In reply to WC Buser's comment, below.

Two observations.  First, is it possible that tariff policy was also
implicated in slavery?  In otherwords, shouldn't we at least consider the
possibility that differences in tariff policy between the regions reflected
the different economic bases of regional economies, which in turn brings us
back to slavery?

Second, shouldn't we give credence to the reasons that the southern
politicians who led the secession movement themselves articulated for
secession?  We can, after all, actually look at the speeches and debates in
the secession conventions, and we can read and analyze the arguments they
produced afterwards, when they tried to explain themselves to their
constituents.

What we find if we do so is that *they* said the issue was largely about
slavery.  So, when (as they did) they said (the equivalent of) "the main
reason we are seceding is to defend our right to own slaves," shouldn't we
take that fairly seriously?  If your suggestion is true, and slavery was
not the principle reason for secession, then we need to explain why the
southern political leadership itself, when it sought to rationalize its
decision, placed such a heavy emphasis on slavery.  If your argument is
true, then there is a real disconnect between what the politicians said and
what their real motives were, and that becomes a strange thing that we must
explain.

Now it is of course possible that the policians were dissembling, and
concealing their true motives. It would not be the first time in American
history, nor, as we know, would it be the last.  It is possible that the
true, concealed reasons for secession really had to do with preserving
(say) state's rights or protesting tariff policies.  But the burden of
proof, it seems to me, has to rest with the person arguing that we should
discount what the politicians really said.  Until you can show me that they
were concealing their true motives, I think the prudent thing for me to
believe is that they meant what they said.

Best,
Kevin

--On Saturday, February 22, 2003 3:05 PM +0000 [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Then why did New England want to leave the Union in 1812....not over
> slavery. I'm not saying the slavery was not part of the equation I think
> there other issues like taxes..trade tariffs, and this issue of slavery.
> The North was becoming economically stronger than the South...industry
> and the growth on a "free Labor" ( which in some cases was worse than the
> situation slaves found themselves in) meant the North would be the
> power....the North would then dictated the prices of capital goods which
> the South needed..dictated interest rates on loans...etc.. Frankly I
> think if the war had never come the South would moved away from slavery
> has a labor source as it becomes too expensive to maintain.
>
> WC Buser
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html



--
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of History, MSC 2001
James Madison University
Harrisonburg VA 22807
Phone:  540/568-6306
Email:  [log in to unmask]

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html