I have read the articles http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_03_2_dilorenzo.pdf , http://mises.org/daily/671, and http://blog.mises.org/7933/the-road-to-civil-war/. I am confused about what "The Road to Civil War" is saying. I am only 16 and am a little confused at times based on my age although I have read a lot of Austrian works. I have read Rothbard before, but the part in "The Road to Civil War" talking about Dread Scott and nullification confuses me. I don't know what he means by free soil, how Dread Scott has anything to do with this, and why Dread Scott means nullification and State's Rights weren't powerful enough and why they called for secession. I also read from DiLorenzo that the main problem was Tariff's that were biased in encouraging Northern production at the expense of the South. What is the real reason, and can anyone clear things up for me please. I am discussing the American Civil War in class tomorow and my textboox is telling us lies about how slavery was the main cause and it inspired Lincoln to take action, which I know is false. So if anyone can clear up whether nullification or tarriffs were the issue, what the real issue was, why secession was neccesary and how Dread Scott relates, and how slavery tied in, I would be really grateful. Thank you.
In a nut shell: high tariffs imposed on the Southern states led to the South seceding from the Union. Throw in nullification somewhere in between. Lincoln uses his power to "preserve the Union" instead of following the Constitution and respecting State's rights. Slavery came in at the end, because even some Northern states were not that concerned with the issue, and Lincoln wanted some friendly states bordering the North. People think the Civil War was about slavery, and that Lincoln is a hero. In reality it was about State's rights, and Lincoln is a tyrant.
I haven't actually read anything on the civil war since 11th grade, so I'm a bit rusty. I should pick up some books on it soon.
Just be careful presenting these views in your class. Disagreeing with Lincoln is sacrilege and puts you at risk of being called a racist.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
From his 1st inaugural address:
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
It never made sense to me why a bunch of poor and middle class whites in the South fought for the right of the weathly to own slaves. I am told its they were willing to sacrifice their sons, husbands and brothers for only the esthetic of being superior to blacks? It just never made sense.
But a political struggle over taxes, rights, and power. Now that sounds familiar.
but to be fair, here is the body of the Cornerstone speech made in 1861 by Alexander Stephens the VP of the CSA:
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
At the time this was not controversial. The sentiments in this passage were held almost universally. The issue of slavery became a rallying point because it was the most obvious difference between the states advocating for states’ rights and the states advocating federal control. The common thread through all the issues leading up the War of Northern Aggression (tariffs, slavery, internal improvements, etc.) is the issue of federal vrs. State power.
Slavery + some lesser issues, like tariffs.
scineram: Slavery + some lesser issues, like tariffs.
The most devisive issue for decades leading up the Civil War were tariffs. South Carolina was on the verge of seccession decades before the election of Lincoln. The issue of slavery was minor untill the territories out west began to be admitted as states. This threatened the balance of power in the Senate. So then the issue of where slavery would be permitted became an issue. It was all about maintaining the balance of power. So you see all of the minor issues (slavery, taxation, westward expansion, etc.) were about political power.
But some how all of these non slave holders in the South decided to die for the weathy landowners right to hold slaves. We are told that Southerners viewed slaves as nothing more than farm animals. So really we are expected to believe that these people gave up life, limb, and property so a handfull of insanely rich aristocrats could own farm animals.
Fantasy. This is nothing more than the victors writing history and attempting to justify and vindicate themselves.
The war, more than anything in particular, was about state versus federal power.
Nah. Had the South been firmly in control of the federal government there wouldn't have been any objections to increase in federal power. That is not what they resented.More fundamentally the war was about the North wanting to tell the South what to do and the South hating the patronage and the presumptuous Northerners.
Marko:Nah. Had the South been firmly in control of the federal government there wouldn't have been any objections to increase in federal power.
I agree whole heartedly.
Marko:More fundamentally the war was about the North wanting to tell the South what to do and the South hating the patronage and the presumptuous Northerners.
Agreed. The reason the fight was over federal vrs. state power is because the South was able for decades to prevent the North from politically dominating the South through a balance of power in the Senate. The opening up of the West to statehood threatened to upset that balance that the South needed so badly to prevent what felt would be the relegation of the South into nothing more than a colony of the North.
The South fought the war to maintain its relative independance and political relevance. Which manifest itself as a struggle between state power and federal power.
Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
None of them are whining about tariffs. They are mostly bitching about western nonslave states and not returning fugitive slaves from there and the North.
scineram: Declaration of Causes of Seceding States None of them are whining about tariffs. They are mostly bitching about western nonslave states and not returning fugitive slaves from there and the North.
Did you read my previous post that stated slavery became a rallying point? You cant ignore the fifty years of history leading up the Civil War.
It the same with the tea parties today. Taxes, debt, and deficits have sparked a huge political response. But is that all that the tea parties are about? It seems there has been a growing under current of dissatisfaction in the US for literaly decades. The tea parties and slavery became lightning rods and an out let for all the pent up and underlieing problems.