Gelert on Nostr: Furthermore, there was the flagrant unconstitutionality of levying taxes and tariffs ...
Furthermore, there was the flagrant unconstitutionality of levying taxes and tariffs at the expense of one sector or region for the explicit benefit of another. The North leveraged it's larger voting base in spite of these protections for minorities against mob rule. The exploited in this case being southern raw goods trade and the beneficiaries being mostly northern industrialists, primarily in rail and textiles. One cannot talk of the Civil War without the context of the previous decades of heavy tariffs on Cotton and tobacco exports culminating in the "Tariff of abominations" and the nullification crisis of 1832, a sort of dress rehearsal for 61'.
When Lincoln, a complete dark horse unknown scion of staunch protectionist Henry Clay and long time crony rail lawyer, got into office despite not being on any southern ballot that, for many, was the last straw; they were convinced the federal government would not respect their constitutional protections and seceded. We know mistrust in the federal government's integrity was the main reason because Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and N. Carolina didn't even secede until AFTER Lincoln called up 100,000 men to invade the South. Evidently the late seceders naively thought Lincoln could be reasoned with and the system saved until he went full dictator invading sovereign states, censoring the press and locking up thousands of dissidents in the media and government by waving the right to habeas corpus.
This really is the only way to make sense of the start of the war.
>The war was over Slavery
-Why did the South attack first?
>Because Lincoln tricked them into firing the first shot
-Why did he have to do that if the North already had the casus belli of emancipation?
>Well because Northerners were racist
-If Northerners didn't want emancipation why did the South think their slaves were in danger of being freed that they'd secede?
>'Out of context excerpt from a state's ordinance of secession.'
-Is there any actually evidence the institution of Slavery was under threat in the existing slave states?
>muh cornerstone speech
-can Lincoln or ANY northern politician, General or other person of note be quoted as wanting to end slavery in the south?
The argument really comes down to the pro slavery-war side being forced to assert a covert conspiracy where the entire Northern establishment was trying to strip the South of slavery while swearing to the exact opposite, silencing dissenting voices, suffering mass race riots and desertions at the mere mention of such policy, and then using that to misattribute Southern racial attitudes against the tiny militant emancipators into the improper context of it being the soul reason for secession. This is all before one even mentions the Corwin amendment a feeble olive branch to try and deescalate the crisis which would have enshrined slavery into the constitution as a protected right of states to practice which was rejected by the south.
When Lincoln, a complete dark horse unknown scion of staunch protectionist Henry Clay and long time crony rail lawyer, got into office despite not being on any southern ballot that, for many, was the last straw; they were convinced the federal government would not respect their constitutional protections and seceded. We know mistrust in the federal government's integrity was the main reason because Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and N. Carolina didn't even secede until AFTER Lincoln called up 100,000 men to invade the South. Evidently the late seceders naively thought Lincoln could be reasoned with and the system saved until he went full dictator invading sovereign states, censoring the press and locking up thousands of dissidents in the media and government by waving the right to habeas corpus.
This really is the only way to make sense of the start of the war.
>The war was over Slavery
-Why did the South attack first?
>Because Lincoln tricked them into firing the first shot
-Why did he have to do that if the North already had the casus belli of emancipation?
>Well because Northerners were racist
-If Northerners didn't want emancipation why did the South think their slaves were in danger of being freed that they'd secede?
>'Out of context excerpt from a state's ordinance of secession.'
-Is there any actually evidence the institution of Slavery was under threat in the existing slave states?
>muh cornerstone speech
-can Lincoln or ANY northern politician, General or other person of note be quoted as wanting to end slavery in the south?
The argument really comes down to the pro slavery-war side being forced to assert a covert conspiracy where the entire Northern establishment was trying to strip the South of slavery while swearing to the exact opposite, silencing dissenting voices, suffering mass race riots and desertions at the mere mention of such policy, and then using that to misattribute Southern racial attitudes against the tiny militant emancipators into the improper context of it being the soul reason for secession. This is all before one even mentions the Corwin amendment a feeble olive branch to try and deescalate the crisis which would have enshrined slavery into the constitution as a protected right of states to practice which was rejected by the south.