agreement that he would leave alone a largely abandoned sand bar military base that was run by South Carolinians inside the boundary of said state. In the middle of the night, a federal navy ship, who took all the armamments from a well established nearby federal military base, went to fort sumter and forced out the occupants by bayonet(kind of aggresive?/s) Cabinet members of Lincolns presidency warned him not to send reinforcements, which they were sure would further provoke sentiments of military provocation. He did anyway. This pissed off the SCians who decided, to hell with it no one gets this sand bar, and so they destroyed the base by cannon fire with no one there to nullify either parties claim. No one died, largely because no one was supposed too. Lincoln, then, decided he should call on the remaining states to build one of the largest armies assembled by the federal goverment to forcibly take back south carolina. This extereme overreaction to the situation is the well known historical reason why the rest of the states promptly left the union in its fear of the clear millitary power grab that was occuring before their eyes. Many powerful southerners did not want their home states succeed, including Robert E Lee! Note: What I did not say in the second to last sentence was that there wasn't sentiment of the follower states of protecting slavery. Lincoln, like a good lawyer, modified the definition of a word, union, from (meriam webster 1. the formation of a single political unit[okay sure, but read on] from two or more separate and independent. Most dicts use the word "confederacy" for this definition as well) a voluntary agreement between indepenent parts, to involuntary permanance. Did he use trade embargoes like a peace seeking consolidator would? Regardless of your opinion on slavery's involvement, or how righteous either side was, Lincoln, at best, poorly* navigated the waters of the time and was the clear cause of military escalation bringing the greatest casualty of americans lives by population of its respective era.
dayofthedaleks 4y ago
There’s really not a lot of of discussion of foreign trade in the documents the states ratified to enact secession. [0] They sure do talk about slavery quite explicitly though. [0] - https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...
- qiskit 4y ago
  > There’s really not a lot of of discussion of foreign trade in the documents the states ratified to enact secession. Because tariffs are a congressional matter, not a state matter. They were trying to justify secession via the states' rights angle. Also, politicians don't like using money as a justification for their actions. It comes off tacky. They want to appear noble and virtuous. Sorta like how nobody invaded iraq for oil. You invade iraq for democracy. Just like the american independence was about "liberty and freedom" not tariffs and the right to steal native land west of the appalachian mountains. "Liberty and freedom" by slave owners. Using your logic, the iraq war was about democracy and the american independence was about freedom. Do you believe russia is invading ukraine to free ukraine from nazis too?
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Sorta like how nobody invaded iraq for oil. You invade iraq for democracy freedom. Fictitious WMD, even more fictitious ties to al-Qaeda (and because, as distinct from North Korea, as described by then -Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Iraq “floats on a sea of oil“, notionally foreclosing leverage for non-military pressure against those fictions.) “Democracy” and “freedom” weren't cited as the reasons for going in, but as things we needed to assure in the aftermath of destroying the existing regime for other reasons. (And then later as “wins” that retroactively justified the invasion even if there never were WMD to protect against.)
  - majormajor 4y ago
    You're claiming they decided to pretend it was about slavery to "appear noble and virtuous." Really??? That's their way of getting GOOD PR? They knew slavery was unpopular with everyone else but them, but they're doubling down on pretending that's their reason instead of tarrifs because they want to look "noble"? OK. How goddamn stupid is anyone to believe that shit?
nl 4y ago
> Slavery was at best an afterthought. Markets and tariffs were the reason the south seceded. Tarrifs were the reason for the civil war. This is so wrong it's a wonder how anyone could think this. Put it like this: the reason the South wanted low tarrifs was because they were a low cost producer. And they were a low cost producer because of slave labor.
- dayofthedaleks 4y ago
  One doesn’t storm Harper’s Ferry over Mercantilism.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > This is so wrong it's a wonder how anyone could think this. I and everyone I knew was taught this is school by people who wanted to push the narrative, and it took a long time to figure out it was false.
  - triceratops 4y ago
    > it took a long time to figure out it was false Yeah I mean you have to first ignore what those Southerners themselves said were their actual reasons for secession (slavery), and what they wrote down on paper (we're leaving 'cuz we want to keep our slaves). It obviously takes a long time to learn how to ignore actual facts. > push the narrative Those dastardly schools, pushing Confederate states' constitutions at young impressionable minds to convince them that the Confederacy was evil. We have to stop them! /s EDIT: I misunderstood the parent poster. Apologies.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      Indeed, we went to great lengths to avoid confronting actual primary sources. It's not enough to just teach alternative history, you also have to teach learned helplessness, that only certain authorities are trustworthy, and to promote a general climate of proud ignorance (looking up things in books is for losers and caring about education is for suckers).
idontwantthis 4y ago
Read any state’s declaration of secession. Slavery was the direct cause of the war. Not by the North to end it, by the South to preserve it. > The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
triceratops 4y ago
> Markets and tariffs were the reason the south seceded. No, it was slavery. > Tarrifs were the reason for the civil war. No Southern secession, and the Northern response to prevent it, was the proximate reason for the Civil War. The South seceded due to slavery. Yes the North didn't go into the war to free slaves. They did it to keep the country together. But as the war progressed its position on abolition hardened until it became a war aim.
- qiskit 4y ago
  You and dragonwriter keep repeating the false statement. > The South seceded due to slavery. No. They left after the north raised the tariff. They justified the secession on states' rights ( one of the notable being slavery ). The south didn't secede after the north freed the slaves, threatened to free the slaves, etc. They left after they lost a decades long tariff battle to the north. The fight in the first part of the 1800s wasn't over slavery. The major fight between the north and south was tariffs/trade. It was industrialization vs agricultralism. It was never about slavery because some northern states also had slavery before and during the civil war. If the civil war was about slavery, why didn't delaware and maryland also secede with slave owning states? Why did west virginia secede from virginia? Could it be because west virginia major industries sold minerals, coal, etc to the industrial north? While the rest of virginia was agriculturally based?
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    > No. They left after the north raised the tariff No, they didn't. Lincoln was elected in Nov 6, 1860. [0] South Carolina seceded around a month later, on December 20, 1860 [1]. Georgia began drafting a new constitution in January 1861[2], after voting to secede a few days earlier. The Morill Tariff passed in the senate on Feb 20, 1861, two months after SC seceded, and one month after GA.[3] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_presidentia... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Declaration_of_Secession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Declaration_of_... [2]: https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/georgia-secession-convention-of-1861 https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-poli... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff#Renewed_Senate_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff#Renewed_Senate_...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Markets and tariffs were the reason the south seceded. No, they weren't. > Lincoln didn't say "end slavery and we shall have the greatest nation on earth". The South didn't revolt over something Lincoln said, they revolted over the failure to secure their desire for expansion of slavery into the territories, which they read (probably accurately) as foreshadowing eventual abolition of slavery if they remained in the Union. Now, they misjudged the prospects of rebellion and so hastened the abolition of slavery by rebelling.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > The South didn't revolt over something Lincoln said, they revolted over the failure to secure their desire for expansion of slavery into the territories There was no such desire on the South's part, although the claim that there was was common in abolitionist propaganda of the time. The South already knew that none of the territories being added to the Union at that time were suitable for the kind of economy based on slavery that they had in the established Southern states. > which they read (probably accurately) as foreshadowing eventual abolition of slavery if they remained in the Union No, what they read (probably accurately) as foreshadowing eventual abolition of slavery if they remained in the Union was...the continuing vociferous demands on the part of abolitionists over decades for the abolition of slavery, which continued to gain more political traction over time. Lincoln's election as a Republican just pushed them over the edge (although another strong signal was sent a couple of years before when all of the abolitionists who kept talking about how we should let the legal process work and abide by its decisions, suddenly switched gears and started talking about ignoring the legal process after the Dred Scott decision). There is no need to attribute fictitious motives of "expansion of slavery" to the South to account for secession. The documented historical facts of the abolitionist movement are more than enough.
  - myko 4y ago
    Interestingly one of the reasons the south began their war over the right to own people was indeed because they were mad they couldn't force other states in the union to treat Black folks as slaves. Read up on the Fugitive Slave Act (https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/fugitive-slave-act https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/fugitive-...) Ironic considering the modern lost cause argument of the war being over "states' rights". There was one right they were primarily concerned with - owning people.
gen220 4y ago
I think the reason you’re getting so much vitriol is that you’re framing this issue without any room for nuance. It’s accepted that a disagreement over the future economic regime of the Union was core to the American Civil War. Part of that economic future was tariffs, as you highlight. But an even more foundational part was slavery, and it’s role in the economic future of the country. The elites of the North and South vehemently disagreed on the role of slavery in America’s future, and it’s absurd to say this didn’t escalate tensions. It is not correct to frame slavery as an afterthought. It is not correct to frame the moral issue of slavery as the only reason for the war, because it had enormous economic and political implications beyond its morality.
- henrikschroder 4y ago
  > It is not correct to frame the moral issue of slavery as the only reason for the war, because it had enormous economic and political implications beyond its morality. I saw an article that said that by the mid-1800's, the southern states that seceded accounted for half the GDP of the entire US, and slave labour accounted for a majority of that. Abolishing slavery would cripple and impoverish those states, so of course they had to secede. From an economical-political perspective it was the only possible choice. Imagine that the federal US wanted to prohibit people in California from working with software or media. No more Silicon Valley, no more Hollywood. California would secede in a heartbeat, and every single HN reader living there would strongly support it. Threaten people's way of life, and they'll get kinda angry, regardless of morality. It's also important to realize that since the southern states were so dependent on slavery, and since people actually have a natural aversion to it, that there existed a system of constant brutal racist propaganda to protect itself. That propaganda was everywhere, it was scientific: Clearly, black people are better suited at working in the sun, cotton requires work in the sun, therefore it is the natural order of things that black people should work the cottonfields. Religious: God rewards the people he loves with prosperity, white plantation owners are the most prosperous, therefore God clearly loves this order of things and wills it so. Political: White nations originating in Europe have subjugated black nations in Africa, and since might makes right, black people from Africa are clearly better off as slaves in America, it's a more civilized life, and therefore the best order of things. Racism and slavery was simply woven into the fabric of society in a way that's very difficult to imagine today, which is why the reductionism is so misguided. Not being racist or not profiting off of slavery was simply not an option for people living there.
faeriechangling 4y ago
“Lost cause” theories are considered the actual revisionism by the vast majority of historians, due to the many pieces of strong evidence supporting slavery being the major issue driving the war. Let’s start with the articles of secession. Ctrl-F on these and you’ll find “slave” mentioned more than 80 times. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati... There were the journals of the actual soldiers fighting the war, who frequently mentioned how slavery was their motivation for fighting the war. There was the intense focus on slavery leading up to the war, like a slave state being admitted for every free state. There was the Caning of Summers where a man was nearly beaten to death on the senate floor over a very rude speech he gave over slavery https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner There were the northerners coming into slave states and inciting slave rebellions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist) In general, the idea that slavery wasn’t a motivator of the war was mostly pitched to Britain who was mostly abolitionist at the time, but overwhelmingly it was mostly pitched after the war had already concluded. Before and during the war the confederates were quite clear their motivation for waging the war was primarily slavery. They were very open about this, which is why historians tend to be doubtful about a theory which seemingly was only ever popularized to make the confederates save face. Historians aren’t keen to go “oh these people who mentioned slavery over and over when they were seceding didn’t care about slavery that was just a prank and I know how they really felt, checkmate Lincolnites!” Nobody doubts that economics weren’t a major factor in the war, but slavery was discussed far far far more often than tariffs. Tariffs are mostly brought up nowadays because they’re more palatable, not because of the strong evidence the average southerner or southern leader was fighting for tariffs. >Lincoln did nothing to free the slaves when the war started True. Lincoln’s initial goal was to keep the union together, whereas the confederates were fighting for slavery. Keep in mind the Civil war was by far the deadliest war in US history, I believe more Americans died in that war than every subsequent war combined. Ending slavery is a noble goal, so is preventing the 620k deaths that happened. It was only later on, largely due to the aforementioned British pressure that he gave his emancipation proclamation largely as a strategic move to prevent Europe from entering the war since after the proclamation their entrance into the war would be seen as supportive of slavery. However, Lincoln did want to end slavery eventually and many in the union fought for the sake of abolition. Note how a civil war was started soon after Lincoln was elected with the secessionists repeatedly mentioning slavery, his support of abolition was no secret.