Dealing With Civil War Ignorance

Ryan Dawson, a Native American, sheds some light on the real history of the “Un-Civil War.”

Dealing With Civil War Ignorance

via Ryan Dawson of ancreport.com

Since I brought up the Civil War as a response to Jon Stewart’s rant about the confederate flag, people have been asking me about the Civil War. I guess they get taught in school the dumb dumb portrayal of evil that they get with every other war. If I hear but but but slavery one more time I’ll throw up. Seriously read a BOOK, and something not selected for you by the government run public school system on the “Un-Civl War.”

Most Americans believe the U. S. “Civil War” was over slavery. They have to an enormous degree been miseducated. The means and timing of handling the slavery issue were at issue, although not in the overly simplified moral sense that lives in postwar and modern propaganda. But had there been no Morrill Tariff there might never have been a war. The conflict that cost the lives of 650,000 Union and Confederate soldiers and perhaps as many as 50,000 Southern civilians and impoverished many millions for generations might never have been.

A smoldering issue of unjust taxation that enriched Northern manufacturing states and exploited the agricultural South was fanned to a furious blaze in 1860. It was the Morrill Tariff that stirred the smoldering embers of regional mistrust and ignited the fires of Secession in the South. This precipitated a Northern reaction and call to arms that would engulf the nation in the flames of war for four years.

Prior to the U. S. “Civil War” there was no U. S. income tax. Considerably more than 90% of U. S. government revenue was raised by a tariff on imported goods. A tariff is a tax on selected imports, most commonly finished or manufactured products. A high tariff is usually legislated not only to raise revenue, but also to protect domestic industry from foreign competition. By placing such a high, protective tariff on imported goods it makes them more expensive to buy than the same domestic goods. This allows domestic industries to charge higher prices and make more money on sales that might otherwise be lost to foreign competition because of cheaper prices (without the tariff) or better quality. This, of course, causes domestic consumers to pay higher prices and have a lower standard of living. Tariffs on some industrial products also hurt other domestic industries that must pay higher prices for goods they need to make their products. Because the nature and products of regional economies can vary widely, high tariffs are sometimes good for one section of the country, but damaging to another section of the country. High tariffs are particularly hard on exporters since they must cope with higher domestic costs and retaliatory foreign tariffs that put them at a pricing disadvantage. This has a depressing effect on both export volume and profit margins. High tariffs have been a frequent cause of economic disruption, strife and war.

Prior to 1824 the average tariff level in the U. S. had been in the 15 to 20 % range. This was thought sufficient to meet federal revenue needs and not excessively burdensome to any section of the country. The increase of the tariff to a 20% average in 1816 was ostensibly to help pay for the War of 1812. It also represented a 26% net profit increase to Northern manufacturers.

In 1824 Northern manufacturing states and the Whig Party under the leadership of Henry Clay began to push for high, protective tariffs. These were strongly opposed by the South. The Southern economy was largely agricultural and geared to exporting a large portion of its cotton and tobacco crops to Europe. In the 1850’s the South accounted for anywhere from 72 to 82% of U. S. exports. They were largely dependent, however, on Europe or the North for the manufactured goods needed for both agricultural production and consumer needs. Northern states received about 20% of the South’s agricultural production. The vast majority of export volume went to Europe. A protective tariff was then a substantial benefit to Northern manufacturing states, but meant considerable economic hardship for the agricultural South

Northern political dominance enabled Clay and his allies in Congress to pass a tariff averaging 35% late in 1824. This was the cause of economic boom in the North, but economic hardship and political agitation in the South. South Carolina was especially hard hit, the State’s exports falling 25% over the next two years. In 1828 in a demonstration of unabashed partisanship and unashamed greed the Northern dominated Congress raised the average tariff level to 50%. Despite strong Southern agitation for lower tariffs the Tariff of 1832 only nominally reduced the effective tariff rate and brought no relief to the South. These last two tariffs are usually termed in history as the Tariffs of Abomination.

This led to the Nullification Crisis of 1832 when South Carolina called a state convention and “nullified” the 1828 and 1832 tariffs as unjust and unconstitutional. The resulting constitutional crisis came very near provoking armed conflict at that time. Through the efforts of former U. S. Vice President and U. S. Senator from South Carolina, John C. Calhoun, a compromise was effected in 1833 which over a few years reduced the tariff back to a normal level of about 15%. Henry Clay and the Whigs were not happy, however, to have been forced into a compromise by Calhoun and South Carolina’s Nullification threat. The tariff, however, remained at a level near 15% until 1860. A lesson in economics, regional sensitivities, and simple fairness should have been learned from this confrontation, but if it was learned, it was ignored by ambitious political and business factions and personalities that would come on the scene of American history in the late 1850’s.

High protective tariffs were always the policy of the old Whig Party and had become the policy of the new Republican Party that replaced it. A recession beginning around 1857 gave the cause of protectionism an additional political boost in the Northern industrial states.

In May of 1860 the U. S. Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Bill (named for Republican Congressman and steel manufacturer, Justin S. Morrill of Vermont) raising the average tariff from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. Although this was remarkably reminiscent of the Tariffs of Abomination which had led in 1832 to a constitutional crisis and threats of secession and armed force, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Bill 105 to 64. Out of 40 Southern Congressmen only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it.

U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South.

In the 1860 election, Lincoln, a former Whig and great admirer of Henry Clay, campaigned for the high protective tariff provisions of the Morrill Tariff, which had also been incorporated into the Republican Party Platform. Lincoln further endorsed the Morrill Tariff and its concepts in his first inaugural speech and signed the Act into law a few days after taking office in March of 1861. Southern leaders had seen it coming. Southern protests had been of no avail. Now the South was inflamed with righteous indignation, and Southern leaders began to call for Secession.

At first Northern public opinion as reflected in Northern newspapers of both parties recognized the right of the Southern States to secede and favored peaceful separation. A November 21, 1860, editorial in the Cincinnati Daily Press said this:

“We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute.”

The New York Times on March 21, 1861, reflecting the great majority of editorial opinion in the North summarized in an editorial:

“There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”

Northern industrialists became nervous, however, when they realized a tariff dependent North would be competing against a free trade South. They feared not only loss of tax revenue, but considerable loss of trade. Newspaper editorials began to reflect this nervousness. Lincoln had promised in his inaugural speech that he would preserve the Union and the tariff. Three days after manipulating the South into firing on the tariff collection facility of Fort Sumter in volatile South Carolina, on April 15, 1861, Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the Southern rebellion. This caused the Border States to secede along with the Gulf States. Lincoln undoubtedly calculated that the mere threat of force backed by more unified Northern public opinion would quickly put down secession. His gambit, however, failed spectacularly and would erupt into a terrible and costly war for four years. The Union Army’s lack of success early in the war, the need to keep anti-slavery England from coming into the war on the side of the South, and Lincoln’s need to appease the radical abolitionists in the North led to increasing promotion of freeing the slaves as a noble cause to justify what was really a dispute over just taxation and States Rights.

Writing in December of 1861 in a London weekly publication, the famous English author, Charles Dickens, who was a strong opponent of slavery, said these things about the war going on in America:

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.”

“Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as many, many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”

Karl Marx, like most European socialists of the time favored the North. In an 1861 article published in England, he articulated very well what the major British newspapers, the Times, the Economist, and Saturday Review, had been saying:

“The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power.”

A horrific example of the damage that protective tariffs can exact was also seen in later history. One of the causes of the Great Depression of 1930-1939 was the Hawley-Smoot Act, a high tariff passed in 1930 that Congress mistakenly thought would help the country. While attempting to protect domestic industry from foreign imports, the unanticipated effect was to reduce the nation’s exports and thereby help increase unemployment to the devastating figure of 25%. It is fairly well known by competent and honest economists now that protective tariffs usually do more harm than good, often considerably more harm than good. However, economic ignorance and political expediency often combine to overrule longer-term public good. As the Uncivil War of 1861-5 proves, the human and economic costs for such shortsighted political expediency and partisan greed can be enormous.

The Morrill Tariff illustrates very well one of the problems with majoritarian democracy. A majority can easily exploit a regional, economic, ethnic, or religious minority (or any other minority) unmercifully unless they have strong constitutional guarantees that can be enforced, e. g., States Rights, Nullification, etc. The need to limit centralized government power to counter this natural depravity in men was recognized by the founding fathers. They knew well the irresistible tendencies in both monarchy and democracy for both civil magistrates and the electorate to succumb to the temptations of greed, self-interest, and the lust for power. Thus they incorporated into the Constitution such provisions as the separation of powers and very important provisions enumerating and delegating only certain functions and powers to the federal government and retaining others at the state level and lower. Such constitutional provisions including the very specific guaranty of States Rights and limits to the power of the Federal Government in the 10th Amendment are unfortunately now largely ignored by all three branches of the Federal Government, and their constant infringement seldom contested by the States.

The Tariff question and the States Rights question were therefore strongly linked. Both are linked to the broader issues of limited government and a strong Constitution. The Morrill Tariff dealt the South a flagrant political injustice and impending economic hardship and crisis. It therefore made Secession a very compelling alternative to an exploited and unequal union with the North.

Unjust taxation has been the cause of many tensions and much bloodshed throughout history and around the world. The Morrill Tariff was certainly a powerful factor predisposing the South to seek its independence and determine its own destiny. As outrageous and unjust as the Morrill Tariff was, its importance has been largely ignored and even purposely obscured. It does not fit the politically correct images and myths of popular American history. Truth, however, is always the high ground. It will have the inevitable victory

In addition to the devastating loss of life and leadership during the War, the South suffered considerable damage to property, livestock, and crops. The policies of “Reconstruction” and “carpetbagger” state governments further exploited and robbed the South, considerably retarding economic recovery. Further, high tariffs and discriminatory railroad shipping taxes continued to favor Northern economic interests and impoverish the South for generations after the war. It is only in relatively recent history that the political and economic fortunes of the South have begun to rise.

One last point needs to be made. The war of 1861-65 was not a “civil” war. To call it the “Civil War” is not a historically accurate and honest use of language. It is the propaganda of the victors having attained popular usage. No one in the South was attempting to overthrow the U. S. government. Few Southerners had any interest in overthrowing their own or anyone else’s state governments. The Southern states had seen that continued union with the North would jeopardize their liberties and economic well being. Through the proper constitutional means of state conventions and referendums they sought to withdraw from the Union and establish their independence just as the American Colonies had sought their independence from Great Britain in 1776 and for very similar reasons. The Northern industrialists, however, were not willing to give up their Southern Colonies. A more appropriate name for the uncivil war of 1861-65 would be “The War for Southern Independence.”

But had it not been for the Morrill Tariff there would have been no rush to Secession by Southern states and very probably no war. The Morrill Tariff of 1860, so unabashed and unashamed in its short-sighted, partisan greed, stands as an astonishing monument to the self-centered depravity of man and to its consequences. No wonder most Americans would like to see it forgotten and covered over with a more morally satisfying but largely false version of the causes of the Uncivil War.

A lot of people like to point to the fact that many of the Confederate memorials and flags were erected in the 1960s during the Civil Rights Movement as evidence that it is racist, however they don’t realize that the 1960’s was the Centennial of the war which was a huge deal at the time with massive celebrations and parades taking place around the country, with all of the States setting up Centennial Commissions and passing legislation to commemorate the States veterans and soldiers that were called to service to protect their States from invasion. The Confederate flag had virtually no negative connotations then, neither did it in the 80’s when America was all watching the The Dukes of Hazzard, or in the 70’s when they were all going to Lynyrd Skynyrd concerts and etc…

In fact in the 1960’s the Confederate battle flag was so popular during the Centennial that even civil rights groups and anti-war organizations adopted it to show Southern solidarity and fight for a “New South” against other racist pro-segregation groups that were also trying to use the flag. Groups like the Southern Student Organizing Committee (SSOC) and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) both used the Confederate battle flag in their logos, but of course nobody is taught about them in school today, and only about the pro-segregation groups using the flag. The former group actually urged Southerners to “secede” from racism and the Vietnam War, and the latter group was actually infiltrated by the FBI by order of the President to spy on their strategy which helped lead to the groups demise.

ImageThe Dukes of Hazzard was so popular in the entire country that the term Daisy Dukes come from the very short jean shorts a character wore on the show. Bless her for that too!

Image
Image[Pictured is the logo of the Southern Student Organizing Committee during the Civil Rights Movement]

ImageMississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) logo also from the Civil Rights Movement:

ImageMFDP was endorsed by Martin Luther King. Was he a racist too? Or was he simply a southerner.

Here’s another button from the SSOC you might appreciate, I actually have an original: Anti-war peace logo clearly based on the Confederate battle flag.

ImageI don’t think the confederate flag is racist. If it is racist then so is a Christian cross cause the klan uses that too. Racist groups don’t get to hijack symbols. A lot of people in the south died fighting an invading army that was burning down cities. Blacks and whites fought the north together and northern states also had slaves including the capital. And they used blacks and Irish as cannon fodder. If the confederate flag is racist how is the American flag not racist? Under that flag actual genocide took place before and after the civil war and millions have been killed in modern times. Do you know how stupid it sounds to claim the civil war was over slavery when several slave states fought for the North? And the Northern commander was a white supremacist. Because it sounds really really stupid. But I guess that’s the junk they teach you in school. The same racist went west with union troops and union generals like Custer and raped and murdered native Americans who are also a race by the way and also count as human beings.

I think you really are so basic and childish that you need war to have clearly cut good guys and bad guys. Its the same type of idiot that supports America aggression today and falls for every line on TV.

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?f=114&t=33840

Also see:

Ryan Dawson on the War of Northern Aggression and the Stars & Bars | Ryan Dawson joins the show to discuss so-called American Civil War. We discuss how the tariff was the primary issue that led to the secession crisis of 1860-61 and that the “Great Emancipator” Abraham Lincoln was content to preserve slavery if it would preserve the Union. We also discuss the brutal and criminal methods the Union Army used to crush the Confederacy and how the war resulted in the creation of the American plutocracy. Later we get into the controversy regarding the Confederate flag. https://youtu.be/REY30pDs_xM

8 thoughts on “Dealing With Civil War Ignorance”

  1. You’re absolutely correct in saying the Civil War was about money, not slavery. Why they teach that in school is beyond me, but ‘victors write the history books’. However, the designer of the Confederate flag pretty much said it was designed to show the supremacy of whites over blacks (it’s covered in this article, and there are many like it):

    Here’s the Racist Meaning Of the Confederate Flag, In the Words of the Man Who Designed It http://mic.com/articles/121082/here-s-the-racist-meaning-of-the-confederate-flag-in-the-words-of-the-man-who-designed-it

    But, even if you think that this one guy’s attitude shouldn’t fall on the shoulders of everyone in the South, isn’t it enough to understand that to the 12% of our population whose ancestors were dragged over here to work as slaves do see it that way? In essence, why shouldn’t we emulate the Germans who have banned the swastika in respect for the 8 Million killed by the Nazis?

    1. There’s a major difference between southern states trying to secede because of a corrupt central government and the Nazi government aggression against other countries and rounding up Jews and putting them in labor camps.

    2. No one named Thompson ever had anything to do with the design of the Confederate Flag. That hoax is a recent one, invented out of thin air with no proof whatsoever. The actual and true “designer” of the battle Flag was CSA Gen. PGT Beauregard, and he certainly never said anything about slavery. Please stop repeating that lie about Thompson being “the designer of the flag” and definitely stop repeating the fabrication of his remarks about slavery. http://dixieoutfitters.com/pages/blog/battle-flag-truth/

  2. Pingback: Some More ?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s