Debunking the Civil War Tariff Myth


Marc-William Palen
History Department, University of Exeter
Follow on Twitter @MWPalen

The outbreak of the American Civil War is now more than 150 years past. All the while, the question of what caused the conflict continues to spark disagreement, this despite a longstanding consensus among specialists that slavery – a cultural, political, ideological, and economic institution that permeated (and divided) mid-19th-century American society – was the primary cause of the war. One of the most egregious of the so-called Lost Cause narratives instead suggests that it was not slavery, but a protective tariff that sparked the Civil War.

On 2 March 1861, the Morrill Tariff was signed into law by outgoing Democratic President James Buchanan to protect northern infant industries. A pernicious lie quickly formed around the tariff’s passage, a lie suggesting that somehow this tariff had caused the US Civil War. By ignoring slavery’s central role in precipitating secession and Civil War, this tariff myth has survived in the United States for more than a century and a half – and needs to be debunked once and for all.

In trying to make their case but lacking adequate evidence for the 1860-61 period, “Lost Cause” advocates instead commonly hark back to the previously important role that another protective tariff had played in the 1832 Nullification Crisis. They then (mistakenly) assume the political scenario to have been the same three decades later – that southern secession from 1860-61 was but a replay of the divisive tariff politics of some thirty years before. From this faulty leap of logic, the argument then follows that the Republican Party’s legislative efforts on behalf of the Morrill Tariff from 1860 until its March 1861 passage became the primary reason for southern secession – and thus for causing the Civil War.

Because of the unfortunate timing of the Morrill Tariff’s passage – coinciding closely as it did with the secession of various southern states – this has remained perhaps the most tenacious myth surrounding the Civil War’s onset, and one that blatantly ignores the decidedly divisive role of slavery in mid-century American politics and society. Accordingly, the sesquicentennial of the Civil War has  witnessed a slew of ahistorical tariff-centered explanations for the conflict’s causation, articles like “Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War,” which appeared in Forbes Magazine in June 2013. Although the article was quickly pulled from the Forbes website following a rapid response from historians on Twitter (#twitterstorians), this particular piece of tariff fiction still exists on the author’s website as well as in a local Virginia newspaper, the Daily Progress.[1]

Similar tariff-driven arguments for the war’s causation continue to be given voice in American news outlets, in viral Youtube videos, and even on a recent Daily Show episode: No, not by host Jon Stewart, but by that evening’s guest, Judge Andrew Napolitano, a FOX news analyst and NYC law professor. In response to Stewart’s question “Why did Abraham Lincoln start the Civil War?”, Napolitano answered: “Because he needed the tariffs from the southern states.”[2]

The Civil War’s tariff myth has somehow survived for more than a century and a half in the United States. Let’s put an end to it.

In debunking the tariff myth, two key points quickly illustrate how the tariff issue was far from a cause of the Civil War:

1. The tariff issue, on those rare occasions in which it was even mentioned at all, was utterly overwhelmed by the issue of slavery within the South’s own secession conventions.

2. Precisely because southern states began seceding from December 1860 onwards, a number of southern senators had resigned that could otherwise have voted against the tariff bill. Had they not resigned, they would have had enough votes in the Senate to successfully block the tariff’s congressional passage.

Screen Shot 2015-02-22 at 11.35.30

In other words, far from causing the Civil War or secession, the Morrill Tariff of March 1861 became law as a result of southern secession.

The Tariff Myth’s Transatlantic Origins

Okay. So the Morrill Tariff clearly did not cause either secession or the Civil War. Then how and why did the myth arise?

As I have recently explored in the New York Times (“The Great Civil War Lie”) and at greater length in the Journal of the Civil War Era, the Civil War tariff myth first arose on the eve of the bill’s March 1861 passage. But the myth did not originate in the United States – it first took root in Free Trade England.

Southern congressmen had opposed the protectionist legislation, which is why it passed so easily after several southern states seceded in December 1860 and the first months of 1861. However, this coincidence of timing fed a mistaken inversion of causation among the British public, with many initially speculating that it was an underlying cause of secession, or at least that it impeded any chance of reunion.

The tariff thus played an integral role in confounding British opinion about the causes of southern secession, and in enhancing the possibility of British recognition of the Confederacy. And thus “across the pond” the myth was born that the the Morrill Tariff had caused the Civil War.

Nor was the tariff myth’s transatlantic conception immaculate. As I’ve previously noted, it was crafted by canny Southern agents in the hopes of confounding British public opinion so as to obtain British recognition of the Confederacy:

Pro-Southern business interests and journalists fed the myth that the war was over trade, not slavery – the better to win over people who might be appalled at siding with slave owners against the forces of abolition. On March 12, 1861, just 10 days after the Morrill Tariff had become law, The London Times gave editorial voice to the tariff lie. The newspaper pronounced that “Protection was quite as much a cause of the disruption of the Union as Slavery,” and remarked upon how the Morrill Tariff had “much changed the tone of public feeling” in favor of “the Secessionists.”

The pro-North magazine Fraser’s made the more accurate observation that the new Northern tariff had handily given the Confederacy “an ex post facto justification” for secession, but British newspapers would continue to give voice to the Morrill myth for many months to come.

Why was England so susceptible to this fiction? For one thing, the Union did not immediately declare itself on a crusade for abolition at the war’s outset. Instead, Northern politicians cited vague notions of “union” – which could easily sound like an effort to put a noble gloss on a crass commercial dispute.

It also helped that commerce was anything but crass in Britain. On the question of free trade, the British “are unanimous and fanatical,” as the abolitionist and laissez-faire advocate Richard Cobden pointed out in December 1861. The Morrill Tariff was pejoratively nicknamed the “Immoral” tariff by British wags. It was easy for them to see the South as a kindred oppressed spirit.[3]

As a result, over the course of the first two years of the Civil War, the tariff myth grew in proportion and in popularity across the Atlantic, propagated by pro-South sympathizers and by the Confederate State Department.

Debunking the Tariff Myth

It would take the concerted efforts of abolitionists like John Stuart Mill, alongside Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, to debunk the Civil War tariff myth in Britain:

The Union soon obtained some much needed trans-Atlantic help from none other than the English liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill. By the beginning of 1862, the tariff myth had gained enough public traction to earn Mill’s intellectual ire, and he proved quite effective at voicing his opinion concerning slavery’s centrality to the conflict. He sought to refute this “theory in England, believed by some, half believed by many more … that, on the side of the North, the question is not one of slavery at all.”

Assuming this to be true, Mill asked, then “what are the Southern chiefs fighting about? Their apologists in England say that it is about tariffs, and similar trumpery.” Yet, Mill noted, the Southerners themselves “say nothing of the kind. They tell the world … that the object of the fight was slavery. … Slavery alone was thought of, alone talked of … the South separated on slavery, and proclaimed slavery as the one cause of separation.”

Mill concluded with a prediction that the Civil War would soon placate the abolitionists on both sides of the Atlantic. That, as the war progressed, “the contest would become distinctly an anti-slavery one,” and the tariff fable finally forgotten.

Mill’s prescient antislavery vision eventually begin to take hold in Britain, but only after Abraham Lincoln himself got involved in the trans-Atlantic fight for British hearts and minds when he put forth his Emancipation Proclamation in January 1863.

By February, Cobden happily observed how Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation had aroused “our old anti-slavery feeling … and it has been gathering strength ever since.” […] And so, two years after the Morrill Tariff’s March 1861 passage, Northern antislavery advocates had finally exploded the transatlantic tariff myth.[4]

It only took the British public about two years to see through the tariff myth, and to recognize the centrality of slavery. In contrast – and tragically – for more than 150 years afterwards the same tariff myth has somehow continued to survive in the United States.

Dr. Marc-William Palen is a historian at the University of Exeter. He is the author of “The Great Civil War Lie,” New York Times, 5 June 2013; “The Civil War’s Forgotten Transatlantic Tariff Debate and the Confederacy’s Free Trade Diplomacy,” Journal of the Civil War Era (March 2013); and The “Conspiracy” of Free Trade: The Anglo-American Struggle over Empire and Economic Globalisation, 1846-1896 (Cambridge University Press, 2016).


[1] “Protective Tariffs: Primary Cause of the Civil War,” Daily Progress, 23 June 2013. See, also, Mark Cheatham’s critical response to the Forbes piece, “Were Tariffs the Cause of the Civil War?“, showing how slavery overwhelmingly dominated state secessionist conventions; Phil Magness’s dismantling of both extreme ends of the debate in “Before You Start Claiming that Tariffs Caused the Civil War…” and “Did Tariffs Really Cause the Civil War? The Morrill Act at 150“; and Andy Hall, “Walter E. Williams Polishes the Turd on Tariffs.” You can read the secessionist ordinances in full here.

[2] (If you must), see, et al., “Tariffs, not Slavery, Precipitated the Civil War,” Baltimore Sun, 6 July 2013; “Understanding the Causes of the Uncivil War: A Brief Explanation of the Impact of the Morrill Tariff,” Asheville Tribune; The True Cause of the Civil War,” Soda Head, 4 October 2010; “The Morrill Tariff Sparked War Between the States,” Madison Journal Today, 10 March 2014; “Real Causes of ‘The Civil War,’Youtube; “Economic Reasons for the War,” TV Ad, Sons of Confederate Veterans.

[3] “The Great Civil War Lie,” New York Times, 5 June 2013.

[4] “The Great Civil War Lie,” New York Times, 5 June 2013.

161 thoughts on “Debunking the Civil War Tariff Myth

    1. Prof. Palin deals, at once, with two different issues which, while closely related, might be addressed separately for greater clarity:
      1. Was the Morrill Tariff either the principal or the but-for cause of Secession and, hence, of the American Civil War? Current thinking seems to be that it was neither; that it was only one of a series of subsidiary Southern grievances. It seemed currently agreed that Southern concern over the in eminent loss of ability to protect slavery for the long-term was the principal cause of Secession. That seems to be correct but not at a confidence level to make the counterargument risible. The public utterances of Southern decision-makers prior to Secession and the declarations of the State Legislatures just might have been propaganda designed to appeal to a common denominator of Southern opinion. On the other hand, Southern statements supporting the tariff argument made after commitment to secession probably were propaganda for overseas consumption and entitled to little weight. The revisionists would seem to bear the burden of proof and, as yet, not to have met it.
      2. The more interesting topic is the effect of the tariff argument upon the actions of the British Government That might be worth studying in isolation, while assuming arguendo the generally accepted answer to the first question above.

  1. May I respectful suggest that “pernicious lie” and the attitude it suggests is out of uniform in a serious historical discussion.

  2. Southern leaders were already killing to spread slavery, and bragging of it, from 1856 on. Loudly, proudly, repeatedly, in context, bragging about killing to spread slavery, and stop speech against slavery.

    When you understand who David Rice Atchison was (US Senator who got Kansas bill passed) you won’t be so easily duped by Southern apologists nonsense.

    What SOuthern leaders bragged about then, in speeches, in books, in official documents, you will see they were livid and intent on killing to spread slavery, and were already doing that. Jeff Davis himself said the resistance to the spread of slavery in KS was the “intolerable grievance”.

    No one — not one human being alive then — was at all surprised to see the five ultimatums by the South, after they seceded. In Richmond headlines, they claimed proudly that the “TRUE ISSUE” was the spread of slavery into Kansas and the West. Of five ultimatums, the first two were about the spread of slavery west.

    Never mind that Kansas was already a free state, and already the voters there rejected slavery by 95%, and fought a war against Davis paid mercenaries under David Rice Atchison.

    Enough drivel about states rights and tariffs — South hated states rights and killed to stop anyone from even speaking against slavery.

    Learn what SOuthern leaders did and boasted of at the time, you wont be so gullible.

    1. If you knew anything about history you would know that expansion of slavery westward was all but shut off. The Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery in the west above 36’30” North except for the state of Missouri. All the lands west below that latitude was mostly Indian land or desert land. The only lands which were in condition to be farmed out west was above the 36’30” line. There was no place to expand slavery. The Constitution of the CSA also outlawed the importation of slaves from any lands outside the CSA or USA.

      95% of southerners could not afford a slave which cost more than some southerners made in a lifetime.But they were effected by the tariffs as they were limited as to where they could sell their crops and also limited as to where they could buy needed goods. Lincoln never even mention slavery in context of the war until after the 2nd battle of Antietam. As Confederate troops had taken the battle to the Union Forces and were fighting was mainly taking place in the north. As Union troops lost battle after battle.

      Slavery issue did not keep England from entering the war on the side of the Confederacy. It was threats by Russia who said they would declare war on England if they did, which prevented England from coming into the war on the side of the Confederacy. This was due to the work of ambassador Cassius M Clay. A former slave owner himself who was a candidate for President when Lincoln won. Lincoln awarded with with an ambassadorship for supporting him in the convention. Yes, before you ask a former slave of Cassius M Clay named his son after the former slave owner and his grandson was named after his father until he converted to islam and changed his name to Muhammad Ali.

      1. Apparently it is you who has no clue about American History. The South wanted to expand into the Western territories, and that is a fact. Actually, they wanted to purchase Cuba & spread slavery there as well. The CSA Constitution also made slavery permanent & no states could get rid of it. Seeing as how 9% of Southerners “Held Title” to slaves, your “95%” is flat wrong. If you count in families, the numbers jump to 30%-in some states like Mississippi & South Carolina, it was closer to 50%. The tariffs were a small factor-the Deep South left before the Morrill Tariff was passed & no Southern states left immediately after it passed. Union troops lost battle after battle? You must be only thinking of the Eastern theater. The Union was winning battle after battle in the West, Trans-Mississippi, and Coastal battles. The slavery issue DID keep England from entering in the war. Not one nation formally recognized the Confederacy. England gave them belligerency status so they could trade. That was it. The majority of folks in England did not support the South. Read Amanda Foreman’s “The World on Fire”, which quickly destroys the myth of an England enthusiastically wanting to support the South.

      2. Most hilarious part about the idiot “Muhammad Ali”. Is that Muhammad was a slave TRADER. Meaning he had the most slaves, took the most slaves, and sold the most slaves. Not only this, but it was because he was racist, not because he needed work. He literally deemed these people to be the serving dogs of real humans.

    2. By chance would you have the cites for your statement “Richmond headlines, they claimed proudly that the “TRUE ISSUE” was the spread of slavery into Kansas and the West”?

    3. By chance would you the cites to document your statement “…Richmond headlines, they claimed proudly that the “TRUE ISSUE” was the spread of slavery into Kansas and the West…”? Thanks

  3. This is a bunch of opinion why did Lincoln say when asked why not let the South go in peace his reply was Who will pay for Government. The Emancipation Proclamation why did that only free slaves in the states of rebellion not the Northern Slave States. Very few White Southerners owned Slaves that fought against the Union. Most Union Soldiers to quote history did not believe in fighting and dying for the Darkies meaning the African Americans. The Emancipation Proclamation that freed the Slaves only for the states in rebellion would have to be redone as the 13th Amendment which was not ratified by Delaware I believe until 1901 a Union State. Earlier the South tried Succession Under Andrew Jackson’s adminastration until he threatened Military force.

    1. Because Lincoln didn’t say as much. Lost Cause nonsense. There was almost no slavery left in the North-only New Jersey had 18 elderly slaves as “apprentices for life”. The Border states had them, but those weren’t “Northern states”. And the reason the EP couldn’t free them was because of the Constitution. It would literally take an act of Congress (13th Amendment)to destroy slavery in the U.S. The EP only targeted those states in rebellion. 8% of Southerners “held title”, but that is misleading-the father in a family normally held title to all slaves. That doesn’t mean that the sons weren’t affected by it. Indeed, if you count families, the numbers rise to 30% for the whole South & approach 50% in South Carolina & Mississippi. While Delaware didn’t ratify till 1901, the slaves there were freed in 1865. And no, the South didn’t try secession (not sucession) under Andre Jackson-South Carolina alone tried nullification & threatened secession. A History course in college would refute most of this.

      1. New Jersey and Delaware northern slaves state rejected the 13th amendment when it was first came up for ratification in the state and still allowed slavery after the civil war. Delaware did not ratify it until 1901.

        What people did not realize is that Lincoln never freed a single slave. The emancipation Proclamation was nothing but a ceremonial PR piece since he had no authority to free slaves in the Confederacy which was no longer a part of the union and it did not cover slavery in northern states. Andrew Johnson was President when the 13th amendment was ratified.

        There was very violent draft riots in NYC when Lincoln changed the focus of the war from preserving the Union to freeing the slaves. Thousands refused to go to war to free slaves. Which led to lynching of blacks on the streets of NYC while other blacks were driven out of town by mobs.

      2. Regardless of when they ratified, slavery was dead in 1865. Adoption of the Amendment was by majority, not by unanimous consent. Trying to twist history to suit an agenda there? Lincoln freed thousands of slaves. That shows an utter lack of historical knowledge. The 13th passed under Lincoln. The draft riots weren’t about race, they were about politics. Again, your ignorance is showing.

    2. Thank-you for your query, I believe those quotes to be completely false but nevertheless I will offer you what I know of it. The earliest publication of the quote that I am aware of comes from the Southern Historical Society Papers Volume 1 printed in 1876 the Reverend John William Jones. In a section entitled Memoir of a Narrative Received of Colonel John B. Baldwin, of Staunton, Touching the Origin of the War is the location from which this quote was attributed. Baldwin was a Virginia commissioner sent to Washington on April 4th of 1861 to discuss how to keep Virginia loyal to the Union. Supposedly during the course of the interview when Baldwin suggests to Lincoln about allowing the South to go peacefully and that they would eventually return of their own volition that Lincoln responds “And open Charleston, &c., as ports of entry, with their ten per cent. tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?” Now here is where I take issue with this supposed direct quote and its historical accuracy. First of all, the tariff of 1857 which is what the country had been operating under was not ten percent but rather closer to twenty percent depending on the individual items. Secondly, the ports of the south had not yet been closed when this meeting took place. It would be nearly two weeks later, after the attack on Fort Sumter when Lincoln ordered that the United States Navy begin blockading operations. The third problem I have with this whole story is that the author admits that he heard the story from Colonel Baldwin in March of 1865 regarding what had happened four years earlier. The author asked the Colonel at that time if he would write it down for him but the Colonel refused. So sometime between 1865 and its publication in 1876 the author wrote the story to the best of his recollection and published it in this book. In the end you have a man recalling a second hand conversation held years earlier and is offering it up as historical truth.

  4. Apparently there is no end to Liberal history revisionism. You people never cease to amaze me. The war started over tariffs is historical FACT. And if you think for a minute white people from north or south would fight and die for slaves, is on its face ludicrous and you know it. Please keep your fantasy to yourself.

      1. You do recall basic American history don’t you? This country wouldn’t exist if not for people who were willing to fight and die over tariffs…

      2. Do you? Taxes on the colonies wojld have affected a larger percentage of the population than tariffs would have on the South, which was paid by merchants doing the the importing. Most southerners were yoeman farmers who grew their food and made their own clothes, they importing anything. There wasn’t anyway for the colonists to avoid the wide array taxes the British imposed.

    1. Kevin’s ignorance as to History is pretty profound. All you have to do is read what the Southern leadership was saying at the time. Slavery was the primary reason.

  5. Mr. Palen,

    I’m afraid you’ve overlooked something. The Morrill Tariff passed the House of Representatives on May 10, 1860, (105 votes to 64 votes), more than 7 months prior to South Carolina’s secession. The North outnumbered the South in the Senate, which proves that the bill would probably have passed anyway.

    Here’s a direct quote from the “Address of the People of South Carolina, Assembled in Convention, to the People of the Slaveholding States of the United States”, from December 24, 1860:

    “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 revenue – to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures …

    “…The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three- fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade is almost annihilated.”;view=1up;seq=1

    The following is a direct quote from Jefferson Davis’s First Inaugural Address, February 18, 1861:

    “An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of commodities required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest and that of all those to whom we would sell, and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of these commodities.”

    I think it’s safe to say that the tariff issue isn’t a myth.

    1. Dear JCC,

      I never deny that the tariff was a political issue in 1860. It certainly was. I do, however, argue that it neither caused secession nor the Civil War. As you point out, the bill passed the Republican-controlled House in May 1860. But it was then quickly tabled by Robert Hunter (D-VA) in the Senate, which the Democrats controlled. It was only with the secession of various southern states in Dec. 1860-Jan. 1861 (and the corresponding resignation of those states’ Democratic senators) that the Republicans gained a senatorial majority. Thus, as I point out in the piece, southern secession allowed for the Morrill Tariff to pass the Senate and get signed into law, not the other way around.

      1. What you are conveniently leaving out is that about 1/4 of the Senate democrats in 1860 where NORTHERN free state democrats which voted with the GOP on issues which benefited the Northern industrial states. But we know you would not leave out those small details on purpose.

      2. And you are conveniently leaving out the fact that the Deep South seceded under the Tariff of 1857, one of the lowest on record. And that no Southern state seceded immediately AFTER the Morrill Tariff was passed. But we know you would not leave out that MAJOR detail on purpose, right?

      3. And also leaves out that when it finally did pass only one Northern Democrat voted for it. The rest either voted against it or abstained.

    2. It takes -two houses to pass a law. While the House version of the bill had overwhelming support, if the Senate version didn’t pass, then the bill is dead in committee. The Senate would have killed the bill in 1861 had the southern states stayed in Senate and cast their votes. So, by saying that they seceded because of the tariff, you are saying the Southern politicians are too stupid to know how the Congressional process works? Or that they can’t math?

  6. I would like to know why the Southern State decided to rebel against something that was legal? Slavery was legal in all the states that joined the confederacy. Your argument suggests that the South was fighting for something they already had. Also, if the Tyrant A. Lincoln and the Abolitionist/Republicans were so concerned about and believed they were fighting to free the slaves why did it take so long for the Union to use the emancipation proclamation? Seems if the war was really about slavery they would have “Lead” with that and not have waited almost 3 years.

    The tariff that broke the camels back, so to speak, was one that levied a tax based on distance sailed to trade in foreign markets. Since Europe was the main consumer of tobacco and cotton Southern states would have to pay a higher tax than northern goods going to the same places, Boston being much closer to Europe than South Carolina. This is why South Carolina decided “Enough was Enough”

    You should have tried the argument that the Northern states continually passed punitive tariffs because they were of good moral standing and wanted to use the punitive tariffs to cripple the Southern states and force them to give up slavery a couple of years earlier than the natural progression of economics would have. This argument, although being more plausible, would also fail for obvious reasons.

    Slavery was on it’s way out, everyone knew it, as It was about to be much cheaper to plant, maintain and harvest crops with what was about to come out of the industrial revolution. Plantation owners would not keep slaves they would need to feed, house, cloth and attend to medical needs year round if they could own a machine that did the work of 25 slaves for a fraction of the cost. I am pretty sure the Southern gentry were not a bunch dim wits that would look at all this and decide to go to war for a right they already had and was about to be moot point anyway.

    Forgive my grammar, as I know it is lacking, but I think you get the gist of my reply.

    Jeff Grajek


    1. Dear Jeffery grajek,
      You don’t understand what it means to say the war was about slavery. Events up to the war were a result of the growing sectionalism in the United States. The issue wasn’t the existence of slavery itself but rather the expansion of slavery to the western territories. Whichever ideology survived the western territories would give rise to its corresponding political support in congress. Simply put, if western territories became slave states then support for slavery would grow and eventually dominate congress. On the other side, if western territories became non-slave states, then support for anti-slavery policies would eventually overcome congress. This is what the south was very of afraid of. At the time, congress was fairly balanced in power with regards to pro-slavery and anti-slavery representation. But had slavery been prevented from expanding west, pro-slavery representation would shrink, and with this, the southerners believed, anti-slavery congressman would vote to abolish slavery.

      At first glance, it might seem questionable to believe they were fighting for slavery. But it wasn’t as simple as the north wanted to end slavery. The north really didn’t want to end slavery. They weren’t against the existence of slavery in the south. They were, however, against free labor taking away paid labor opportunities from northern migrates.

      What broke the camel’s back was an anti-slavery president that had vowed to keep slavery in the south. By keeping slavery in the south, southerners believed, its existence would surely come to an end due to the resulting anti-slavery congress AND very first anti-slavery president.

      I believe tariffs matter. But taxes are always going to be an issue. And if you check the history, the tariffs that were currently in place were in fact at a record low since the 1810’s. The new introduced tariff bill was an issue, but not one the south wasn’t prepared to fight against, and would have won on, had they not vacated their spots in congress.

      As for your references to Lincoln as a tyrant, what did he do to cause the states to secede before even taking office? But let’s just say he was power hungry and wanted the south for the taxation. If a state nullifies a constitution, do they still have protection under that same constitution? Another question, why would Lincoln want the south back in the union for taxation, but then destroy its only source of production to create income?

      To address your question as to why Lincoln waited 3 years to take a stance to end slavery, it simply was due to the fact that, even though Lincoln was anti-slavery, he did not have any plans to abolish slavery, nor did he believe that men would fight to end slavery. Had the S.C. militia not attacked union troops, the war wouldn’t have ever started. But once it became clear to Lincoln that this was his opportunity to rid of slavery, he pushed the idea that the existence of slavery is what split the country in half and fueled the south’s will to fight.

      I want to address one more thing. Many people try to differentiate the cause of the war and the cause of secession. But had the states not seceded, would there have been a war?

      1. I do not say this often but your agreements are very pervasive. When taken in the aggregate I see your point that there was no one issue that started the secession rather several issues which included slavery. At lest I think that is what you are saying?

        The Western Expansion issue, I believe, would have been settled the way the new states were being admitted, one slave state, one non-slave state. I may be missing something though so more reading is required.

        I also wanted to point out that New York was a breath away from joining secession. New York paid a lot in Federal tariffs and import and export taxes. Eliminating these Federal taxes/tariffs meant a lot more revenue for the state and would have made foreign much more profitable.

        Thank you very much for the response.
        Jeff Grajek

    2. Well put Jeff. Besides if slavery was the cause of the Civil war and the South’s secession, where is the real tangible proof? Not opinion and all this he said she said but straight proof. Was there ever any Legislation brought to the House or the Senate about prohibiting slavery? Before you bring it up, I know about the Slave Trade Act 1807 stopping the trade and importing more slaves. This had no effect on the slaves already here. So help me understand why the Civil War was started over slavery? Explain why the South was afraid of losing their slaves and who was threatening to take them? I think I remember someone above writing, “The white people of the South fought and died for Tariffs isn’t ludicrous?”. I like that, I belief one of the reasons we are here today is because we fought over unfair taxation from Britain among other reasons so yes yes men will fight over tariffs.

      1. We’ve already laid it out for you above-your inability to read and understand isn’t our problem. If you actually study the history of the United States up to that point, you’ll see that slavery was the main bone of contention between the two sections. The vast majority of the political compromises and debates were on slavery. Economically, slavery was huge-the 4 million slaves were worth over 3.5 BILLION dollars. Socially, slavery was a HUGE part of Southern society-even the lowest of whites was still socially above a slave. And in the North, the anti-slavery movement had gained momentum since the Constitution was ratified. The number two selling book after the Bible was “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. Religiously, 3 major Protestant religions split over the issue of slavery-Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians. The South used the Bible as a justification for keeping slaves, while the North used the Bible to claim it needed to go. Nearly every Southern leader said that slavery was the main reason for secession and the war. So yeah, the reasons are out there, you just have to look.

      2. The legislation that says the insurrection and resulting was over slavery would be the secession documents of South Carolina, previously referenced. It was over slavery, for the southern politicians who started the insurrection.

      3. Exactly Don. These deniers just don’t read or want to acknowledge what the Southern leadership was saying. It simply makes no sense.

      4. Except, Ray, you completely ignore what the Southern leadership said. We’ve posted dozens of quotes-the fact that you completely ignores them tells us lots about you and your agenda. They made it clear in their own words that slavery was the main reason. So why exactly do you misrepresent them and lie about their motives? Or are you just completely ignorant of them?

  7. Extremely well written & researched. One only has to look at the dates to see that this is a fact. The Deep South left under the Tariff of 1857-one of the lowest on record. The Morrill Tariff wasn’t passed until March of 1861-not one Southern states seceded immediately afterwards. None. It wasn’t until 6 weeks later after Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion following the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter that the rest of the South followed. Not to mention, the majority of the tariff was being paid for in the North:
    Slavery was the main cause of the war. The Southern leadership repeatedly stated as much:
    The Declarations of Causes, the “Cornerstone speech”, the Apostles of Secession, etc., all make it clear-slavery was primary, but not only, cause.
    Alexander Stephens in a speech to the Georgia Assembly in November of 1860:
    “The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment. About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together– every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself. And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron and brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe every other Southern man. So we ought not to complain of that.

    [Mr. Toombs: That tariff lessened the duties.]

    [Mr. Stephens:] Yes, and Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at. If reason and argument, with experience, produced such changes in the sentiments of Massachusetts from 1832 to 1857, on the subject of the tariff, may not like changes be effected there by the same means, reason and argument, and appeals to patriotism on the present vexed question? And who can say that by 1875 or 1890, Massachusetts may not vote with South Carolina and Georgia upon all those questions that now distract the country and threaten its peace and existence? I believe in the power and efficiency of truth, in the omnipotence of truth, and its ultimate triumph when properly wielded. (Applause.)”

    The tariff was a minor issue for sure, but it didn’t cause the split of the major Protestant religions, didn’t have an “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”, and was not the object of the primary resolutions, compromises, & political arguments for most of the 19th Century. The tariff was a millions issue-slavery was a BILLIONS issue, with the 4 million slaves being worth over 3 billions dollars. The tariff was not necessarily regional-slavery was. It is no surprise that the various Southern states referred to each other as “fellow slave-states” & NOT “fellow tariff hating states”.

    The United States didn’t take “3 years to address the slavery issue” either. The Contraband policy was implemented in May of 61. The First Confiscation Act was in 1861. Slavery was abolished in Washington DC in April of 1862. The Second Confiscation Act was passed in July of 62. And Lincoln had the preliminary EP written out in the Summer of 62 when he sent the Greeley letter foreshadowing it.

    Hats off to Ronald for a great response above. Well done sir!

  8. You only need to find out that Judah Benjamin, “The Brains Behind the Confederacy” was a Jew in the service of the Rothschild’s Banking and Government Manipulation Consortium to realize that the view stated here is propaganda generated by the same organization and disseminated by half bright dupes who normally would be appalled by such activity but are ensnared by the brutal mindfuck called ANTISEMITISM, either afraid of it or proud of it in some twisted sort of way that makes people draw swastikas on their own doors… without realizing that Jews are a hate group that has preached death to gay men for thousands of years, first gained control of the land now called Israel by exterminating the seven nations that lived there and gave the world the idea that black people should be slaves. IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. Don’t fall for this pack of lies.

    1. Annnnnd queue the conspiracy theories. Fun fact, there were far more “Jews” in the North than in the South. More Jews fought for the Union army than the Southern. A Jewish person attained a higher rank in the Northern armies than did in the Southern. Antisemitism was prevalent across the entire country, North & South. “ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY”-yep to the tune of the fact that the 4 million slaves were worth over 3 BILLION dollars-more than the land & cotton combined. The only lie being perpetrated here is that of Genrikh & the other Lost Causers.

    2. You do realize that Judah was but one among many? More Jews fought for the Union and the highest ranked officer was in the Union army. Not that there wasn’t antisemitism to be found, mind you. But both sides had their fair share of Jews. Money? Again, the 4 million slaves were worth over 3.5 BILLION dollars in 1860 money-more than the land and cotton combined.

  9. So, not knowing anything about this tariff at all until I read this “story” about why the southern states left because of this or slavery. Haven read this “story”, and instead of taking this as fact, I went and looked up this tariff myself, (you know instead of taking hearsay as fact) well I have to tell you sir, you are so damn off base and wrong in some many ways. Ha, it’s laughable to see someone lies to push a “myth” I’ll break it down for ya where you are wrong:
    1. The Morrill Tariff was trying to be passed in mid-1860 because it wanted to raise the taxes for shipping on the Southern states to other countries.
    2. The Morrill bill was sent on to the Senate. The Senate was controlled by Democrats, and so the bill was bottled up in the Finance Committee, chaired by Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia.
    3. This insured that the Senate vote would be put off till the second session in December. It also meant that the tariff would be a prominent issue in the 1860 election.
    4. The Republican party included a strong pro-tariff plank in its 1860 platform.
    5. Abraham Lincoln’s record as a protectionist and support for the Morrill Tariff bill, he notes, helped him to secure support in the important electoral college state of Pennsylvania, as well as neighboring New Jersey. Lincoln carried Pennsylvania handily in November, as part of his sweep of the North.
    6. The second session of the 36th Congress began in December 1860. At first it appeared that Hunter would keep the Morrill bill tabled until the end of the term in March.
    7. However,In December 1860 and January 1861, seven southern states declared secession, and their low-tariff Senators withdrew. Republicans took control of the Senate in February, and Hunter lost his hold on the Finance Committee.
    8. On February 14, 1861, President-elect Lincoln told an audience in Pittsburgh that he would make a new tariff his priority in the next session if the bill did not pass by inauguration day on March 4.

    Now, placing facts here for all to read, (remember, look up all “facts” before you take them as facts, until then it’s only hearsay) notice no southern state left until after the election in Nov. 1860. Lincoln before the election was in his pocket in Nov. 1860, he said he supported this tariff and would pass this once his is in office.
    Ok, the states who were against this tariff was against it because of the high taxes that were going to be placed upon them to pay for the debt the federal government created. After the election, these states saw the writing on the wall and then voted to leave the Union.
    The 10th amendment and the (DOI) informs the federal government that all states are free and independence. Not one state (if know before joining the union) would join a union knowing they could never leave. Don’t believe me, why then as Puerto Rico voted twice not to join the union? Because she knows she could never leave once in and take on the debt of the federal government 19 trillion dollars.
    So here is another point that will debunk your “myth”, when Alabama seceded from the Union, in their proclamation they basically stated (not verbatim) “we are leaving because you are trying to take our slaves away from us.” Ah ha you say? I got ya?” Proof you say? Well, dig deeper before you say, “I got ya” Look up the first 13th amendment that was created just before President Buchanan left office. He passed this amendment in March of 1861, basically stating (again, not verbatim) “Congress shall not touch your slaves”. Wait! What? Yes, it’s true, Alabama can now rejoin the Union because it was about slavery wasn’t it? Alabama is back in the U.S. as their state again to keep their slaves…. What? That didn’t happen you say? That’s right, Yes Alabama left because of slavery, but it was no longer about slavery, but because of this tariff is why Alabama didn’t join the Tyrants in the Union. BAMMMMM! (Again do not believe me folks, look it up for yourself and then you’ll know the facts, until then it’s only hearsay.
    Point made: The only thing here in this myth “story” is the lie the writer would have you believe. The Southern States left because of many reason, but the main one was because of this tariff. State Rights is key to all this and when the federal government forced this tariff on the Southern States, the writing was on the wall.
    Luckie McDonald

    1. Wow, speaking of hearsay and myths, Luckie, you just took the cake. Your ignorance is pretty amazing when it comes to this topic and it shows in your response. Not one of the Declarations of Secession mentioned the tariff. The tariffs was a minor affair and several in the South said so, including Alexander Stephens, who said as much in a speech before the Georgia Legislature on November 14th, 1860:
      “The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment. About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together– every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself. And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron and brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe every other Southern man. So we ought not to complain of that.

      [Mr. Toombs: That tariff lessened the duties.]

      [Mr. Stephens:] Yes, and Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at. If reason and argument, with experience, produced such changes in the sentiments of Massachusetts from 1832 to 1857, on the subject of the tariff, may not like changes be effected there by the same means, reason and argument, and appeals to patriotism on the present vexed question? And who can say that by 1875 or 1890, Massachusetts may not vote with South Carolina and Georgia upon all those questions that now distract the country and threaten its peace and existence? I believe in the power and efficiency of truth, in the omnipotence of truth, and its ultimate triumph when properly wielded. (Applause.)”

      If you read the actual words of Southern leaders, they harp on the slavery issue time and time again, in a FAR greater degree than anything as far as the tariff. The Deep South left BEFORE the tariff was passed under the Tariff of 1857, one of the lowest on record. When they left, leaving the door open for the Morrill Tariff to be passed, not a single Southern state seceded AFTER it was passed. The 10th Amendment doesn’t override the rest of the Constitution and the DOI has nothing to do with it at all. The Constitution was the law of the land, NOT the DOI. Your ignorance about the Corwin Amendment is likewise amazing. The Corwin Amendment would have left slavery intact where it was, but would not have helped it in the territories. In other words, slavery would have withered away and died as the new territories became free states. THAT is why the South rejected it. You talk about the plank on the Republican ticket supporting a high tariff, but you seem to forget that the same Republican platform contained FAR more planks about slavery. The OP does a great job of knocking Lost Cause nonsense like yours to the ground. Go somewhere else to preach that stuff as the folks here will not buy into it.

    2. BTW “Luckie”, I challenge you to pull quotes from Southerners before the war where they complain about the tariff causing the conflict. I’ll bet I can pull 20 to 1 quotes about slavery being the highest priority. The tariff question didn’t cause Brooks to beat Sumner on the floor of Congress. The tariff question didn’t have a book like “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” that took the nation by storm. The tariff question didn’t cause 3 of the major protestant religions to split on sectional lines (Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian-the Baptists apologized for their role in slavery in 1995). The tariff was worth millions-the slaves were worth BILLIONS. Socially, the politicians and religious leaders were telling everyone in the South just how important slavery was to them-no such thing was being done with tariffs. People like you try to spread these myths, but when you come across people in the know, they just fall on deaf ears.

    3. unLuckie McDonald

      I have reviewed all of the source documents at the link you provided and there isn’t a single one where slavery is not the primary issue mentioned. If tariffs are mentioned at all (which usually they are not), it is only in passing and a secondary issue. Tariffs are never the main or sole issue of the document.

      So there you go, BAMM!!!!! Slavery, not tariffs is the reason why the Southern States seceded.

      I challenge you to show me one, just one, document where tariffs, and not slavery, is the main or key issue mentioned.

  10. I do research and take nothing as hearsay. Had I taken hearsay as fact, I’d be on your side right now. Everything I looked up and stated here are facts. I put in (DOI) as proof that each state was independent, I didn’t say nothing about the DOI and the tariff were related. There were a lot of RICH Southerners who wanted to keep slaves I will not denied that. However, there were Northerners who moved to the South to keep their slaves when laws were passed they didn’t like in their state they left from. For every 20 you pull who were slave owners, I’ll pull 40 soldiers who didn’t fight the fight for slavery, they fought to send the invaders back from where they came. So, if you want to play the ” I’ll show you mine if you show me yours” game. Let’s play. Plus, in the 40 soldiers, I’ll also pull on the other side where the union soldiers weren’t fighting to end slavery, they fought because of many other reasons. I’ll throw the first name at ya to start it off….. U.S. Grant didn’t free his slaves until the 13th. amendment was ratified in Dec. 1865.

    . The book “Three months in the Southern states” by Lt. Col. Freemantle of England 1863 will help you out about slavery as he saw it. The tariff was the writing on the wall when Lincoln came out in favor of the tariff before he was elected. The South was hoping he wouldn’t win, because they knew Lincoln and his tyrant government would force the tariff on the Southern states to force to pay for their debts and build up the Industrial movement up North. The Tariff passed the House, staled in the Senate. And in Dec. 1860 if Lincoln lost the election, the tariff would have never passed and nor would the southern states have left. FACTS.

    Slavery was only used as an issue by Lincoln in late of 1862 to prevent England from entering the war. Study the “Trent Affair” and you’ll see a lot more. After you study the “Trent Affair”, for starters, then dig deeper why England was still thinking about invading the Union after the Trent Affair was over….. you’ll see it, study it. The cause and effect. Emancipation Proclamation was illegal, Article one section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, “Congress shall declare law, war etc… It didn’t free one slave in uncontrolled areas of the federal government or controlled by them.

    Feb 1861 the tariff passed the senate and in March the tariff was signed into law by Lincoln. I believe if the Tariff didn’t pass, in Feb 1861 the other 4 southern states would have never left the Union.

    In March of 1861 the 13th amendment was signed into law by President Buchanan before leaving office. Question: Why didn’t the “SLAVE HOLDING” states rejoin the Union after the 13th amendment came out? If it was to keep slaves, the Slave Holding states should have been tripping over each other to rejoin…… WRONG. it was the tariff. Remember, not knowing nothing of this tariff until I read this story yesterday, did the research and found you wanting.

    Good day,

    P.S. you have no clue who I am…Haha

    1. “U.S. Grant didn’t free his slaves till the 13th amendment”-I’ve already got you dead to rights on that one. Grant only owned one slave in his life and that was prior to the American Civil War:

      “Did Grant Own a Slave?
      Yes. For a brief period in 1858-9, Grant was the owner of a 35 year old mulatto man named William Jones. The details surrounding the ownership of Jones are still murky. We do know that Grant wrote to his father on March 21, 1858, “I have now three Negro men, two hired by the year and one of Mr. Dent’s.” On October 1, 1858 Grant wrote again to his father: “Mr. Dent thinks I had better take the boy he has given Julia along with me, and let him learn the farrier’s business. He is a very smart, active boy, capable of making anything, but this matter I will leave entirely to you. I can leave him here and get about three dollars per month for him now, and more as he gets older.”

      Grant freed William Jones on March 29, 1859, though he could have sold him for approximately $1,000. At this time Grant was in significant financial straits, but was unwilling to sell another human being under the hammer.”

      So there goes your first “soldier” that you quoted right out the door. If you are a “researcher”, you would know as much. You’re relying on Lost Cause websites and such to draw your facts from and that is painfully obvious. So yes, by all means, let’s start quoting people. I’ll start right here:

      “Henry L. Benning, Georgia politician and future Confederate general, writing in the summer of 1849 to his fellow Georgian, Howell Cobb: “First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere — in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections.” [Allan Nevins, The Fruits of Manifest Destiny pages 240-241.] Later in the same letter Benning says, “I think then, 1st, that the only safety of the South from abolition universal is to be found in an early dissolution of the Union.”

      Yes to the “rich Southerners”-they were the ones who caused the war. You try to use the soldiers in the field as those responsible for the cause of the war? Not hardly. Causes of the war are distinguished from why men fought the war. And many of those who fought had family who owned slaves. Not to mention, many in the South rented slaves. The entire system benefited whites throughout the South. The EP was not illegal-see the Militia Acts of 1792, 1795, 1807, and 1861. Congress was out of session when the Confederacy attacked the United States. When Congress was called back into session 6 months early AFTER the Spring of 61 elections, they fully endorsed ALL of Lincoln’s actions, and so did the Supreme Court.

      “Feb 1861 the tariff passed the senate and in March the tariff was signed into law by Lincoln.”-again, if you were an actual researcher, you would know this statement is FALSE. Buchanan signed it into law 2 days before Lincoln took office (March 4th 1861). You can’t seem to get these basic facts straight. The tariff didn’t cause the South to secede as the Deep South left BEFORE the Morrill Tariff was passed and no Southern states left AFTER it passed.

      “And another thing – All other countries who had slaves ended without a war, same could have been true in America.”-you are right, but it was the South who seceded and started the war.

      “In the cabinet meeting, Toombs warned Davis that firing on Fort Sumter would inaugurate the Civil War.

      “Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. The firing upon that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen.” [Robert Toombs to Jefferson Davis, quoted in W. A. Swanberg, _First Blood: The Story of Fort Sumter,_ p. 286]

      But Davis knew this anyway. He had predicted a civil war earlier. “When Lincoln comes in he will have but to continue in the path of his predecessor to inaugurate a civil war” [Jefferson Davis to Franklin Pierce, 20 Jan 1861]

      Davis went ahead and ordered the fort reduced.” Obviously, you need to go back and actually do some research, as you do not know your facts from a hole in the ground. I’d start with actual books.

  11. BTW – I’m spreading anything, like I said…. I didn’t know nothing about this tariff until this “weak of a story”, until I did the research I wasn’t going to add my two cent worth until I can form an opinion of mine. Your “myth busting” is your opinion and my opinion is just that….mine. I respect yours, as well as you should mine. The reason I am on top of this “myth” of late is because a person told me to add this “tariff” into my book I’m writing. So how I missed this part of history in all of my 10 years of research, I’m not sure. So, I typed in this tariff and the first thing that popped up was your\or this story, so, I clicked onto the story with an open mind from your side, then read the other side and then compared the two and I’ll have to side with the “tariff is what broke the camels back” Had this story held just a little water, I would have let ya know…. again, good day.

      1. You certainly aren’t spreading anything factual. I keep catching you on failed facts and flat out lies.

  12. And another thing – All other countries who had slaves ended without a war, same could have been true in America. It wasn’t about slavery, it was to force the southern states back into the union at any cost. They even past the 13th amendment to allow the states to keep slaves. No matter what y’all try to throw out there, the 13th amendment trumps your lies. Southern states should have been running back to the union to keep their slaves because of the amendment. After the tariff passed the senate in Feb of 1861, you had four other states leave and after the 13th amendment was past, zero rejoined the Union and that’s FACTS you can’t hide.

    1. Actually, that is a flat out lie, but I wouldn’t expect anything less from you…’ve already demonstrated that your lack of knowledge in the basic facts taints your responses. BTW, “after the 13th amendment was past”-you mean “passed”. If you cannot get English sentences and words together correctly, then you’re really in trouble. Oh, and it PASSED the Senate on April 8th, 1864 and the House January 31st, 1865. There were most certainly states who rejoined the Union AFTER that. Go back to school and learn the basics.

      1. Mr. Morrison God forbid anybody disagree with you sir. The victors always write the history books for generations to come to be taught history the way they wanted inturperited

  13. BTW, if you try to claim that Julia’s slaves were Grant’s, then that is false. But for the record:

    “Did Grant’s Wife Own Slaves?
    Yes, for periods in her life, Julia Dent Grant owned four slaves, Eliza, Dan, Julia and John. Whether she held title to them or her father retained ownership is still unclear. As a teenager, her personal slave was “black Julia.” When she married Grant, she went north to various army posts, and had to do without her “servants,” as she euphemistically called her slaves. For the first 4 years of her marriage, her slaves remained in Missouri. From 1853-1863, Julia continued to use four slaves, whom she mentions specifically in her Memoirs. They were all house “servants,” and took turns attending to Grant’s children, cooking and cleaning. Mary Robinson, served Mrs. Grant for many years.

    In a March 12, 1859 letter to his father, Grant made it plain that Julia was unable to do without her chattel. He wrote, “Julia and the children are well. They will not make a visit to Kentucky now. .. with four children she could not go without a servant and she was afraid that landing so often as she would have to do in free states, she might have some trouble.” Yet Grant told Mary Robinson, one of the Dent slaves, that if he was the owner of White Haven, he would give freedom to all the family slaves.

    When the Grant family moved to Galena, Illinois in 1860, Julia reluctantly left her property in Missouri and had to make do with one paid servant, Maggie Cavanaugh. Incredibly, Julia brought along one of her slaves on all of her visits to Grant’s headquarters during the civil war. When Julia was with Grant, their youngest son, Jesse, was in the charge of “black Julia,” the slave that Julia had used since her girlhood.

    With the passage of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, Julia’s four slaves were set free. It is claimed in the footnotes of her Memoirs that they were not freed until December, 1865, with the passage of the Thirteenth amendment, but this doesn’t concur with other primary sources of the period and Missouri’s slaves were freed in January, 1865. Grant himself noted that on a visit to White Haven in 1863, Julia’s slaves had already scattered and were no longer on the plantation. On extended visits to Petersburg, in 1864, Julia brought along a hired German girl to tend to 6 year old Jesse.”

    P.S. I really don’t care who you are, since you admitted to the fact that you didn’t research this till the day you read it, it is painfully obvious that you went to Lost Cause sourced materials online to find your answers. I’ve got a degree in History and have been researching it for over 35 years. I’ve got hundreds of sources who will say that slavery was the main reason. I can quote from all before the Civil War on different things that had to do with slavery that helped cause it-you only have the time period of the Tariff of Abominations that possibly back up your argument-and that was one incident well before the Civil War. The slavery issue permeated American history from the time that the British ruled us till all the way through the Civil War. Come back when you have some time and research under your belt.

  14. The first13th amendment, Read it learn it. You never answered my question. You are found wanting yet again. I’m out.

    1. I did respond to it-the original 13th was called the Corwin Amendment. Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Of course you are out, you were never actually in… usual, the Lost Causers run when confronted with the facts.

    1. Actually, I did. If you can’t understand, not my fault. You aren’t even in the same ball park as I am. Bless your heart, you just need to actually study American history for more than a day. Come back when you have some time under your belt.

    2. BTW, since we started the quote contest, you’re 0 for 1. Here’s another one for you:

      Speech of Henry Benning to the Virginia Convention

      “I have been appointed by the Convention of the State of Georgia, to present to this Convention, the ordinance of secession of Georgia, and further, to invite Virginia, through this Convention ‘ to join Georgia and the other seceded States in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. This, sir, is the whole extent of my mission. 1 have no power to make promises, none to receive promises; no power to bind at all in any respect. But still, sir, it has seemed to me that a proper respect for this Convention requires that I should with some fulness and particularity, exhibit before the Convention the reasons which have induced Georgia to take that important step of secession, and then to lay before the Convention some facts and considerations in favor of the acceptance of the invitation by Virginia. With your permission then, sit, I will pursue this course.

      What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause. It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil. But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken. It therefore becomes important to inquire whether this conviction was well founded.

      Is it true, then, that unless there had been a separation from the North, slavery would be abolished in Georgia? I address myself to the proofs of that case.

      In the first place, I say that the North hates slavery, and, in using that expression I speak wittingly. In saying that the Black Republican party of the North hates slavery, I speak intentionally. If there is a doubt upon that question in the mind of any one who listens to me, a few of the multitude of proofs which could fill this room, would, I think, be sufficient to satisfy him. I beg to refer to a few of the proofs that are so abundant; and the first that I shall adduce consists in two extracts from a speech of Lincoln’s, made in October, 1858. They are as follows: “I have always hated slavery as much as any abolitionist; I have always been an old line Whig; I have always hated it and I always believed it in the course of ultimate extinction, and if I were in Congress and a vote should come up on the question, whether slavery should be excluded from the territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should.”

      These are pregnant statements; they avow a sentiment, a political principle of action, a sentiment of hatred to slavery as extreme as hatred can exist. The political principle here avowed is, that his action against slavery is not to be restrained by the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. I say, if you can find any degree of hatred greater than that, I should like to see it. This is the sentiment of the chosen leader of the Black Republican party; and can you doubt that it is not entertained by every solitary member of that same party? You cannot, I think. He is a representative man; his sentiments are the sentiments of his party; his principles of political action are the principles of political action of his party. I say, then; it is true, at least, that the Republican party of the North hates slavery.”

      I still have hundreds more to post. When are you going to actually start posting quotes from Southerners before the war that the tariff is the main issue? We await your response.

  15. Funny how you don’t care who I am, but you think you know me. Insult after insult is all you know until you can learn to debate properly without insulting then maybe I will play your game but until have a blessed day. Taking the high road sir.

    1. First of all, I am a Southerner. There is no hate in my heart for Southerners. In fact, I graduated with a History degree from the University of Georgia (where they house the Confederate Constitution). My ancestors fought for the Confederacy. I have a deep residing respect for the valor of those men. However, it doesn’t change the facts. Please point out where I am wrong… far you haven’t managed to do it. I sincerely don’t think you are scared and I welcome healthy discussion as well, but when the wrong facts are spouted off, I certainly take offense. The OP was attacked and when you were called on it, then you changed your tune and act astonished that someone would attack back or defend them. The OP has his facts correct and several of your posts were way off. If you have a different OPINION, I have no problems with that. But don’t misrepresent the facts and then be surprised when you get called on it. I have discussed the Civil War for years here in North Georgia and am on many Civil War sites on Facebook myself. In fact, I moderate a lot of them.

  16. Usually when somebody insults or argues in a debate they lack the proof or the stamina to stand up against what they do not believe in. It’s always a good healthy debate when both sides do not insult each other throughout facts and move on or move on with opinions but insult after insult no one wants to play your game so have a good day

    1. Right… were sitting here calling out the OP with this statement in your original post:
      “I went and looked up this tariff myself, (you know instead of taking hearsay as fact) well I have to tell you sir, you are so damn off base and wrong in some many ways. Ha, it’s laughable to see someone lies to push a “myth””. So apparently it is ok for you to attack and insult, but not anyone else? Double standard much? Hypocrisy, thou art a strumpet. If you can dish it out, you had better be able to take it. The next time you enter a discussion, keep it respectful and you will get respect. Come in guns blazing and you will be shot down in a like manner. Have a great day!

  17. And again you don’t care who I am but you think you know me and you want to tell me to go do research sir you need do away with the Hate in Your Heart against Southerners or Southern sympathizers or the Confederacy life is too short to hate maybe one day you and I can have a good clean debate some areas I may be wrong some areas you may be wrong and we can walk away with a healthy discussion no clear up some of the areas we were both wrong until then I’m finish with this. Look me up on Facebook I hide from no one and when you find me I’ll give you my cell phone number and we can talk I’m not scared I always welcome a challenge.

  18. LOL, your last post – is my comment. It was an opinion talking about taking hearsay as facts. So, coming in hot is not what I did, they offered their opinion on this tariff and I offered mine. It’s not an attack when both are throwing out opinions. You on the other hand attack because you lack the ability to have a debate without attack on a person. Why do you feel you need to defend\attack an opinion as such as this story when other respectfully disagree. Coming in hot is this very story, if you want to talk about that…let’s. Had this story not been posted attacking southerners and their “myth” you and I wouldn’t be posting on this and as you claim…”you’re coming in hot”. I believe this writer has every right to post this story, it’s his opinion…that’s freedom. and as someone who didn’t know anything about this tariff until this post, I researched until I can form an opinion… however, I found I disagree with this story, but I respect it all the same. I do not respect (and I know you’ll not care, neither do I) people who like to bully or attack others who disrespect who disagrees with them. I love to debate people from the other side, it is fun, however I do not like bullies like yourself who attack because they lack the abilities to debate. And having degrees doesn’t make a person any smarter then the person you are attacking. Have you notice I’ve not once showed my hand on the studies I know? That’s right, I haven’t. If I can’t debate with a person without throwing out my degree after degree or attacking the person because I disagree with them, then I’m no different then a bully who does.
    (601)-443-**** here is my number. please call me, I believe if we were face to face, we both would be agreeing on a whole lot more then we disagree with. Again sir, I respect your opinions, just not your bullying, have a good day and I really mean that. God bless you.

    Luckie McDonald
    P.S. if you know anything about (I’m sure you do) the confederacy and their best year, call me.

    1. Coming in hot is exactly what you did. You can try to twist and turn and try to avoid it, but anyone reading what I quoted would say you are not being truthful to claim as much. If it is your OPINION, then say as much. You keep trying to make it like it is a fact. Since you claimed as much, your opinion is noted. The rest of us will stick to the facts of the matter. It isn’t a “story”, it fact. I certainly don’t lack any skills to debate. I’ve been debating this stuff online since the Internet came along in the early 90’s. I’m no bully, you’re just crying because you’re getting spanked. You attacked the OP, I responded in kind, then you got bent out of shape. We understand and can see as much. I agree that a face to face meeting would probably be more cordial, but then I expect you wouldn’t have lit into the OP as harsh as you did to begin with either if he was right in front of you. I debate this stuff face to face will people a lot. Respect is earned, not given. Anyone who actually knows me knows that I have spent a lifetime arguing this stuff and I have the materials to help me do so. Debating can be fun when you engage in civility. When you don’t, expect what you put out to come back on you just as well if not more. Bless your heart, maybe next time you’ll be nicer out the gates and avoid this. Then again, I haven’t seen one quote from a Southerner before the war saying that the tariff was the main issue. I’m waiting with hundreds more slavery quotes. Till next time, have a good night.

  19. LOL, too funny. There you go again, throwing out cred’s to bust yourself. You fight the fact you can’t keep this “myth” as such. Again you are found wanting. what about that phone call?

  20. (GAO) BTW – how in the hell is what I posted not the truth? They are fact. Look again at my first post numbered 1 to 8. those as stated came from the truth. So, to say I’m wrong shows how much you know….wasted school learning on your part I’d say. You’ll need to run back to that school and demand a refund. The fact that someone can only come in (me) knowing very little of the tariff only a couple of days, doing the research “without hearsay” and come back to see both sides and school a person who claims he’s been doing this with degree after degree and on the internet like forever. Again sir, you are really found wanting and it’s very sad, so bless your heart, may you win the next person by bullying them. Not me.
    Come back with your big boy pants and when you can crawl away from the kiddy table to the big boy table, then we’ll debate. Until then, go see if you can get another degree, maybe that’ll help.

    1. Lol, I haven’t been “found wanting”, you’ve been raked over the coals and you act like you’ve actually proven something? Hilarious! I don’t have time to school you in lessons tonight. This site, however, is a great place to start:

      You’ve been taken to task. You’ve been asked to prove things that you haven’t proven yet. You’ve been asked for proof that you cannot provide. Not a single quote.

  21. Did the tariff pass the house before the election in 1860? Yes

    Did the tariff stale in the senate before the election? Yes

    Did 7 southern states leave the union before Feb 1862? Yes

    Did the tariff pass in Feb 1862 on the senate floor? Yes

    Did 4 other southern states leave the union after the tariff passed the senate floor? Yes

    Didn’t Lincoln support the tariff before, during and after the tariff was signed into law March 1862? Yes

    Before Lincoln took office, didn’t President Buchanan pass the 13th amendment ( )
    “Two days before his first inauguration in March 4, 1961, Lincoln and the Republicans passed a proposed 13th Amendment, which enshrined slavery by prohibiting Congress from abolishing or interfering with state-allowed slavery. (Today it is known as the Corwin Amendment.}” – Yes

    With this new 13th amendment and the tariff passing the desk of both presidents, why didn’t the southern states run back to the union with the 13th amendment?

    Did any state rejoin the union after the 13th was passed? No

    If the tariff wasn’t signed into law by Lincoln in March of 1862, would southern states have rejoined the union? I don’t know, because it didn’t happen. But, my opinion would be that some and not all of the southern states would have came back. So, for someone not knowing about this tariff one bit before this “hit piece” here, I say I’ve done a fair job at holding up one side in the debate then someone who has been at this forever and has many degrees under his belt to just fall to the waste side of wanting….LOL Good night to you sir.

    1. I already explained the Corwin amendment to you. Again, since your ability to read is so impaired, I guess I will do so again. I find it amusing that you whine and cry like a little girl about being attacked, then continue to turn around and do it again. You seem to have schizophrenic personality. The Corwin Amendment was offered as an appeasement to the Southern states to stop secession and the war that was sure to come. All the Corwin Amendment did was to ensure slavery WHERE IT STOOD. What it did NOT do was to provide for new territories or states. In other words, slavery would whither on the vine and die. The South saw this and understood it. They chose not to come back because-as the leadership said OVER and OVER again, that the “Black Republicans” under Lincoln would attack and destroy slavery. Read the Declarations of Causes. Read the Cornerstone Speech. Read the Apostles of Disunion. Read the speeches, sermons, declarations, letters, and such the Southern leaders pushed on the public. The cries about slavery were vast and overwhelming. The cries about the tariff were meek, but there. Again, I agree that the tariff was an issue-just a minor one. Listen to what they said:

      Stephan Dodson Ramseur, future Confederate general, writing from West Point (where he was a cadet) to a friend in the wake of the 1856 election: “…Slavery, the very source of our existence, the greatest blessing both for Master & Slave that could have been bestowed upon us.”
      Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America: “I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason — for the planting and spreading of slavery.” [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 106.]
      Brown, again, December 27, 1860: “Mr. President, it seems to me that northern Senators most pertinaciously overlook the main point at issue between the two sections of our Confederacy. We claim that there is property in slaves, and they deny it. Until we shall settle, upon some basis, that point of controversy, it is idle to talk of going any further.” [Quote taken from The Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 201.]
      Representative Benjamin Stanton, Republican of Ohio, January 15, 1861: “Mr. Chairman, I desire to state, in a few words, what I regard as the real question in controversy between the political parties of the country. The Republican party holds that African slavery is a local institution, created and sustained by State laws and usages that cannot exist beyond the limits of the State, by virtue of whose laws it is established and sustained. The Democratic party holds that African slavery is a national institution, recognized and sustained by the Constitution of the United States throughout the entire territorial limits, where not prohibited by State constitutions and State laws…All other questions about which we differ grow out of this, and are dependent upon it…” [Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 2nd Sess., (Appendix), p 58]
      Senator Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia: “There is not a respectable system of civilization known to history whose foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery.” [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 56.]
      Richmond Enquirer, 1856: “Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery.”
      Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: “We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing.”
      Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860: “African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism.” Later in the same speech he said, “The anti-slavery party contend that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States.” Taken from a photocopy of the Congressional Globe supplied by Steve Miller.
      Keitt again, this time as delegate to the South Carolina secession convention, during the debates on the state’s declaration of causes: “Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it.” Taken from the Charleston, South Carolina, Courier, dated Dec. 22, 1860. See the Furman documents site for more transcription from these debates. Keitt became a colonel in the Confederate army and was killed at Cold Harbor on June 1, 1864.
      Senator Louis Trezevant Wigfall; December 11, 1860, on the floor of the Senate; “I said that one of the causes, and the one that has created more excitement and dissatisfaction than any other, is, that the Government will not hereafter, and when it is necessary, interpose to protect slaves as property in the Territories; and I asked the Senator if he would abandon his squatter-sovereignty notions and agree to protect slaves as all other property?” [Quote taken from The Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 58.]
      Isham Harris, Governor of Tennessee, January 7, 1861, (Messages of the Governors of Tennessee, p. 255); “The systematic, wanton, and long continued agitation of the slavery question, with the actual and threatened aggressions of the Northern States and a portion of their people, upon the well-defined constitutional rights of the Southern citizens; the rapid growth and increase, in all the elements of power, of a purely sectional party,…”
      Senator John J. Crittenden, Kentucky (Democrat), March 2, 1861, (Congressional Globe, page 1376); “Mr. President, the cause of this great discontent in the country, the cause of the evils which we now suffer and which we now fear, originates chiefly from questions growing out of the respective rights of the different States and the unfortunate subject of slavery…”
      Henry M. Rector, Governor of Arkansas, March 2, 1861, Arkansas Secession Convention, p. 4 “The area of slavery must be extended correlative with its antagonism, or it will be put speedily in the ‘course of ultimate extinction.’….The extension of slavery is the vital point of the whole controversy between the North and the South…Amendments to the federal constitution are urged by some as a panacea for all the ills that beset us. That instrument is amply sufficient as it now stands, for the protection of Southern rights, if it was only enforced. The South wants practical evidence of good faith from the North, not mere paper agreements and compromises. They believe slavery a sin, we do not, and there lies the trouble.”
      Thomas F. Goode, Mecklenburg County, Virginia, March 28, 1861, Virginia Secession Convention, vol. II, p. 518, “Sir, the great question which is now uprooting this Government to its foundation—the great question which underlies all our deliberations here, is the question of African slavery…”
      Methodist Rev. John T. Wightman, preaching at Yorkville, South Carolina: “The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South . . . This war is the servant of slavery.” [The Glory of God, the Defence of the South (1861), cited in Eugene Genovese’s Consuming Fire (1998).]
      G. T. Yelverton, of Coffee County, Alabama, speaking to the Alabama Secession Convention on January 25, 1861: “The question of Slavery is the rock upon which the Old Government split: it is the cause of secession.”
      Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, “What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?”

      I believe the actual Southerners from back then over anyone who claims different. Your timeline on the tariff is useful, but ultimately not nearly as important as the slavery issue. Not even by a long shot.

  22. “Did any state rejoin the union after the 13th was passed? No”……once again, that is utterly false. You sir, do not know the history of the conflict. That much is abundantly clear. That or you are lying, which I would not put past you at this point. You continue to get basic facts wrong. Once again, even though I pointed out your crass mistake before, I will point it out again…..Lincoln did NOT sign the tariff into law. It was signed into law by Buchanan. And NO Southern state seceded AFTER it was passed. The Deep South left BEFORE it passed-thus giving the Republicans the votes needed to pass it. Had the South stayed, it would not have passed. Therefore, them seceding ensured its passage. Why? Because they weren’t concerned about the tariff like you claim (and have yet to provide any quotes from them on-funny that). But I can provide proof of them being terrified of slavery being attacked all day. Now are you going to cry and moan and groan again? Claim I am a bully when you attempt and fail at the same tactics? This is actually pretty amusing to watch you flounder around. What’s next, another attempt to throw Grant under the bus? Taking Lincoln out of context with the Greeley letter? Or maybe the 4th Debate with Douglas? Are you going to claim tens of thousands of black confederates fought for the South? Or maybe that because there were black slave owners that slavery wasn’t all that bad? That Lee and Jackson were abolitionists? Yes, we’ve seen this all before. We’ve seen better, more coherent arguments that didn’t go anywhere on the tariff. Mr Palen isn’t the only one who sees through the nonsense of the claims of tariffs:

  23. Can we get someone on here to debate with us who actually understand American History so we can actually take them seriously? The opposition is laughable.

    Click to access cw_slavery_site_bulletin.pdf

    “Yes, Slavery Did Cause the American Civil War.
    Posted on April 28, 2014.

    Slavery as the cause of war, by Christopher Shelly.

    “The central pillar of the Lost Cause Myth is the notion that somehow slavery was not the ultimate cause of the Civil War. While this seems laughable on its face, the fact remains that almost every day I encounter some perfectly intelligent, reasonable well-educated person who still says, at the very least, “But there was other stuff too, right? Tariffs and stuff?” So clearly, our “Civil War memory” (which, by the way, is an excellent blog) is not as good as we could hope, and we have some work to do. But once we demolish this pillar of the neo-Confederate argument, the whole ridiculous edifice collapses.

    Before we do this, let’s get one thing absolutely clear:

    Slavery was the ultimate cause of the American Civil War.

    Anyone who asserts anything else is either grossly uninformed or willfully misrepresenting the facts. Plainly stated, if slavery didn’t exist, there would have been no Civil War. This is simply incontrovertible. And so the question before us is, how did slavery cause the war? This is a fine question, and one worth answering at length. But for those of you interested, here is the short answer:

    The Southern slaveholding states felt that Lincoln’s election in 1860 was a direct threat to slavery, in spite of the fact that Lincoln never claimed to have any power or jurisdiction over slavery where it existed. Because of this perceived threat, seven states of the Deep South seceded from the Union. After this new “Confederate States of America” fired on Ft. Sumter, Lincoln called for volunteers to put down the insurrection. This provoked four more states to join the new Confederacy.

    These Southern slaveholding states asserted an alleged right to peacefully secede from the United States, while Lincoln maintained that the Union was perpetual and no state could unilaterally secede. Thus, both sides could technically claim that the war was not over slavery.”

    Or if you prefer video…..

  24. Wow, you sir are a man all bent out of shape… I’m not lying, you sir hate facts.

    How many of the 4 states left after the first 13th amendment passed by President Buchanan? I’ll let you answer that one.

    The numbers don’t add up with your math. Plus, to use all CAPS in a debate shows a man at his wits end. You know nothing of me, if you had, you would be wearing egg right now.

    Complete Victory +(A) = my response below:


    still found wanting sir. good night

    1. Lol, you really are losing so badly that you resort to such trickery. I love facts, but you don’t seem to have any pertinent ones to add to the discussion. You’ve won nothing. Again, let’s see those quotes and declarations where those 4 states said that the tariff was the main reason they left. Can’t provide them? Not surprised. The 13th Amendment wasn’t the cause of the war-slavery was the main cause. You keep using bad logic to make your point. You are showing no facts. I just love tearing apart ignorant Lost Causers like yourself. BTW, the caps are used for emphasis….not for admitting defeat. Since we don’t have bold fonts and such, that is how you show something to be more important. I wouldn’t expect someone of your poor debating caliber to understand. Any academic professor would fail you for this silly attempt at trying to argue the tariff as the main reason. F- for you on the grade here. All 7 states of the Deep South left BEFORE a vote on the tariff, thus rendering that argument null and void. And what did those states say was the reason they left?

      South Carolina:
      “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.

      For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.”

      “Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery– the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits– a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

      The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.”

      “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 — the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”

      “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. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. ”

      Here’s a question for you, where was the majority of the tariff paid? 90% of it was paid in the North.
      How much was the tariff? The tariff was millions of dollars, slavery was worth billions. I’ll take the words of the people back then and the facts and figures over some modern day wannabe who spends more time trying to argue how he won than actually researching the facts. Later tater!

  25. I did give you my phone number. I told you if you knew the best year of the confederacy, call me. I do no trickery here sir. Everything was shot to you straight. I’m getting bored with this. It was fun while it lasted, I must really get back to writing this book and stop messing with you. Honestly it was fun, no hard feeling?

    I have a few questions for ya, despite all we have been through, I do value and respect your opinion, if you don’t mind. I don’t mean to hijack this thread, but this is the only place I can contact you. You do have my number however, call me.

    Questions are: Do you know anything about the Trent affair? If not, that’s fine and thanks anyways.

    If you do, do you feel Charles Wilkes was wrong in detaining the RMS Trent and arresting the “Confederates”?

    Do you feel had Capt. Wilkes taken the RMS Trent as a price, England would have declared war on the United States?

    If England did enter the war, do you feel England would have pressured the Confederacy to end slavery for or after the war if England was to provide their help as well?

    And what do you think would have been the out come?
    Thanks for your thought in advance and again no hard feelings. I have none from your end.

    Luckie McDonald

    1. Therein may lie the confusion. Your post showed the area code and first three digits, then showed a **** for the last four. Maybe you didn’t do that-maybe the site did it. I thought that you had done so, which is why I said that you had not given it to me. I am very much aware of the Trent affair. A very interesting episode early in the war that could have turned ugly. I am very thankful for your cordial response.

      I think he was wrong in detaining them, yes. I don’t know about taking them as a “prize” as it was a British ship. I don’t think England was going to enter the war without full provocation. And I honestly don’t think that Lincoln and company were going to provoke a war. I think there were some in the cabinet who wanted to do so, but Lincoln was not going to allow it. I do believe England would have pressed them into ending slavery, but that is simply speculation on my part. With England involved, it would not have gone very well for the Union unless they had 100% war footing and quickly. Even then, it would not have ended well. Cheers!

  26. “Southern congressmen had opposed the protectionist legislation, which is why it passed so easily after several southern states seceded”
    This is pretty powerful evidence that the tariff caused the war. You’re trying to say that they were debating the tariff, then the southern states seceded, so the tariff couldn’t have caused the war. If they were debating a tariff that would’ve caused harm to the southern economy while benefiting the northern economy, that’s a very good reason to secede.
    You’re argument is roughly as effective as saying that slavery had nothing to do with the civil war because it wasn’t outlawed until after the war. Except that Lincoln offered the south a constitutional amendment ensuring the institution of slavery in exchange for staying in the union.

    1. Actually, it isn’t evidence that the tariff caused the war at all. The Tariff that the Deep South seceded under was the Tariff of 1857, one of the lowest on record. Those seceding states cost the remaining Southern states their votes and the Morril Tariff was passed. Yet even after it passes, no Southern states secede. The proof is in the pudding. The tariff was an issue, I don’t deny that…..but it was evidently NOT a major issue for the South. Slavery was the main issue.

    1. Sorry Luckie, but “wrong” doesn’t cut it. It was the main issue because the Southern leadership said it was. I’ll believe them or any modern day wannabe.

      1. Dear Mr. Morrison hundreds of thousands of brave men on both sides didn t line up in a open field to march into the jaws of death so a very very small part of the population could or could not keep there slaves

      2. Actually, they did. If you actually study the war, then that becomes readily apparent. The Southern leadership repeatedly said that was why they were seceding and going to war. Do you need to be educated on these quotes and such?

      3. Well if you know your history so well then you should know Generall LEE just to name one of many leaders was not fighting to keep slaves. And if you really think every union soldier was fighting to free slaves you er nuts. You have ate up all the BS taught in our school system the Civil War over the last 150 yrs.

      4. Sorry Darren, false logic doesn’t work on me, I’m a bit smarter than that. Lee was certainly fighting to keep slaves as he said that slavery was a necessary evil, that slaves were better off here in captivity, and that only God would free them in his time-that abolitionists were going against his will. Read his letter to his wife from 1856. I’ve researched this for years-your ignorance and listening the Lost Cause nonsense is making you sound like a fool. Grow up and do the research.

      5. Haha. Good try sir. Call me ignorant, a fool and tell me to grow up, just to see if you can get me all rattled up. I have read Lee’s letter to his wife. Believe you added necessary evil to his letter. Lee did say slavery was evil, but not a necessary evil. Either way I’m sure we will not see eye to eye on this. But you have to remember how people saw the world back then. 90% of the people during the war and long before were probably racists
        Against blacks. And I can see why Lee might think they were better off here as slaves then free in Africa where lots of them would been killed. But then there’s the great saying. BETTER TO DIE FREE THEN A SLAVE. But I bet we both can agree that slavery is damn sad thing that nobody should suffer. Yes it was one of reasons for the war but not the number one. And yes I know you er shaking ya head right now. Like I said agree to disagree.

      6. Slavery IS a damn bad thing. We can totally agree on that. Slavery was not the number one issue for the North in 1861, but it was for the South. It’s all in the eye of the beholder. The Southern leadership made it very plain that slavery was the primary reason for seceding and going to war. It’s what they said. But if you are talking in general and about both sides, I would agree that it wasn’t the number one issue for everyone.

      7. Yes sir I was talking in general about both sides , and how a white person anywhere in the country might look at any black person , racism was everywhere. We both know about the hangings during the war in NYC. Glad we could find some common ground to agree on, even if we ‘ll never agree on the cause of war. Either way a lot of good men died on each side. My g,g g,grandfather and g,g,g uncle fought for N.C. My wife’s g,g,g, uncle was with 20th Maine. He was killed on April 9th. I fly old glory and confederate flag to honor all on both sides. I enjoyed our chat on this subject . Have great evening Mr. Morrison

      8. I wouldn’t consider 30% of all Southern households a “very, very small part of the population.. In some states (MS & SC) it’s 50 percent. Individual soldiers fight for many reasons, but they don’t cause wars. The Civil War is the only war where soldiers are looked at to see why the war happened.

  27. Go through all the quotes, speeches, declarations, editorials, sermons, etc., on this site from Southerners and then get back to me. Ignore the Cornerstone Speech, the Declarations of Causes, the Apostles of Disunion, and everything else on there and no academic historian will take you seriously:

  28. Then I suggest you start on reading what the actual soldiers said about slavery. Read Chandra Manning’s book, “What This Cruel War Was Over” and get back to me.

  29. Mr. Morrison, I will direct this to you because of your clear opposition to ALL of the truth….your narrow mindset is unfortunate, your rude and intolerant nature is more so, and proving you the naive fool could be fun.

    Your over generalization of “the South” speaks poorly of your credibility and no matter what quotes you may have of some who happened to live in the South, you fail miserably to mention any alternative thinking, or different purpose in your bigoted “evidence”.

    Also, you completely fail to point out the combined interests of some, which were located in both the north and the South. It is an old and common business practice to secure supplies for production. It has also been a long running policy of central bankers to make money wherever and whenever they can, as has been proven since Waterloo. I guess it would be here that you turn childish and start running around in circles, with your hands over your ears crying “conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory!!!!”

    Particularly ludicrous is the high pedestal you place the northern politicians upon and only makes proving your naivete even easier. Reconstruction alone illuminates corruption at its highest level, as does the passage of the 14th Amendment; there is nothing quite like putting icing on the cake you have just baked.

    And, of course there is another troubling aspect of which you seem completely oblivious; there is NOTHING in the Constitution that gave lincoln the right to invade the South, and certainly there was nothing in the Constitution or in written law that provided the authority to murder innocent women, children, or the men trying to protect them on their own property. There is no real evidence that lincoln was a “statesman”. We certainly know the title of “honest abe” was ridiculously inaccurate and publicly proven with his own words to Horace Greeley. This helps evaluate much of your “evidence” and serves to make clear that the victor that writes history….no matter how big of a lie it really is.

    Three questions for you and since you clearly know everything (/sarcasm), I am certain you will create an answer.
    1. Where were all of the textile mills located that badly needed Southern cotton in order to operate?
    2. Why did Canada support the Confederacy?
    3. Do you have any proof that the Rothschilds played no part in the Civil War?
    Thanks in advance for your reply.

    1. Your ignorance is noted. You speak of “truth”-truth is subjective, I’ll go with the facts. I really don’t give a rats behind what you think. Your own rude behavior is obvious for all to see, and I’ll enjoy taking you down a few pegs myself. You don’t like who I quoted? Somebody call the WAHHHHbulance. I quoted Southern leaders. We’ve seen you quoted exactly NO Southern leaders. Why is it that you Lost Cause types always cry and moan about us paying attention to what was said back then, and you guys flat ignore it? The sheer stupidity of folks like you is overwhelming.

      Lol, I’m not yelling “conspiracy”, I’m simply giving the accounts of American history that back up what I say. Why is it that you fail to do the same thing? You ignore the factual evidence and the historical record. Utterly pathetic.

      Here’s where the wheels really start to come off the bus: “there is NOTHING in the Constitution that gave lincoln the right to invade the South”-apparently your ignorance of Militia Acts explains why you don’t know that. Not to mention, the Constitution pretty well spells out that there can be instances of rebellion and that it can be put down. Here’s another funny piece: “certainly there was nothing in the Constitution or in written law that provided the authority to murder innocent women, children, or the men trying to protect them on their own property.”-they were backing a government that seceded and attacked the United States-THAT is rebellion. Secession was not recognized-not one country formally recognized the Confederates. None. It was a rebellion and the Union had every right to put it down-though I do love the hypocrisy coming from you. Apparently it was OK for Confederate forces to engage in such acts? Should I start listing out Confederate atrocities? You guys absolutely slay me with your ignorance and lies. Your ignorance of the Greeley letter is also highly amusing. I’m guessing you’re one of those morons who takes it out of context? Congrats, you’re like every other Lost Causer without a brain. And another cliche-the “victor” writes the history. Stand up and take a bow for some of the most asinine statements on this board. I own hundreds of books written by Confederates-letters, journals, autobiographies, etc. I guess none of those count huh? Or the dozens and dozens of books written by Southern historians? Or Southern writers? Or Southern movies? “Birth of a Nation”? “Gone with the Wind”? Apparently, you’re ignorant of all of these, just as you are of what the Southern leadership said.

      Here’s a hint, not one person will take you seriously when you write this kind of garbage. Have a great night!

      1. Mr. Morrison . You are something else. Mr. Know it all I guess lol. You know all this shit started couple years ago when PC leaders started removing anything to do with the Civil War history in the South. Let me ask you sir do you support wiping out history by taking down Confederate monuments across the South? Just wondering where you stand on this subject.

      2. I’ve been studying the war for almost 40 years. I’ve got a History degree (from a Southern university), I’ve done reenacting, tours of battlefields, and taught kids from elementary to college level on the subject. I’ve been arguing this on the Internet since there were BBS boards. I’ve been an admin on a Civil War site since 2004. I’ve put the time and effort into it.

        As to monuments, I’m actually on the fence. In the area I live in, we have several monuments and they are adored. I would like to keep them here as they are fantastic monuments. My belief is that the local communities should get to decide what to do with them. And by that, I mean if they want to move them. I have no problems with people moving monuments to different places-local communities should get their say, but none should be torn down and destroyed. And moving monuments isn’t “wiping out history”. The colonists pulled down King George III’s statue and we still know about the Revolution. The monuments don’t make the history, they simply enhance it. The history was there before the monuments. It will be there if they are gone-no one is burning books or erasing history. I wish they would stay, but I will not go against a local community. My community wants ours to stay and I am happy with that. I find it strange that some people complain about the big bad Federal government, but then attack local communities who vote to remove these things-either you agree that local folks have a say or not. You cannot only support local communities when they vote the way you want them to… and understanding of the events is important. Not every battle and location has a statue or memorial-does that mean that what happened at those places didn’t happen? Of course not. Monuments are wonderful for drawing attention, but they are not the history. Leave them up where you can, but you cannot force communities to keep what they don’t want.

  30. Everyone needs a human history lesson. Every major war, one way or another, is over economic reasons. Fat and happy people don’t go to war. The Civil War is no different. It was over economic reasons which included, but not limited to, tariffs imposed only on the southern states. If it was over slavery, then there would have been a peaceful compromise in Washington via new laws, regulations, etc. This was flat out, class warfare with high British influence in the North. Not to mention, slavery would have been abolished or sought to be abolished before the start or end of the war. Don’t be fooled. History always repeats because the passions of man never change. The stage might be different but the players are all the same.
    Keep believing the propaganda… It’s being “debunked” every day.

    1. And most of us have already had the lesson Kevin. Economics, yes. Once again for those with reading disability issues, the 4 million slaves were worth over 3.5 BILLION dollars. It was over slavery, as the Southern leadership said repeatedly. Why is it that you guys simply ignore their very words and try to come up with 21st century reasons as to why it happened? The only fool here is you. The only propaganda is folks like Kevin who are flat out lying about the history. Don’t let him fool you, he has NO clue what he is talking about. Read the actual words of Southerners back then and leave the folks like Kevin to wallow in their ignorance.

  31. Lincoln didn’t free the slaves… He made slaves of us all! Thank him for the beginning of the now out of control, corrupt, federal bureaucracy we now have that thinks it can do absolutely anything to anyone anytime. State rights and individual rights ended due to his unconstitutional acts. To hell with Abe Lincoln! A bullet found him WAY too late.

    1. William, your response is both stupid and ignorant. Lincoln certainly helped free the slaves. He also didn’t start the war, you can thank the South for that. Had they not seceded and started the war, the government wouldn’t have grown as fast as it did. Lincoln followed the Constitution. Go out and get an education before you rattle off more stupidity.

  32. Oh yes the North went to war because it wanted to free slaves, err ok mate nothing to do with money. The north thought lets spend loads of money and get our sons killed so we can free slaves.

    1. The North went to war to preserve the Union in the beginning. But slavery certainly became a secondary cause. The South seceded and went to war mainly to preserve slavery, according to their leadership.

  33. Even after the war their were worries about freed slaves swamping the labour market, depressing wages and costing white voters jobs. Brexit anyone ?

  34. From what I’ve read It seams to me that the reason the south left was mainly slavery, and the reason they didn’t rejoin the union after the Corwin amendment was the tariff. So looking at it that way both slavery and the tariff were equally to blame for the war.

    1. The tariff had little to do with it. The Deep South left before it was passed, thus allowing it to pass. After it passed, not a single Southern state seceded.

  35. The tariff was the main reason for the war. Slavery was 2nd . Yes the rich plantation owners in the South wanted to protect there property. 95 % of the Men who wore gray didn t own slaves and didn t give a damn whether there was slavery or not. Thousands of men are not gonna line up to March into the face of canister and musket fire so some rich plantation owner can keep his slaves. And Union soldiers just mostly wanted the South to reunited back into the Union. People think everyone up north was glad to see blacks coming from the South. Hmmm about 3000 were lynched in New York city during the war. Yea yea I know Mr. Jim Morison yea know everything and ya gonna come back and insult me cause you the master at that. I m a southern man and proud to be American. I hate nobody no matter where they from or color of there skin. But when folks start taking or pulling down monuments cause they so easily offended you done stirred up a hornets nest. Leave our history here in the South alone. Mind ya business or somebody will mind ya yours. DEO VINDICE!!

    1. Sorry Darren the clueless……flat wrong. Much more than 5% owned slaves:
      “Selected Statistics on Slavery in the United States

      (unless otherwise noted, all data is as of the 1860 census)

      Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).

      Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).

      Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).

      Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)

      For comparison’s sake, let it be noted that in the 1950’s, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950’s America.

      On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.

      Slavery was profitable, although a large part of the profit was in the increased value of the slaves themselves. With only 30% of the nation’s (free) population, the South had 60% of the “wealthiest men.” The 1860 per capita wealth in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040.

      Selected Bibliography

      Battle Cry of Freedom, by James McPherson
      Ordeal by Fire, by James McPherson
      The Confederate Nation, by Emory Thomas
      Civil War Day by Day, by E.B. Long
      Ordeal of the Union (8 vols.) by Allan Nevins
      Reader’s Companion to American History, by Eric Foner and John Garrity
      Census data can be appealed to in order to determine the extent of slave ownership in each of the states that allowed it in 1860. The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state. The data was taken from a now-inactive census archive site at the University of Virginia, but equivalent data may be found here.

      Mississippi: 49%
      South Carolina: 46%
      Georgia: 37%
      Alabama: 35%
      Florida: 34%
      Louisiana: 29%
      Texas: 28%
      North Carolina: 28%
      Virginia: 26%
      Tennessee: 25%
      Kentucky: 23%
      Arkansas: 20%
      Missouri: 13%
      Maryland: 12%
      Delaware: 3%
      In the Lower South (SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, FL — those states that seceded first), about 36.7% of the white families owned slaves. In the Middle South (VA, NC, TN, AR — those states that seceded only after Fort Sumter was fired on) the percentage is around 25.3%, and the total for the two combined regions — which is what most folks think of as the Confederacy — is 30.8%. In the Border States (DE, MD, KY, MO — those slave states that did not secede) the percentage of slave-ownership was 15.9%, and the total throughout the slave states was almost exactly 26%.”

      3000 blacks lynched in New York?!!!! Utter poppycock. I’m a Southerner and my ancestors fought for the Confederacy. I won’t leave squat alone. Mind your ignorance. Bless your heart, I’d hate to have to put you in your place.

      1. Damn Jon calm down man. I said only 5% of the Men who fought for the Confederacy, not the whole population of the South. I know there were more slaves in S.C. before the war then there were native South Carolinans . And my ancestors fought for the South from the state they gave the most on men. N.C. And they didn t own no slaves. And from talking with my great grandpa many years ago and him telling me they didn t go to fight so the rich plantation owner down the road could keep his slaves. My ggg grandfather fought to protect his home his state. That’s what my great grandpa told me about my ggg grandpa. Mr. Jon Morrison I know you have alot of knowledge on the Civil war and that’s great . Spurring with you the last couple of years I have learned a few things from your knowledge. Thank you. But don t throw everyone in the South in the before and during the war in the same boat. You have good day sir and bless your heart

  36. You have to think logically about this. Would a historically racist country like the US fight a war to end slavery? Meaning white people killing white people to free black people? Does that make any freakin’ sense? Dude, it was the 1860s. Racism was off the chart still in the 1960s. People fight over money. All wars are fought over money. So the US Civil War was the exception to this rule? Please.

    1. Colin, perhaps you don’t realize that the four million slaves were worth more than 3.5 BILLION dollars in 1860. That means they were worth more than the land and cotton combined. Fighting over money? You betcha-the South had too much money invested in slaves……and as usual, those with the most money had the most influence over government. The Southern leaders made it very plain that slavery was the main issue-that and political power they would lose if the Lincoln government stopped them from expanding. Slavery had to expand or die-they knew that and that is why the South rejected the Crittenden Compromise.

      1. Slavery did not involve the common white southerner. Slavery involved wealthy slave owners. Unless you’re making the case for southern politicians lobbying for their wealthier constituents, you’re not making a solid case. Yes, the South had the majority of the slaves, but there were millions of slaves in the North. Also, what motivation does a white southern or northern soldier have to fight for slavery? Zero. Taxation could be the only logical case to fight a war and enlist armies. The south seceded. The north wanted to preserve the Union. Lincoln’s own statements showed he cared more about preserving the Union, then freeing slaves. Lincoln was more about stopping the spread of slavery then outright ending it. To think anything going on in Charleston SC had anything to do with slavery is ridiculous. Lincoln provoked the South by resupplying Sumter. So you’re telling me what was going on in Southern ports (with their federal/Northern installations) pertained to slavery? Of course it didn’t.

      2. Ummm, sorry musicsentry, flat wrong. It most certainly DID involve the common white southerner. Many Southerners who didn’t own rented. Many had family members who allowed slaves to help out at harvest time. There are several examples of the white slave owners making the case to the Southern poor whites as to why slavery was important to them. There were NOT millions of slaves in the North. The 1860 clearly shows this to be false. There were 3.5 million in the South and roughly 500,000 in the Border states. No Northern states allowed slavery in 186. The Southern leadership flat said that slavery was the primary cause-if you don’t like it, feel free to argue with them. I’m sorry if the historical facts bother you, but there you are. Lincoln didn’t provoke anything-the Confederacy passed a resolution to take the fort weeks before Lincoln even took office. Davis needed something to provoke a fight and draw in the rest of the slave states. Pleas research before you post.

      3. I guess we all can desided for ourselves what ever history we read about in the War between the States , some of it true some of it made up ( especially after the war). Is up to us what we believe. All I know is here where we all are now we on the same side, even when we can t agree what on happen 150 years ago are 200 yrs ago are in the damn 2016 election. I m proud descendant of lots of CSA Veterans and Veterans of lots of other fights the great nation has been in. I fly old glory and the Confederate flag in my yard because I Love my country and I m proud to be a Southener. I m sure people my drive by and think that must be a racist that lives there. They can think what they want to. I don t care. Cause I know i m not. I say to all of you God Bless ya and God Bless the USA and my we always be free to speak our minds and lol disagree on history

      4. Sorry, no Darren. Your opinion is noted, but the facts are the facts. If everyone got to decide what they wanted for facts, there would be no history. We are on the same side now, and the South is a much better place for it. We fought through two World Wars together and at least a dozen other smaller wars. MY ancestors also fought for the Confederacy. I honor and respect them, but that doesn’t take away from the facts. The tariff was a minor issue at best. The tariff didn’t cause three major protestant religions to split. There was no book like “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” for the tariff. And the politics revolving around slavery greatly outnumbered those of the tariff. Economically, the tariff was a millions issue-slavery was a BILLIONS issue. There’s just no comparison. And the Southern leaders said as much, loudly and often. I prefer to listen to the words of the Southern leaders back then-they knew what they were talking about:
        “What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause. It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil. But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken. It therefore becomes important to inquire whether this conviction was well founded.”-speech of Henry Benning to the Virginia Assembly.

      5. Why would the confederate states fight for a right they already possessed? Slavery was legal. Was going to be legal for the foreseeable future.Why did Lincoln offer to allow slave owning states the right to continue owning slaves if they laid down their arms and rejoin the Union? Why did he make this offer in the “Emancipation Proclamation?” The proclamation that is purported to free the slaves? But hey, ignore the facts and make stuff up, that is the norm now.

      6. Indeed Grajek, you seem to be the one making things up. They seceded because they felt that slavery was in trouble. We know what Lincoln said, but the Fireeaters and secessionists told the Southern people just the opposite. Lincoln offered to rejoin in the middle of the war when he knew they would not accept the offer. He did it to look good to the European nations-and it worked. The proclamation isn’t “purported” to have freed slaves, it did. It freed several thousands initially and then eventually helped free nearly a million before the 13th amendment took place. But hey, if you need the actual words of the Southern leaders to prove that slavery was the main issue, I can provide you with hundreds of them. Let’s see you do the opposite before or during the war. I’ll bet you $50 that you run out of quotes long before I do. Ready to take that bet?

  37. The Southern Revolution of 1860 was caused by English interference in the South as the United Kingdom was the weapon supplier of the Confederacy, allowed the colony of Ireland officially support the Confederacy and the Confederacy to raid from Canada on Maine, was in the “Great Race” cold war against the US, made up 90% of the confederate fleet, gave their greatest weapon and had a large population vocally supporting the CSA. (The Canadian Confederation was inspired by the Southern one.) The secession documents of certain states (It is not all as the Cherokee seceded because they liked the CSA best.) use wording that is only in England such as “African race.” ( This puts Afrikaaners into the same race who are clearly white.) This idea was even pointed out in the film “National Treasure II” The reason for this is simple to defend Canada from the US and prevent the country from supporting the revolutions in Erin as Fort Erie (Ontario) fell to American veterans in 1866 only for the United States Government to back track. However the question of slaveries connection to the war is still active as the British Empire had outlawed Chattel Slaver but other types were active, the Constitution of United States guaranteed the right to Chattel slavery. Lincoln was a supporter of Imperial slavery as in the United Kingdom.

    However, England could not accept a new North american empire. Russian Ambassador to London Baron de Brunow told Moscow January 1, 1861:

    “The English government, at the bottom of its heart, desired the separation of North America into two republics, which will watch each other jealously and counterbalance one the other. Then England, on terms of peace and commerce with both, would have nothing to fear from either; for she would dominate them, restraining them by their rival ambitions.”” William Jones “Britain’s Surrogate War
    Against the Union, 1861-65”

    The War created the idea of the American Empire while making it too weak The other question is about “white supremacy.” The war did show English superiority as Americans were killing each other.

    1. Sorry no. Not anywhere close to that. Lincoln despised slavery and to claim he was “a supporter” of it shows a complete and utter lack of research skills with Lincoln. Slavery was the main issue for the South. Lincoln wanted the Union to stay together.

  38. Also the Nullification Crises show Southerners weren’t that loyal any way just look at how popular Texas nationalism is. The idea the the South tried to secede to f* Washington is the most likely cause of the war.

    1. Nope. Nowhere close to the facts. Slavery was the primary issue. None of the other Southern states supported South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis, thus rendering your entire point moot.

      1. Konstantin George in in his article “The US-Russian Entente that Saved the Union,” “On the United States side, the British fostering of and of support of the Confederacy, and their well-known plans, pending successful outcome of the secession, to further fragment and subdivide the Union, need no elaboration.” (Konstantin George “The US-Russian Entente that Saved the Union, ”The Campaigner Vo1.11 No.5 July1978) In a separate article he wrote, “The cornerstone of Britain’s operational policy, from no later than 1860 on, was to dismember both the United States and Russia.”( Southern Revolution of 1861 was caused by English interference in the South as well as causing a revolution in Poland as the United Kingdom was the weapon supplier of the Confederacy, allowed the colony of Ireland officially support the Confederacy and the Confederacy to raid from Canada on Maine, was in the “Great Race” cold war against the US, made up 90% of the confederate fleet, gave their greatest weapon to be manufactured in the South and had a large population vocally supporting the CSA with a distant possibility that Jefferson Davis hay have been an agent for England as there was evidence of his hidden correspondence with England. (The Canadian Confederation was inspired by the Southern one. also the English intervention in Poland will not be looked into here)

        As early as a letter on April 13, 1854 from the US Mintser to Russia T.H. Seymour to the secretary of State “the danger is that the Western powers of Europe … after they have humbled the Czar, will domineer the rest of Europe, and thus have the leisure to turn their attention to American affairs.” Anton Chaitkin’s book Treason in America, from Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman goes more in depth on England starting the war. The secession documents of certain states (It is not all ) use wording that is only in England that is in consistent with the area that seceded such as “African race.” ( This puts Afrikaaners into the same race who are clearly white.)
        The United States knew that had caused the war was England as American Minister of the American legislation in England Geoge Marshal told Secritary of State Seward on April 9,1861:
        “[England] cannot be expected to appreciate the weakness, [apart from weak against England] discredit, complications, and dangers which we instinctively and justly ascribe to disunion, English opinion tends rather, I apprehend, to the theory that a separation may work beneficially both for the groups of states and not injuriously affect the rest of the world.” MPUS, no. 330, Dallas to Seward, April 9, 1861.
        Seward the same year demanded a direct war on England recognizing England as surly responsible for the war to which Lincoln responded famously “One war at a time!” Richard Franklin Bensel wrote on this in his book Yankee Leviathan: The Origins of Central State Authority in America, 1859-1877 say that Seward’s proposal “revealed the new secretary of state’s profound awareness of the narrow basis of northern nationalism during the early months of the Lincoln administration.” Even so September 5, 1863, Secretary Adams told the UK’s Foreign Secretary John Russell, “It would be superfluous in me to point out to your Lordship that this is war.” (Crook The North, the South, and the Powers 1861-1865 pg. 324, 326)

        This idea was even pointed out in the film “National Treasure II” (U.S. Civil War: The US-Russian Alliance that Saved the Union by Webster G. Tarpley for Voltaire Network proves the pemesis of the film.) recognizing the fact that Queen Victoria sought to intervene for the
        Confederacy even as the seven cities of Cabecobila being fiction with “Harper’s Weekly” on Sept. 24, 1863 stated “England and France have shown themselves to be unfriendly powers.” The reason for this is simple to defend Canada and French colonies (As Seward kept annex it) from the US and prevent the country from supporting the revolutions in Erin as Fort Erie (Ontario) fell to American veterans in 1866 only for the United States Government to back track and Secretary Seward kept trying to annex Canada and could not accept a new North American empire. Russian Ambassador to London Baron de Brunow told Moscow January 1, 1861:
        “The English government, at the bottom of its heart, desired the separation of North America into two republics, which will watch each other jealously and counterbalance one the other. Then England, on terms of peace and commerce with both, would have nothing to fear from either; for she would dominate them, restraining them by their rival ambitions.”” Dean B. Mahin, One War at a Time: The International Dimensions of the American Civil War, (WashingtonD.C.: Brassey’s, 1999), 24.
        However the question of slaveries connection to the war is still active as the British Empire had outlawed Chattel Slaver but other types were active, the Constitution of United States guaranteed the right to Chattel slavery. Lincoln was a supporter of Imperial slavery as in the United Kingdom even becoming an ally of the Russian Empire. (Alaska was sold to the US to buy off Seward.) American Ambassador Clase wrote Lincoln in July 1861, ““I told the Emperor we did not care what England did, that her interference would tend to unite us the more.”
        In answering the question of this idea of British causing it as “stupid.” This needs to be remembered that the British did the same in Poland at the same time and Germany did this to Russia to cause Russia to surrender in World War I. To answer the Question of slavery, one only need to be remembered that Texas as a state of the Mexican United States exchange slavery with indentured servitude, and the “Jim Crow” South responded with contracted share cropping in which the breech of contact in the South is a matter of Criminal Law currently in the South. The Idea that the Revolution of American Aggression was foremost bound to Lincoln’s biographers of his cabinet to hide Lincoln’s mental illness and other failures in the presidency.

        However, the revolution in its entirety was and to a lesser extent anti-government expression. It was a popular uprising as all races in the CSA were supportive of secession. As the the CSA never truely had a truly unified government, the unifying principle was war against federalism drawing in even Christian Anarchist such as Mennonite into arms. The Government of the US responded to this American “Rusifation” called “Sermn’s March to the Sea” and “Reconstuction.” With this, American expressed its true nature as federal soldiers frequently raped Sothern Belles and murdering as the US national Anthem states “conquer We must.” The extent of the war was by no mean different then the Philippines’ or San Juan revolutions save for an English start.

        The War was a popular uprising which according to the book The End of Tsarist Russia by Domic Lieven states that 30% of the general population of all races in the Confederate States of America served in their armed forces garnering more general support then the American Revolution only falling do to the despot nature of American “nation burning” to the extent of creating the idea of the American Empire while making it too weak and endangering Russian Alaska. The other question is about “white supremacy.” The war did show English superiority as Americans were killing each other and that the Russian Navy not American victory to the Battle field of Appomattox. Ironically Both the US president and the Czar both were assassinated. )However according to the end of Amanda Foremans’ book A World on Fire, the United States forced England to pay facial retribution for cause the war in the 1870’s.

Comments are closed.