MUH TARIFFS

[Deus Naturae]

Um...who wouldn't? If your home was actually going to be invaded, would you really choose to side with the invader? Well, maybe out of fear, but you don't have to admit that on a survey.

[Deus Naturae]

...There are actual people on this forum defending the existence of and supporting the idea of fighting for a nation based entirely on slavery.

Come on, you're actually telling me that you would allow your home to be destroyed for the sake of a war which, as its prosecutors made clear, was not being waged to abolish slavery? You're aware that around 70-80% of Southerners at the time did not own slaves, right?

[Deus Naturae]

Scott, do you actually deny that Lincoln's intent in invading South was NOT the abolition of slavery, but rather the preservation of the Union and the enforcement of tariff laws? That's kind of a historical fact that all of the mainstream sources will affirm. Not really a controversial statement.

[Deus Naturae]

Consider this excerpt from Lincoln's First Inaugural Address (emphasis mine):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lincoln plainly stated that the ONLY reason he would invade the South would be to enforce the tariff laws. Thus, unless one is an extremely passionate proponent of protectionism, it makes no sense to allow the destruction of one's hearth and home rather than attempt to repel Lincoln's invading forces.

[Deus Naturae]

Except it doesn't even say that.

It clearly says that Lincoln would also invade if the federal government's property (such as, say, Fort Sumter) was tampered with.

Sorry, should've addressed that. First of all, even if the Federal government was rightfully pursuing the return of its properties, that still has nothing to do with slavery and hardly justified the all-out invasion of the South. There is clearly nothing wrong with attempting to defend one's home against an invading army attempting to occupy and destroy it, even if that army has the end goal of reclaiming its rightful property miles away.

Lincoln was less interested in actually reclaiming Federal property than he was in using it as a pretext to provoke war. For weeks prior to that incident, the Lincoln administration had assured South Carolina that the fort would be evacuated. However, instead of evacuating, Lincoln chose to send a convoy of warships to Charleston harbor and refused to meet with Confederate diplomats to discuss peaceful purchase or transfer of the installation, despite the fact that the Confederates were willing to fully pay the Union in full for all Federal installations. He successfully provoked the South Carolinian militias in the area to fire the first shot, thus serving as a pretext for invasion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whatever his other war aims were, the abolition of slavery was clearly not among them, given his support for the constitutional protection of Southern slavery.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or, maybe this one from his second inaugural:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
Note that in both of these quotes, Lincoln stresses that he is not opposed to the existence of slavery, only its extension. While I would agree with Nathan that this is clearly preferable to being an all-out proponent of slavery, it precludes the possibility that Lincoln invaded the South with the intent of abolishing slavery. To go back to the original point I was making in response to Alfred, even if you think that Lincoln was a closet abolitionist who was secretly planning to abolish slavery the whole time, individual Southerners (the majority of whom did not own slaves and had perfectly good reasons to support secession that had nothing to do with slavery) surely cannot be faulted for choosing to defend their homes against an invading army that, to their knowledge, had no intent to abolish slavery.

[Deus Naturae]

Whether or not Lincoln invaded the South to end slavery misses the point entirely.  The real motives behind secession were evident and secession was inevitable from Lincoln's election.  Tariffs couldn't have been an issue for the South considering the backers of the Tariff of 1857 were primarily from Southern and agricultural states.

Probably because the Tariff of 1857 was a major tariff reduction. Lincoln campaigned heavily on his support for the Morrill Tariff of 1861, at that time still in Congress, which dramatically raised the average tariff rate from about 15% to about 37%, and was also supported strongly by Northern manufacturing interests. In the words of the Republican steel magnate Henry Carey, "Without out it [the protective tariff], Mr. Lincoln's administration will be dead before the the day of inauguration."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hyperbolic is an understatement. Sorry, but that's just plain wrong and no historian will tell you any different. Tariffs, Federal land policy, corporate subsidies, internal improvement projects, and territorial expansions were all major issues. Just to be clear, I'm not denying that Southern politicians were racist slavery supporters. I'm simply arguing that Lincoln's intent in invading the South was not the abolition of slavery, but rather the enforcement of tariff laws.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tariffs were most certainly not irrelevant. Like in almost all American wars of conquest, powerful monied interests were a driving force behind the invasion. Following the first wave of seceding States, many Northern newspapers and merchants called for peaceful coexistence, citing the threat that war would pose to trade between the North and Lower South. They quickly changed their tune when the Confederate Constitution was fully drafted in March 1861. It contained a clause forbidding the imposition of import tariffs, which would have forced the Union to lower tariff rates in order to compete with tariff-free Confederate ports. This prospect alarmed Northern manufacturing interests, and despite the multitude of Northern editorials advocating allowing the Lower South to secede, few if any of that nature can be found after March 1861. Powerful businessmen began writing letters to Lincoln extolling the necessity of preserving the Union, and most if not all Northern newspapers that had previously supported the Lower South's right of secession (such as the New York Times) quickly reversed their position.

That, combined with fact that Lincoln threatened invasion over the tariff issue specifically, should be proof enough that tariffs were hardly irrelevant.  

On top of all that, you've still yet to offer any evidence for your position: That Lincoln invaded the South with the intent of abolishing slavery. You need to at least do that much before you can attack my position as nonsense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice one bro.

[Deus Naturae]

To be clear, I'm not trying to argue that the 1850's/60's South was some sort of virtuous paradise where friendly slaveowners treated their beloved African children with kindness and respect. Most if not all Southern politicians (like Alexander Stephens) were wealthy slaveholders who wanted a white supremacist society (the latter could also be said of most Northern politicians, but that's beside the point). The original point I was trying to make was in response to Alfred saying that anyone who would've sided with the Confederacy to defend their home against invading Union forces is an automatic HP who supports slavery. That's why I brought up the fact that Lincoln was NOT invading to abolish or interfere with slavery. How does it make sense to say that defending one's home against an army that is invading with the stated intent of enforcing tariff laws, as well as the stated intent of NOT abolishing slavery, makes one a defender of slavery?

And Bedstuy, the mere fact of secession was not the issue. The right of secession (as well as that of nullification) had been championed and nearly invoked by Northerners for decades prior to the Civil War.  Prior to the drafting of the tariff-prohibiting Confederate Constitution, it was a popular and widely held view that the Lower South should be allowed to secede. You really think the sudden reversal of Northern newspapers and merchants after March 1861 was just a sudden coincidence?

And, just to reiterate: I'm NOT defending 1850's/60's Southern society. My point is just that the invading Union forces were hardly on any sort of anti-slavery crusade, so it makes little sense to say that anyone who would choose to defend his home against them is automatically a defender of slavery.

[Deus Naturae]

The Confederate States seceded in order to preserve slavery. This is an established historical fact. Now everyone shut the f**k up.

What do you mean by preserve? Southern slavery was never threatened by Lincoln...he wanted to constitutionally protect its existence (see: Corwin Amendment) and supported the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Yes, there were wealthy Southern slaveholders who supported secession because their slave plantations would be more profitable in a tariff-free environment. They also wanted to expand slavery into new territories. Those who sat in Southern legislatures were primarily wealthy slaveholders, so this is reflected in the resolutions that Bore linked to several pages ago. On the other hand, the non-slaveholding Southern majority also had good reason to support secession - a >50% increase in the average tariff rate would have caused the price of vital goods manufactured in the industrial North to skyrocket. Non-slaveholding working Southerners would've been devastated (the system of slavery already retarded industrial development and economic growth, so the tariff hikes would've impoverished non-slaveholders even more). Furthermore, the Upper South States didn't even secede in response to Lincoln's election, but only once he announced his invasion of the Lower South. So, slavery preservation was in no sense the cause of secession. There were wealthy slaveholders who wanted to make their plantations more profitable and possibly expand slavery Southward into Mexico and the Caribbean, there were non-slaveholders who were opposed to the tariff increases, and there were residents of the Upper South who simply wanted to defend against all-out invasion. Not everyone who supported secession was automatically evil or primarily concerned with slavery. Given that none of the people who responded to the Pew survey owned slaves, it seems likely likely that they would support secession for one of the other two reasons. Well, actually, the survey asked about a hypothetical civil war in the future, so this whole discussion has been somewhat pointless. Regardless, supporting Southern secession does not necessarily make one a defender of slavery, as there were multiple reasons for that secession.

Getting back to the original argument which seems to be ignored every time I try to clarify it: How is someone a defender of slavery for saying that they would defend their home against an invading army that is invading with the stated intent of NOT abolishing slavery?

[Deus Naturae]

And, just to reiterate: I'm NOT defending 1850's/60's Southern society.

How is stating you would fight for the Confederacy not a defense of 1850s/60s Southern society?

First of all, when did I say that I would? That would probably depend on where I lived. If I actually lived in the South at the time, I'd likely would as a matter of self-defense, but otherwise I don't think I'd leave my home to join the Confederates.

Secondly, one need not be a defender of every or even most aspects of the society one lives in to want to defend one's home against an invader who is invading with the stated purpose of NOT changing those aspects but rather the imposition of taxes designed to enrich special interests.

[Deus Naturae]

First of all, you seem to prioritize defending your "country" over defending basic moral principles, because any support of the Confederacy is tantamount to support for slavery as every sane person has previously stated in this thread.

Secondly, I think one must be a defender of the certain aspect of society upon which the very existence of that "home" is based to defend it with a clean conscience. Do you deny that the Southern secession was because of slavery, that the Confederacy was built on slavery, that the purpose of the Confederacy's existence was the preservation of slavery against all threats real or imagined?

If the invader is not going to alter that aspect of society, I fail to see how it is at all relevant to the morality of attempting to defend against that invader. As I've attempted to explain several times, it makes no sense to say that siding with the invading Union forces over the Confederates is somehow taking a moral high ground against slavery, when the invading forces in question had the stated intent of not abolishing slavery.

As for the motivations behind secession, I've also addressed that previously in this thread, but I may as well do so again. The Upper South didn't even secede in response to Lincoln's election, and only did so once the invasion had been announced. So, it's clear that at the very least, the Upper South only seceded for reasons of self-defense/refusal to take up arms against the Lower South. The Lower South seceded for several reasons, and I agree that it would be ridiculous to discount slavery. Wealthy slaveholders, a) wanted to protect the profitability of their plantations, and b) had hopes of expanding slavery to new territories (though it's interesting to note that by seceding, they were essentially forfeiting their ability to extend slavery into Western territories under US control). In addition, the non-slaveholding majority also had an interest in supporting secession, namely the fact that the Morrill Tariff would have dramatically increased prices for vital goods. Generally, there was a feeling that the Republican Party was totally hostile to the South. Southerners (both directly and indirectly) payed the vast majority of the tariff burden, so the Republican platform of using tariff revenue to subsidize Northern corporations and finance infrastructure projects that would've disproportionately benefitted Northern commerce was abhorrent to all Southerners, regardless of whether they owned slaves. The reasons for secession were complex, which is why I object to the notion that every single person who fought for the Confederacy did so for the sole purpose of defending slavery (which, as I've noted many times previously, was not under attack by Lincoln or the invading Union forces).