Oh, and Morrill was actually designed to appeal to the South, by levying tariffs on agricultural imports like sugar. It was also lower than the 1828 levels of tariffs that sparked the Nullification crisis. I checked the vote tally. If the seven states that had seceded had instead had senators at the vote, the Morrill Tariff would not have passed.

It's likely that the tariffs were a means by which the Union was able to pay for the war and also to unite various interests behind it. But ultimately those are post-secession issues - the secession was about slavery.

Lee left the US Military because Lincoln was raising an army to violently put down the 'illegal' act of secession. Lee wanted to defend the State of Virginia from a violent incursion by Lincoln. You might recall that the Northern troops were called Unionists not abolitionists.

Slavery was a central facet of the Deep South (7 States) that initially seceded. They wanted a new type of union that left them independent of the North. Lincoln was out to force the South from seceding. Ending slavery was a moral currency used more and more in the course of a deadly and costly civil war.

It's really much like notions today that we have to continue the war in Afghanistan otherwise little girls won't be able to go to school any longer. Such moral currencies are common in the length of wars. But it would be absurd to say we went into Afghanistan so that little girls could go to school. The same with slavery in the Civil War. As much as the South cared and was worked up about their right to slavery, the North did not bring war on them to stop slavery. They brought war to stop secession.

The South seceded to retain slavery. The North brought on the war to preserve the union. Those are not mutually exclusive statements. In fact, I think they are both true.

Both are indeed true. But neither was the SOLE reason, as in every conflict, there may be one main reason but plenty of other factors come in to play. Like a marriage broken up where the husband cheats, that's the major reason of course but why did he cheat? It would seldom be the ONLY reason even though it was the major one. Yet here we have plenty of people suggesting this is so, the ONLY reason was slavery and that's just not true, even one of ARJ's expert sources seems to agree.
It was not a simple one issue war, no siree

GMTom wrote:even one of ARJ's expert sources seems to agree.

Hey nimrod, I never said Bruce Catton agreed with me. As a matter of fact, I probaby said the exact opposite. What I said was "do some historians disagree with me? Yes. Do the majority of historians agree with me? Yes. So obviously Catton falls into the former category and not that later

What I did say about Bruce Catton was that he called people such as Gordon, and Talieferio Lost Causers.

And you still have never even attempted to answer the questions asked

Why was the North getting more immigration then the South?

Why was the North more industrially advanced the the South?

Why was the South so afraid of losing political power given the clear control they had had since the beginnings of the Republic?

As for you Morrill Tariff claim. Danivon showed your flaw there. Again the 5 minute Google search failed you. The tariff in place during the secessions was the Tariff if 1857 which set the Tariff at about 17% which was the lowest the tariff had been since something like the 1820's and was the lowest in the world (I believe).

The Morrill Tariff in no way supports your view, Danivon in no showed any flaw or in no dismissed the claim, he was in fact flat out wrong. The Morrill Tariff raised tarriffs from 15% to 37%. The effect hit all areas but more so the south. The largest export of the time was cotton, all from southern states. The result of the higher tariff affected the south far more than the industrialized north who exported far less manufactured products than the south's cotton, US made goods were used in the US, high tariffs were felt lesser in the north.
The huge increase was very similar to the Tariffs of abomination attempted (and nearly lead to civil war) in 1832.
"the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Bill 105 to 64. Out of 40 Southern Congressmen only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it." The South did in fact vote, because Danivon CLAIMS it would have passed if they voted is wrong.
His other claim that it appealed to the south, huh? So they get better sugar prices (as did the north) but their huge agricultural export economy was crippled! How does that appeal to the south?

The tariff was designed to punish the southern economy and to build the army in an effort to crush the south both economically as well as militarily.

To answer the other questions ARJ asks
Why this and why that, most certainly you can argue slavery had a ROLE in each question he asks. But once again, was that the ONLY reason? Of course not, here too we had many various reasons, one he brought up himself, in education.
The issue of slavery being the ONLY issue that brought on these other reasons for more industry, more immigration, more political power, etc is also more than a bit oversimplified. The south was built on agriculture and yes, on slavery. That most certainly played a PART in these reasons I do not deny. But to deny unfair one sided tariffs had absolutely no part, isn't that seeing what you want to see?

Why was the South so afraid of losing political power given the clear control they had had since the beginnings of the Republic?

why was the north so afraid of the south leaving the union?

GMTom wrote:"the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Bill 105 to 64. Out of 40 Southern Congressmen only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it." The South did in fact vote, because Danivon CLAIMS it would have passed if they voted is wrong.

Uhm dude, you need to read the entirety of your 5 minute google search articles. The 105-64 vote was was from a May 1860 House vote on the Bill. The problem with your point here is that the Senate took no action on the bill because the Majority leader of the Senate was your buddy Talaferro-Hunter.

The bill was then brought to the Senate Floor for a vote in February of 1861. By that time 7 Southern States had seceded taking their 14 Senators with them. The Bill passed the Senate by a vote of 25-14. So if those States had not seceded and the Senators had voted on the bill, it would have failed by a vote of 28-25. It was then voted on by the House a second time.

So Danivon was correct, and once again you are proven wrong. Dude, read some books. Seriously, a 5 minute Google search and then skimming the article is no replacement for 25+ years of reading on the subject.

GMTom wrote:"To answer the other questions ARJ asks
Why this and why that, most certainly you can argue slavery had a ROLE in each question he asks. But once again, was that the ONLY reason? Of course not, here too we had many various reasons, one he brought up himself, in education.

But once again you only bring up the part of what I said that supports you. That sir is intellectually dishonest. The second half of what I said was that the disparity in education was related to southern slavery.

At least he didn't call you a nimrod...

Archduke, you're condescending.

Tom, you're losing the debate (but I still like your beard).

My 2 cents, and worth every penny: No slavery, no war. End of story.

hold on, I only stated slavery was one of many reasons for the war, the biggest reason but not the ONLY reason. No way am I losing that argument since almost every historian (with the exception of our house expert) happens to agree there were indeed other factors. No slavery, probably no war (can't be certain) but was it the only reason, if not, I am correct. Please point to where I stated anything other than that.

SLOTerp wrote:At least he didn't call you a nimrod...

Archduke, you're condescending.

You are correct. Mea Culpa's. I was a little ticked off when Tom tried to claim his 5 minutes of skimming articles was comparable to indepth reading on the subject. I had been able to control it but I am particularly tired today. (14 hours at the polls yesterday, only about 3 hours of sleep last night & all day watching my kids) It kind of caused my internal censor to slip.

SLOTerp wrote:My 2 cents, and worth every penny: No slavery, no war. End of story.

This is the point I have been trying to make. While there were other issues all those issues were created by slavery. Without slavery, there is no need to protect it. Without the need to protect slavery, there is no fear of losing power. There is no overwhelming disparity in industrialization. Without the overwhelming disparity in industrialization, the population disparity is probably lessened because immigration will be more widely spaced. etc, etc, etc.

Funny how you like to rewrite history to your liking. The Boston Herald called the Morill Tariff a "war tariff"

Georgia's Secession declaration mentioned the tariff as one reason for secession

Southern calls for secession came immediately after passage of the Morill tariff

but it had no part in the reasons for the civil war?
...yeah, ok

SLOTerp wrote:At least he didn't call you a nimrod...

Archduke, you're condescending.

Tom, you're losing the debate (but I still like your beard).

My 2 cents, and worth every penny: No slavery, no war. End of story.

perfect

Tom for what it is worth, I think you are commiting an error in logic as much as one in history. If you say there are 3 reasons (A,B,C, etc.) for something (CW), than each reason has to actually cause CW. However, if A alone is sufficient for CW, then B and C are not causes. That's the reason why virtually no one is agreeing with you.

ARJ is making the further point that A is a primary cause of B and C and D in the first place. I'm not sure about this in the logic area, but it has been interesting history, and I appreciate it..

Tom, you are avoiding a key question. The House (dominated by Republicans, being a more democratically representative chamber it was in the hands of the more populous northern states) passed the Bill. But the Senate did not, because the Democrats controlled it in 1860.

It was not the 1860 elections that altered the composition of the Senate to give the Republicans a majority, it was the secession of the first seven states. Had secession really been about Morrill, it would have made more sense for the states that opposed it to remain in the Union and wait for the result of the vote. If it passed, then they could secede as a result of the Tariff increase and we would all be able to see it as a major cause. However, we can see that if the 14 Senators from those seven states had been there and voted along party and state lines (the vote was along party lines pretty much), then Morrill's Bill would have fallen by 28-25 votes.

Clearly, there were other issues that were far more important to the seven states that seceded before the Bill went to the Senate than Tariffs.

RJ - Indeed, ARJ has provided a strong argument that many of the 'other' issues are largely (perhaps mainly, perhaps just significantly) a result of slavery. I tend to agree with him.

To me, it's like discussing the causes of WWI. There are all sorts of potential causes that we can talk about - the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, an arms race, Imperial rivalries, treaties between two developing 'rival' power blocs shattering the Bismarck system, German strategy to attack France in the event of war with Russia, etc etc...

But underlying all or most of them is the theme of ever increasing Nationalism across Europe.