# Was the American Civil War inevitable? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 3, 2012, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709 "2012-05-03T02:07:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2012, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/41 "2012-05-03T17:54:12Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Given that that clause was the major difference between the US Constitution and the Confederate one, I think amending the US one on that point would have prevented secession and war at least until free states composed a 3/4-th majority. (I need to figure out when that would be.) In 1858, there were 15 slave states and 17 free states. Assuming all future states join as free states, that means the slave states could block constitutional amendments until there were 15/0.25 = 60 states. Heh. šŸ™‚ So if they had passed an amendment denying Congress the power to ban or regulate slavery, the slave states could still block repeal of it. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > they [tried](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment#_) that. Ah, I didnā€™t know about the Corwin amendment. Apparently it was too late at that point. If theyā€™d tried something like that a decade earlier, I wonder how it would have gone. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2012, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/42 "2012-05-03T18:04:37Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > That may be true, but does that mean that their motives were not economic? I highly doubt it. Itā€™s hardly out of the mainstream to suggest that the tariff played a role in gaining support for the war. True, as far as it goes. What youā€™re not saying is that itā€™s widely agreed ā€“ almost universally among historians ā€“ that the Southā€™s unhappiness about tariffs was driven by their desire to preserve and extend plantation slavery. The South clung to its slavery system as a social system it preferred over a manufacturing economy. A very strong component of the Southern contempt for manufacturing was the desire to maintain the social hierarchy in which white, landed, old-money families were the social and economic kings of the hill. This is evident all over the literature, pamphlets, newspapers, diaries, letters, and speeches of the day, if you read them. The tariff did _not_ disadvantage the South ā€“ _unless_ the South refused to industrialize, which it did, largely because of the desire of the class in power to remain in power at the expense of others (quite literally, in the case of the slaves). And that class (and the attendant class structure) was supported by plantation slavery. So all talk of ā€œtariffsā€ is just coded talk for slavery. This isnā€™t something Iā€™ve come up with sitting at my keyboard. Read Catton, Foote, and particularly McPherson. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/43 "2012-05-03T18:11:21Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Ah, I didnā€™t know about the Corwin amendment. Apparently it was too late at that point. If theyā€™d tried something like that a decade earlier, I wonder how it would have gone. It was _definitely_ too late, an all-too- typical case of Congress putting off the difficult stuff until everyoneā€™s attitudes had hardened. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2012, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/44 "2012-05-03T18:27:23Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > If the Constitution was amended to deny the Congress the power to regulate or ban slavery, I believe the secession would have been avoided, or at least delayed by another generation or two. > > > > So how likely would such an amendment passing be? Iā€™m not sure. Obviously, the southern political class would be in favor of it, even if they thought it might eventually be repealed. There would be a large abolitionist movement against it. But I think a lot of more pragmatic politicians (like Lincoln) and people with a live-and-let-live attitude would support it. > > they [tried](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment#_) that. I wonder if the takings clause was intended as something of a check to that effect on the federal government ā€“ the idea being that youā€™d need to amend the Constitution to emancipate slaves without paying just compensation. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2012, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/45 "2012-05-03T18:51:03Z")
The tariff was pretty much inevitable. There was no income tax back then and the main source of government revenue was tariffs. And in order to collect revenue, you have to put a tariff on goods that actually get imported into your country. There was no point in having a tariff on cotton or tobacco or other agricultural products - nobody imported agricultural products into the United States. The big imports were manufactured goods so that was where the government put the tariff. This created an opportunity for American investors. The tariff raised the price of imported manufactured goods which meant there was a strong market for domestic manufactured goods. Smart investors saw this and started building factories. Itā€™s true that a large share of these factories were built in the northeast. But there was no government plan to this. Nothing prevented people in the south from building factories and taking advantage of the same conditions northern investors were using. Itā€™s just that southern investors chose otherwise - due to social reasons, they preferred to invest in land rather than manufacturing. Okay, they made their choice. But they had no cause to complain about the consequences of those choices. No sympathy to their cries of ā€œitā€™s no fair their economy is growing faster than ours just because they made smarter investments than we did.ā€ Iā€™ll also point out that the south wasnā€™t alone on the tariff issue. The western states were also based on an agricultural economy and the tariff system hurt them as well. But when the country divided, it didnā€™t split along pro-tariff and anti-tariff lines. The western states stayed with the northeast. The split was along slave and non-slave lines. Even in Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware, and Missouri there were attempts by slave holders to secede. But in those states, the majority was anti-slavery and they outvoted the pro-slavery minority. ---
**Author:** ![Oldeb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2012, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/46 "2012-05-03T18:58:50Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > That may be true, but does that mean that their motives were not economic? I highly doubt it. Itā€™s hardly out of the mainstream to suggest that the tariff played a role in gaining support for the war. Not a major one. It was a fringe idea in 1861. Itā€™s still a fringe idea 150 years later. The guy youā€™re basing this on was so unpopular in his day that not only did they vote him out of office at the first opportunity but they convicted him in a military tribunal of attempting to hinder the war. He was eventually shipped to the Confederacy, which he later fled for Canada. Vallandighamā€™s views were completely rejected by the people at the time. You canā€™t pretend he spoke for them in any meaningful way. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2012, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/47 "2012-05-03T19:39:28Z")
> [@Oldeb](#): > > Not a major one. It was a fringe idea in 1861. Itā€™s still a fringe idea 150 years later. The guy youā€™re basing this on was so unpopular in his day that not only did they vote him out of office at the first opportunity but they convicted him in a military tribunal of attempting to hinder the war. He was eventually shipped to the Confederacy, which he later fled for Canada. Vallandighamā€™s views were completely rejected by the people at the time. You canā€™t pretend he spoke for them in any meaningful way. This. I noted, going through his speech, that he was completely inaccurate in several of his claims. (The North, for example, never did anything to inhibit the South from building railroads or industry. Instead, the Southern plutocracy was simply indifferent to the notion of railroads and never invested in them, meaning they also lacked any infrastructure to ship manufacutured goods on a regular basis. (They also lacked the infrastructure to ship tobacco and cotton away from the rivers, but they rationalized that on the grounds that they could not justify the expense of railroads for seasonal shipments.) Any argument that places the disgraced and loony Vallandigham against the actual declarations of secession that emanated from the South is going to fail on historical fact. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2012, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/48 "2012-05-03T21:22:30Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Any argument that places the disgraced and loony Vallandigham against the actual declarations of secession that emanated from the South is going to fail on historical fact. What are you talking about? One attempts to explain why the North went to war, the other to explain why the South went to war. How would they form a counter argument? I believe you may be confused. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2012, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/49 "2012-05-03T21:25:11Z")
> [@Oldeb](#): > > Not a major one. It was a fringe idea in 1861. Itā€™s still a fringe idea 150 years later. The guy youā€™re basing this on was so unpopular in his day that not only did they vote him out of office at the first opportunity but they convicted him in a military tribunal of attempting to hinder the war. He was eventually shipped to the Confederacy, which he later fled for Canada. Vallandighamā€™s views were completely rejected by the people at the time. You canā€™t pretend he spoke for them in any meaningful way. Provide evidence that he North had other reasons for going to war. Itā€™s a question Iā€™ve asked up thread and got no response. ---
**Author:** ![Oldeb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2012, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/50 "2012-05-03T22:12:29Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Provide evidence that he North had other reasons for going to war. Itā€™s a question Iā€™ve asked up thread and got no response. Iā€¦ what? šŸ˜• There is no possible way this can be an honest question. It was their country? I assume this is going to be some lame stateā€™s rights segue, but are you really incapable of understanding that some people see the USA as a single entity? That the attack on Fort Sumter was an act of domestic terrorism? Itā€™s like asking why Timothy McVeigh was condemned by people living outside Oklahoma. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2012, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/51 "2012-05-03T23:08:44Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > What are you talking about? One attempts to explain why the North went to war, the other to explain why the South went to war. How would they form a counter argument? I believe you may be confused. The one that pretends to explain why the North went to war, however, is simply bullshit from a supporter of the South pretending to speak for the North. I am gald for you that you have found one speech and a couple of cherry-picked editorials that make the spurious claim that the North went to war for economic reasons. Unfortunately, those reasons are _ad hoc_ and are drowned out by the overwhelming number of speeches, editorials, and other information that demonstrate that the political leaders of the North and the populace of the North were pretty strongly unified by the notion that the South was breaking the union and that such an act was intolerable. There were also several regions in the South, (notably the northwest section of Virginia, the eastern section of Tennessee, and the northeast corner of Alabama), who resisted secession, but who should have been strictly aligned with the South if the issue was purely economic. As I noted, Vallandigham got his basic facts wrong on multiple issues, so there is no reason to believe that he actually had a clue in regard to what he was saying. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2012, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/52 "2012-05-03T23:14:28Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Provide evidence that he North had other reasons for going to war. Itā€™s a question Iā€™ve asked up thread and got no response. Probably, no one thought you were serious. The North went to war to preserve the union. The actions of the South were seen as treasonous and, to a certain extent, insulting. They were claiming to secede to preserve slavery when only a tiny handful of Abolitionists, (who did not have the support of any major political party), were agitating against slavery and Northerners found it spiteful to wreck the country to preserve something that Northerners, by and large, did not believe was under attack. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/53 "2012-05-04T13:54:44Z")
First of all, Vallandigham was subsequently nominated as the Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio in 1863 (though he lost in a landslide). Also, he was heavily involved in the partyā€™s presidential convention in '64 and his peace plank was passed. To characterize him as a ā€œloonā€, ā€œfringeā€, and ā€œdisgracedā€ is either wrong or dishonest. There was obviously a contingent that supported his views. [On the tariff:](http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/pearlston1.html) > [@](#): > > ā€¦ the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: ā€œYou are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions.ā€ > [@](#): > > On 18 March, the Boston Transcript noted that while the Southern states had claimed to secede over the slavery issue, now ā€œthe mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern portsā€¦by a revenue system verging on free tradeā€¦ā€ Charles Dickensā€™ magazine in 1861: ā€œUnion means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evilsā€¦The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrelā€ [From wikipedia:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff) (emphasis my own) > [@](#): > > Robert Barnwell Rhett similarly railed against the then-pending Morrill Tariff before the South Carolina convention. Rhett included a lengthy attack on tariffs in the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States, **which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.** > > And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenueā€” to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.[22] [Abolitionist Orestes Brownson (emphasis my own)](http://www.orestesbrownson.com/742.html) > [@](#): > > Our commercial cities had become almost completely southernized in their views of slavery, and opposition to the existence of slavery, or even to its extension into new territory, has had very little influence with the merchants of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, **and the interests of trade, far more than patriotism or loyalty, have moved them to support the administration in suppressing the rebellion.** The Morrill tariff moved them more than the fall of Sumter. The commercial class in no country and in no age is remarkable for patriotism, and finds usually its country where its profits are largest, or best secured, ft with us seeks to preserve the integrity of the Union, for if that should be lost, they would lose a large portion of their trade. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/54 "2012-05-04T15:21:53Z")
I have my doubts that this will work but Iā€™ll be able to say I tried. Hereā€™s a link to the [Declaration of Causes of Seceding States](http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html). These are the official public statements that the seceding states issued at the time they were seceding in which they explained the reasons they were seceding. So on the subject of why the southern states seceded, this is the Word of God. Now go to that page and use your word search function. Look for the word ā€œtariffā€. How many times do you find it mentioned? Now search for the word ā€œslaveā€. How many times do you find that mentioned? The answers are zero and eighty-two. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/55 "2012-05-04T15:31:13Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I have my doubts that this will work but Iā€™ll be able to say I tried. > > Hereā€™s a link to the [Declaration of Causes of Seceding States](http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html). These are the official public statements that the seceding states issued at the time they were seceding in which they explained the reasons they were seceding. So on the subject of why the southern states seceded, this is the Word of God. > > Now go to that page and use your word search function. Look for the word ā€œtariffā€. How many times do you find it mentioned? > > Now search for the word ā€œslaveā€. How many times do you find that mentioned? > > The answers are zero and eighty-two. Maybe you ignored this part? > [@](#): > > Rhett included a lengthy attack on tariffs in the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States, **which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.** Anyway, this only explains why the states seceded, not why there was a war. The North could have let the states secede. They didnā€™t for economic reasons. The subject of this thread is whether or not the CW was inevitable. I believe it wasnā€™t inevitable, the Union could have let the states secede, but they did not. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/56 "2012-05-04T15:40:29Z")
From \*\*Little Nemoā€™s \*\*own cite in which he claims the declarations of secession make no reference to tariffs: From the Georgia declaration, on the Republican party: > [@](#): > > While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges Sounds like tariff talk to me. Also from the same cite: > [@](#): > > The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/57 "2012-05-04T15:54:32Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I have my doubts that this will work but Iā€™ll be able to say I tried. The patient is still dead, but let the record show that you [administered the medication](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/62025). ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/58 "2012-05-04T15:55:37Z")
I said I didnā€™t have much hope. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/59 "2012-05-04T16:04:31Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I said I didnā€™t have much hope. Ok iā€™ll try again. It seems like you donā€™t want to read anything more than a sentence long so iā€™ll try to oblige and highlight the key parts: The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the **navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests**. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. **The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade**. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, **the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.** ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/60 "2012-05-04T16:05:14Z")
If only we had some clue as to what the causes of secession where. > [@](#): > > The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. Some clue. > [@](#): > > We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. Some little hint. > [@](#): > > In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. But I guess weā€™ll never know what their reasons were. > [@](#): > > In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. > > Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709.md?page=4)