Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > Other Civil War Talk > West Virginia, did the US allow what they said the South couldn't do?


West Virginia, did the US allow what they said the South couldn't do? - Other Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 05:41 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
41st Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

So how do we make slave state senators from states that can't support slaves?

ole"

Ole...Huh???

The next two two territories up for statehood were Kansas and Nebraska. Could they ever grow cotton? Did the slaveowners flood the territories and set up plantations? Kansas came mighty close to becoming a slave state, but how long would that have lasted without a population of slave-owners? Even Texas was a marginal slave state.

There was no way slavery could expand without going after Mexico and Caribbean Islands. And there is the rub. A need for parity in Congress and no way to get it.

ole



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 06:25 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
42nd Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 907
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Ole-

  I'm sure that the fire-eaters were happy to see events take place that put the south on the road to secession. But I believe that those who felt as they did were a small minority, even among southern politicians. I think that for most southerners, it was a feeling that they were being mistreated by the government in Washington that they felt no longer safeguarded them from those they felt were their enemies.

  The question of expansion of the slave states was vital to the southern politicians as they saw it. Even if the lands were not very productive and the large plantation system didn't work that well there, it was critical to have representation in the House and Senate of those who at least were not hostile to the interests of the southern states.

  One of the main reasons that they decided on secession was that they feared being surrounded by northern and western states that would work against their interests, and eventually destroy them. By 1860, that scenario was apparently happening, if they agreed that slavery could not expand westward.

  It also plays to the question of who has the ultimate authority, the federal government or the states. This is really the crux of the whole problem from the founding of the Republic onward. The southerners in general believed that the states should have more power, while most northerners believed that the central government should. It always comes back to this disagreement, and in many cases, the question is still argued today.

  If a democrat had been elected in 1860, I doubt that any state would have seceded. So, I agree that secession was caused by a republican being elected. There was war because of the particular individual who was elected.



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:19 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
43rd Post
39th Miss. Walker
Member
 

Joined: Tue May 1st, 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 80
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ole wrote: The US Government never recognized any of the states in rebellion as being part of a foreign country. The US helped set up the Restored Government in 1862. So all aspects of the Constitution did apply to Virginia, same as it did to New York or Georgia. As far as the Union was concerned Virginia was part of the US.
Whether Virginia declared itself part of the CSA or not has no bearing as it wasn't recognized as the legitimate government.

I hope you don't mind an imperiious, dismissive sniff. Or ludicrous crap.

ole

Ole what part of this are you dismissing? Show me anywhere where the US recognized any state or the CSA as an independent sovereign nation.
The US did help set up the Restored Government in Virginia, it was the RESTORED government, get it?
When WV broke away from Virginia it was initially done in a convention on May 13-15, in response to the Virginia Secession Convention. On May 23 the majority of Virginia voters approved the secession from the Union.
On June 25 after Little Mac occupied western Virginia another meeting was held in which Pierpont was "elected" governor. Lincoln recognized this government as the legitimate government of Virginia, it was known as the RESTORED government.
In October of '61 delegates from 39 western counties met and decided to form their own state, West Virginia. In Dec. of '62 Lincoln signed into law an act creating West Virginia, but not abolishing slavery in the new state!
In March of 1863 the voters in West Virginia voted to create the new state, so it was now official.

Now can you give me any evidence that the Union did not recognize the Constitutional authority they possessed in the CSA? At what point did the CSA, in the eyes of the Union stop being part of the US? And if they were considered part of the US they were subject to the Constitution.  Once the states seceded their governments were not recognized, but the states still were.



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:31 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
44th Post
39th Miss. Walker
Member
 

Joined: Tue May 1st, 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 80
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Johan wrote:
Please... tarriffs are a smokescreen. Someone please refresh my memory was the average $2 or $3 per citizen of the US. $2 or $3... most on goods the average Southerner & Northerner had nothing to do w/. In short the tarriffs are pure smoke


Johan you are not understanding the tariffs, their effect on the South, or where the money was going. Yes I would like to see where someone got the $2 or $3 average. Go back to the States Rights thread and re-read the South Carolina reaction to the tariffs. It was an ongoing battle for close to 30+ years.
In addition the tariffs were part of a larger debate on States Rights, not necessarily the only problem. By creating and enforcing tariffs many in the South felt the Congress had overstepped their bounds in creating, enforcing the tariffs and where the money was going to.
Tariffs were on manufactured goods for the most part. The North overwhelmingly benefited from the tariffs. The South had any number of fears from the tariffs. Yet when there were excess amounts collected Jackson for one advocated returning the excess to the states, based on population. The South further felt this was unfair. They did not see the rewards of the tariffs, internal improvements, nor would they see much of the excess. They saw their money going right into the pockets of the rich industrialists in the North and the Northern coffers.



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 03:02 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
45th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1060
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Miss Walker the Tarriffs are a smoke screen when some can claim the South paid 70% of them when any research at all shows this to be wrong.

Then the claim that they saw their $ going right into the pockets of rich industrialists... I'm sorry but that is pure sensationalism intended to make the North evil w/ South poor put upon innocents argument.

The tariffs were enforced & collected at the ports, on imports; similar to the Buy American idea going around a few years back. The imports struck were not on the things the average southerner, or northerner for that matter, bought.



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 03:10 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
46th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1060
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I'm quoting a far more knowledgeable man that I here.  THank you Tim aka Trice (over on CWT) for the data I saved from his discussion on Dissonance by David Detzer.

"All across Virginia on this day average voters had their own say on secession. The results of the referendum were: 96,750 in favor of secession, 32,134 against.

In reality, those numbers constituted a sham. Virginia already housed thousands of out-of-state Confederate soldiers on its soil.

In rough terms, on May 23rd when the Virginians voted, there were somewhere above 18,000 "foreign" troops in the state, probably about 25,000 and perhaps more. There were also some number, probably above 20,000 and very possibly above 30,000 Virginia troops organizing. These were generally avid secessionists (not all; the 1st VA Volunteers (Union) were also organizing).

But what exactly were they voting on? Secession was already in existence de facto. The state government has already initiated hostilities with the US, seized all Federal facilities it can easily get, fired at US flag vessels, and sent Virginia forces and weapons into Maryland. The Confederate capital is already moving to Richmond. A alliance is already in effect.

So what would have happened if the state voted "NO" with a roar? Would all those "foreign" troops have immediately left peacefully (giving back the weaponsd virginia had already issued them)? Would Jefferson Davis and his government (who had already shown a propensity for direct action) have simply left? Would Virginia have to pay recompense to the Federal government for the damage they had done?

I suppose the Confederates might have left, quietly and peacefully. They might have given back the thousands of sets of arms and equipment VA had given them, the guns, etc. Lincoln might have rushed to welcome them, and all might have been forgiven. But it might have been a little hard to see it that way in VA in May of 1861, with the streets and bars full of soldiers and parades.

If the secessionists in VA had wanted a fair and quiet election, they could have had one. All they had to do was to wait before acting, to refrain from attacking the US and inviting the Confederacy in. Notice that they did not, and rushed to create a situation where victory for their side was highly likely."



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 03:58 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
47th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1060
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h963.html

A particularly relevent link when talking about the tariffs.

And a link w/ more info that I can even imagine.

http://civilwartalk.com/forums/civil-war-history-secession-politics/19389-tariffs.html

Last edited on Sat Jan 5th, 2008 04:02 pm by Johan Steele



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 04:10 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
48th Post
39th Miss. Walker
Member
 

Joined: Tue May 1st, 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 80
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top



Johan Steele wrote: Miss Walker the Tarriffs are a smoke screen when some can claim the South paid 70% of them when any research at all shows this to be wrong.

Then the claim that they saw their $ going right into the pockets of rich industrialists... I'm sorry but that is pure sensationalism intended to make the North evil w/ South poor put upon innocents argument.

The tariffs were enforced & collected at the ports, on imports; similar to the Buy American idea going around a few years back. The imports struck were not on the things the average southerner, or northerner for that matter, bought.


Johan it is not pure sensationalism. I would suggest you research what was under tariffs and what the tariffs were.

I would also recommend you research to understand why tariffs, internal improvements and the States Rights doctrine really is. Why any tariffs except those that paid off the National debt were opposed. Why were internal improvements opposed? How tariffs turned from paying the national debt to protectionism of Northern manufacturers.

Not the things the average consumer bought? Like cloth? Wool, clothes. How about shipbuilding? Where only US manufactured ships could be bought? How about shipping whereas only US (Northern) shippers could ship goods?  The tariffs affected the average man greatly.



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 04:27 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
49th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1060
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Been there done that, posted two links showing where I got my ideas. Tarriffs are a posh argument; part of the smoke & mirrors IMO.

I have no problem w/ the buy America argument, all for it in fact.



 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 09:53 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
50th Post
39th Miss. Walker
Member
 

Joined: Tue May 1st, 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 80
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The problem Johan is you aren't getting the whole picture. Tariffs weren't just about dollars, that was only part of the problem.
That is the thing most who have never done their homework, on both sides of the question, don't understand.
On the one side you equate tariffs as nothing more than a few dollars in taxes. You discount the basic philosophy of the States Rights doctrine.
On the other hand many who speak of States Rights don't understand either and only look at States Rights from the very basic premise espoused in the Lost Cause doctrine.
The reasonings took almost 45 years of some of the greatest minds of their day to work with and it all ended up in war. It wasn't such a simple matter.
Flippant comebacks just don't cut it.



 Posted: Sun Jan 6th, 2008 03:21 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
51st Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1060
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Miss Walker, over and over again I have seen the flippant claim that the South somehow paid 70% or more of the cost of the US govt through the Tariff. It holds up to no research of any kind and further analysis shows the South not paying any kind of dispraportionate (sp?)cost of the tariff. The tariff argument is smoke and mirrors and frankly not all that well put together smoke and mirrors. That people continue to blindly believe it is merely proof that a few can sucker the many as easily in 2008 as 1860.

Tariff came to about $2-$3 a head in the entire US. Even in 1860 that is insignificant and to claim it as a major cause of the war makes no sense. There is no need to add complexeties where there are none. That is why I posted the two links I did. One link details what exactly the tariffs were and the other a very long and involved discussion on the subject by those far more versed in the subject than I. In the end the Lost Cause side of that particular argument gets its head handed to it.

As to my homework on the subject... there are two links that were part of it. The Secession commisioners weren't screaming about the unfairness of the tariff but of slavery.

Back to the West Virginia side of the argument, those who formed West Virginia certainly didn't believe the tariffs or slavery a strong enough argument to split with the old flag.



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Sun Jan 6th, 2008 10:02 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
53rd Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I am just a country boy and easily confused, but I followed the links you provided regarding the tarriff issue and then followed links on that site. What I found strongly supports 39th Miss. Walker's argument...
As am I, Bama, but the tariff agrument simply doesn't fly very far. Ever launched one of those rubber band airplanes and it just blindly scrunched itself into a wall or tree? The tariff arguments simply don't fly. The south was not oppressed with tariffs. They paid exactly the same premium as the north. Fancy French libations oppressed the North as well as the south. The premium on rail steel affected the northern consumer as well as the southern. Cigars. Perfume. Furniture. There was no difference. You want a Steinway, you pay the freight. No difference. Rail stock? Same old same o.

The very idea that the south was put upon is, at best,specious. What the south had to pay, the north did as well.

All of the imports were dutied equally among the buyers. If you want to argue that the dutied items were more onerous in the south than in the north. I'd be interested to see some actual figures. The southern buyer paid exactly as much as the northern buyer, and probably a premium for the shipping. After all, the good stuff came into northern ports and was transhipped to southern buyers. And this has what to do with the northern merchants?

Push comes to shove in the general south. It lived on credit, and the north was the only source of that credit. Although the south was wealthy in terms of the paper value of land and slaves, it couldn't function without the credit granted by northern bankers. And that situation sucked, big time. But there were few southern financiers. And the northern influence was prevalent. Cain't live with them; can't live without them. And they grew to resent it. Just a sidebar.

ole



 Posted: Mon Jan 7th, 2008 02:07 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
54th Post
39th Miss. Walker
Member
 

Joined: Tue May 1st, 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 80
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Ole your last paragraph certainly rings true.

There were supporters of some tariffs in the South, there was a battle between the Unionist and Nullifiers/ anti-tariff forces throughout the 1812 to 1832 time period.

The point I keep trying to drive home which many just are unwilling to see is the whole picture. One can argue just tariffs and not come to any conclusion one way or the other.
Although one telling statistic was South Carolina on the average was paying over $500,000 per year more in tariffs that they got back from the Federal Government.

The whole issue is not just one tariff but a series of tariffs, the consequences of the tariffs, where the money was going to, for what, and the larger ramifications as to were the tariffs constitutional or not? Were internal improvements constitutional? Interference in internal State affairs, and the re-apportionment of excess funds.

Once you start looking at all of these together you will get a whole different picture, Add to this the almost 20 years of depressed prices for cotton, the failure of the lands to continue producing, immigration to western lands and the drain on the financial resources of South Carolina.

These contributed to the tariff question and lead to the US and the South almost coming to blows in 1832.

I am tired of the $2 argument, it doesn't hold water, neither does the flat 70% deal. What does hold water on only the most superficial basis was the 40% doctrine. Basically what this said was with the tariffs the planters only received 60% of the proceeds from the sale of their cotton or rice, the other 40% was lost due to tariffs.

If one does not look at the entire concept of States Rights, one can not understand the tariff's controversy. It was far more than just a series of taxes.

I will be the first to admit that some of the rhetoric from the South was basically alarmist propaganda. But the basic premise was there.

Look at the whole picture and you will understand. They didn't make this stuff up folks. If it was that cut and dried the US would not have been on the brink of war in 1832.



 Posted: Mon Jan 7th, 2008 02:16 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
55th Post
39th Miss. Walker
Member
 

Joined: Tue May 1st, 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 80
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

BTW Johan to quote from one of YOUR sources;

"The South had vainly, and probably accurately, argued that they paid a major portion of the tariff burden, but the revenue generated from the duties was spent overwhelmingly in the North."



 Posted: Mon Jan 7th, 2008 03:40 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
56th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1060
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Yes, one of my sources where I did not contribute. It is mine only in that I gave the link to what I thought was a more complete discussion by more learned people than I on the subject.

Ft Sumter, Ft Moultrie, Ship Island, Fortress Monroe, Norfolk Shipyards, Pensacola, three forts south of New Orleans etc, the lions share of the US Army on the frontier... mostly Texas. I don't see the liomns share of the money going north. Don't buy it. SC paid $500,000 one year in tariffs, ok how much did NY pay in that same year?

$2 a head just doesn't quite seem worth going to war for to me.
Sorry it just looks like smoke and mirrors to me.

Last edited on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 04:10 pm by Johan Steele



 Posted: Mon Jan 7th, 2008 05:38 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
57th Post
39th Miss. Walker
Member
 

Joined: Tue May 1st, 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 80
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

If you are going to give a link to support your position at least give one that doesn't refute your thoughts.

If you are seeing smoke and mirrors maybe it is that pipe from your avatar.

I never said that SC only paid $500,000. I said they paid $500,000 more, over, excess! Don't try and twist my words, it isn't very becoming.



 Posted: Mon Jan 7th, 2008 05:45 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
58th Post
39th Miss. Walker
Member
 

Joined: Tue May 1st, 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 80
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top


Last edited on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 05:48 pm by 39th Miss. Walker



 Posted: Mon Jan 7th, 2008 07:31 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
59th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1060
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Miss Walker, I gave a thread that I think does an excellent job of presenting both sides of the debate near to 350 posts arguing it. I happen to agree w/ one of those sides that doesn't happen to agree w/ yours.   I think all in all it is a superb thread that represents both sides of the argument quite well.  While at times there is some serious cherry picking it is dealt w/.  How anyone can read through all 30+ pages of the thread and come up w/ the idea that it refutes my idea... leads me to believe they read only the first page or two.

Forgive me for misconstrueing your $500,000 number. Now what did NY contribute that year?

The only thing I smoke in my pipe is good pipe tabbacy; I don't appreciate the insinuation. If I just miscontured your meaning; sorry.

I apparently came to a completely different conclusion over the tariffs than you have. I see the claim that they were integral in Secession as so much post war smoke and mirrors. So far I have seen nothing to convince me otherwise.

Tariffs as protectionism I can see; I can even see the argument put forward that tariffs protected US intrests more than those of SC and I would not disagree w/ such. What I cannot see in any way shape or form how the tariff issue outweighed or even came close to weighing the same as the slavery issue.

As this is a thread you started on the legality of West Virginia... how did the tariff influence Virginia & West Virginia in their actions?

Last edited on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 08:38 pm by Johan Steele



 Posted: Mon Jan 7th, 2008 08:34 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
60th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1060
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Import tariffs were overwhelmingly collected at Northern, not Southern, ports. New York alone accounted for more than half of all the import tariffs collected, and over 90% were collected at Northern ports.

How did this effect West Virginia, Georgia or Tennessee? Only in that the cost of the tariff was passed onto the end consumer. How this bothered SC more than say Iowa or Wisconsin I don't know.



 Current time is 07:05 amPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page  
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > Other Civil War Talk > West Virginia, did the US allow what they said the South couldn't do?
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2635 seconds (23% database + 77% PHP). 28 queries executed.