|
jlf1961 -> RE: A History Lesson (8/23/2017 12:24:15 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tamaka
Here is some food for thought in these troubling times. All of this is fact, and is public record.
The Civil War almost happened in 1832. Prior to the Revenue Act of 1861, there was no federal income tax in the US. Prior to that, 90% of federal revenue was derived from import tariffs. These tariffs varied by goods but averaged 15 to 20%. In turn, the European countries that were importing US goods charged a similar tariff rate.
Nation to nation this may seem like an equitable arrangement, but domestically it was very unbalanced. The bulk of industrial goods, produced in the north, were being consumed within the US. On the other hand, 80% of the agricultural goods produced in the south were being exported. In short, the tariff was forcing the south to charge higher prices for the goods that it sold, while at the same time forcing them to pay more for the industrial goods that they had to purchase.
In the early to mid 1800’s, the south only comprised about 30% of the US population, but it was paying about 80% of the revenue that the federal government was collecting.
Things came to a head in 1832, the fed had enacted two new tariffs and had effectively raised the tariff rate to almost 50%. South Carolina responded with a state convention and articles of nullification. This nearly led to secession and armed conflict. This is know as the “Nullification Crisis”. Fortunately, a compromise was reached in 1833 and the tariff rate was reduced to an average of 20%.
In the late 1850’s, the US was experiencing a recession. The recession had the most effect on the industrial north. Using the recession as an excuse, in May of 1860, the federal government passed the Morrill Tariff. This effectively raised the tariff rate to 50%. This was a highly partisan act. Only one southern congressman, out of 50, voted in favor of the tariff.
South Carolina responded in December by seceding from the union. They were quickly followed, in January of 1861, by five more southern states. By June of 1861, the eleven primary southern states had all seceded from the union.
This was major concern to the northern controlled union government. They new how much they relied upon the south for federal revenue. Conversely, the general populace in the north had an attitude of “let them go”. They didn’t see the significance of the departure of the southern states and also most people recognized that the union was designed for mutual benefit and also recognized that each state had a right to secede.
Www.overpassesforamerica.com › ?p=54695
What Tamaka convienently forgot to put in her brief history lesson, in order of priority:
States' Rights
The idea of states' rights was not new to the Civil War. Since the Constitution was first written there had been arguments about how much power the states should have versus how much power the federal government should have. The southern states felt that the federal government was taking away their rights and powers.
Expansion
As the United States continued to expand westward, each new state added to the country shifted the power between the North and the South. Southern states began to fear they would lose so much power that they would lose all their rights. Each new state became a battleground between the two sides for power.
Slavery
Contrary to what movies and TV series about the war would want you to believe, the southern land owners money was not tied up in land, crops or even privately owned cotton gins.
Their money was tied up in slaves.
Cotton is still a labor intensive crop, albeit the labor is now mechanical, but prior to mechanical harvesters there was only one way to harvest the crop, by hand.
This required a lot of cheap labor.
Now, what the op forgot to mention was that, cotton was exported from the south, but less than 40% of the crop went to foreign markets, most went to mills in the North.
Mills that would not purchase the more expensive foreign produced cotton from countries that had abolished slavery and thus were paying people to pick the crops, making the end product more expensive.
Of course, cotton would not have been a major crop in the South had it not been for Eli Whitney inventing the cotton gin.
Picking the cotton was only part of the problem, the real issue was separating cotton from the seeds. Prior to the invention of the cotton gin, it was done by carding, which is a hand separating process and required more slaves than it was worth.
Prior to the invention of the cotton gin, other crops dominated the south, indigo, tobacco were primary crops, along with the staple food crops.
None of these required a large number of slaves, so in essence, slavery (on a massive scale) was on its way out.
The cotton gin ended that, and cotton became king.
Another issue about slavery that many do not know, but I have mentioned countless times.
Prior to the civil war, during the late 1840's and through the 1850's there were some massive cotton crop failures in the south, due to a bug that loves cotton, the boil weevil.
This meant that plantation owners needed loans to buy seeds for the next years crops. Banking was big business in the North, not so much in the south. Northern banks flocked to the south to give loans, and being good business men, saw that the land or even a percentage of the future crop paled in value to the slaves that worked the crops.
90% of those loans made were made with the slaves as the main collateral, the land and facilities as secondary collateral, at least in the last years leading up to the civil war.
Finally, while Boston, New York and the wealthy ship owners may have had abolitionist sympathies, they were business people at heart.
Ships sailed from nothern ports with goods bound for European ports, which in turn were sold to buy goods desired in Africa.
The goods sold in Africa bought slaves bound at first to the Southern states, and after the laws passed making importing slaves illegal, to ports in the Indies where they were sold to buy sugar, molasses and Rum.
While more than willing to abolish slavery, these people were also more than willing to make a profit off the slave trade.
Bleeding Kansas
Some historians would make the case for this violent conflict as the first shots of the civil war.
While Kansas eventually entered the union as a free state, the violence continued for years, and during the civil war, raiders from Kansas carried out bloody raids into slave states, in some cases making those conducted by Bloody Bill Anderson look almost pacifistic in comparison.
Abraham Lincoln
Many states made it clear if Lincoln won the election that they would secede from the Union.
Lincoln won the election even though he was not on the ballot in ten southern states.
A few other facts about Lincoln that Americans want to ignore.
In 1833, the British Empire outlawed slavery.
They also compensated slave owners totaling 20 million pounds sterling, so British Empire slave owners did not go broke over night.
Similar legislation was introduced four times prior to the civil war and each time either did not pass senate and house vote or never made it out of committee.
The justification given, "Southern slave owners should not profit from the abolishing of slavery."
In other words, not only was the anti slave north more than willing to abolish slavery, but they were equally willing to live families destitute in the process, by eliminating financial assets.
Lincoln was one of the Northern politicians that favored abolishing slavery without compensation.
Of course, it has already been mentioned that after the civil war, no laws were passed at a Federal level that protected the now free slaves, they could not vote, it was legal to pay them far less than what a white worker was paid, and as far as rights went, on some levels they had more rights as slaves than as free men.
And it was true even in the US Army.
Black soldiers got paid a third of what a white soldier (or even an Indian scout) was paid. They were equipped with weapons that substandard compared to whites (who were using the new weapons with brass cartridges rather than cap and ball) and often wore uniforms that barely held together being of sub standard quality.
|
|
|
|
