Categories
History

The 1828 Tariff Had No Effect on the Civil War

hand holding tariff sign

This is another item that was just not discussed in history class. Indeed, it was barely mentioned.

This tariff was different from previous tariffs because it lacked a common goal, such as paying off war debt. It was also unevenly applied.

The massive tariffs against importation of manufacturing goods and raw materials was blatantly for the protection of New England manufacturing at the expense of the south and, to a lesser extent, the Northwest Territory and its derivative states. Remember, a “union” exists for the common good. That means that at this point in time, the Union was already broken.This tariff’s use as a weapon to transfer southern wealth to the north caused its nickname The Tariff of Abominations.

Also, southern historians date the beginning of the Civil War from this twisting of the use of tariffs. This was the lighting of the fuse, as the tariffs of the colonies lit the fuse of the American Revolution. Like the colonies, the southern states tried to work out a peaceful solution for years, but finally the break came.

 

Categories
History

Immigration of the 1840s and 1850s had Little Effect on the Civil War

19th Century Immigrant Sketch

This lie was perpetrated by omission of information. I was told that immigrants were extremely important to fill soldier ranks during the war. Nothing else was said.

Immigration law in effect in the antebellum and Civil War periods was based on the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the Naturalization Act of 1795. The first limited citizenship to “free white persons of good character.” This excluded Native Americans, indentured white servants, Asians, and blacks. The second required renunciation of allegiance to any other monarch or state.

States, not the federal government, could place restrictions on entry through their ports, but these were concerned with whether the immigrant could support himself and how to track him for taxation purposes.

Swedish immigrants came for religious freedom, if they were not Lutheran, and/or for opportunity in general. They came from an homogenous culture that celebrated community spirit and sharing. The rich were expected to share with the less fortunate, but everyone was expected to work, if able. Also, families were responsible for the well-being of their members.

Because Swedes did not differentiate between the culture of their homogenous homeland and the American culture serving a diverse population, Swedes were susceptible to socialism instead of capitalism.

No Swede had seen a black person. However, they were anti-slavery by principle and would make good Union soldiers, often in an ethnic militia in which Swedish was spoken instead of English.

Germans also came in large numbers for opportunity and/or religious reasons. They were found on both sides of the Civil War, depending on which state they lived in. Some even went to Texas. Germans in the south often owned slaves. Like their American neighbors, they considered slaves legal property and fought for the Confederates.

Germans in the north did not have an easy time, though, because the same extremists who were shouting for abolition of slavery and women’s rights had also extended temperance to eradication of alcoholic beverages and stretched hard liquor such as rum and whiskey to include beer. Now, beer was not only part of the German national heritage, it was also part of their religion because they believed that God himself had given them beer for the enjoyment of life. Thus, northern state Germans were ambivalent about serving the Union cause.

Germans formed another group of ethnic militias speaking their own language, but they were on both sides of the Civil War.

Closer to the Civil War, the massive Irish immigration fled the potato famine. They were easy marks to fill recruitment quotas. How amazing to step off the boat and be offered a job with good pay!

They did not come with racial bias, but soon absorbed the northern attitude and became extremely biased against all blacks. (Yes, I have three sources.) Perhaps some of it was because it was nice to feel that someone had lower class standing than the Irish!

A group of extremely dangerous radicals entered the country in the 1850s. Monarchies in Central Europe were fighting to regain control and even to protect their lives. The monarchs won.

The radicals, including Communists, were evicted or sensibly left on their own.  Some of these people came to the United States. Most of them were from Germanic states and took part in the violent uprising of 1848. The Civil War would give them the opportunity for violence.

But the states, concerned exclusively with finances, did not screen for a history of violence. Obviously, they could not reject people based on personal beliefs. So some radicals slipped in.

The radicals identified with the United States in fighting against slavery, which they saw as a freedom issue similar to what they fought for in Europe. Some outright Communists were not only Union soldiers, but officers.

The three best known Communist officers were August Willich of Prussian nobility who became brigadier general over all (German?) Indiana troops; Joseph Wademeyer (close collaborator with Karl Marx and spokesman for Marxism in the U.S.), colonel of the 41st Missouri regiment; and Fritz Anneke, who commanded the Second Wisconsin Battery of Light Artillery.

These men heavily influenced the U.S. army by providing Prussian discipline and by organizing pro-Union militias in heavily German states such as Missouri, Wisconsin, and Indiana. Along the way, they spread the Marxist message. It was often unnoticed because they were speaking German.

When Lincoln was elected the second time, Karl Marx sent him a letter of congratulations and commended him for fighting for the oppressed slaves. It is not known if Lincoln actually read the letter.

 

Categories
History

Southern States Were Poorer Than Northern States before the Civil War

coins stacked

This is another lie that was implied rather than told: the southern states were considerably poorer than northern states with the exception of plantation owners.

This is an extremely skewed statement.

First, “wealth” must be defined in the terms of pre-Civil War years, not by today’s standards. That’s a basic historical rule.

Slaves were legally defined as a kind of property and therefore valuable and easily turned into cash. Both north and south had slaves. The Northwest Territory states were created slave-free and there were several northern states in the process of emancipation with each state determining its own path. Overall, however, there was greater wealth due to slaves in the south, centered in the plantations.

Farming, in general, was more efficient in the south, despite that after initial outlay, farming machinery was more efficient than slaves, because slaves required continued expenditure until dead or sold—unlike factory workers of the north. Machines didn’t. Also, slaves, like horses used in most farming, reproduced and contributed to further wealth.

Manufacturing wealth was decidedly in the north’s favor. There was some manufacturing in the south, but not nearly to the extent of the north. However, the northern manufacturing was often not self-sufficient. The buyers were limited because Europe had its own Industrial Revolution and the southern states were interested but not frequent buyers of manufacturing.

States with more plantations were more self-sufficient. Beside the cash crops of tobacco and cotton, plantations grew their own food and livestock feed. Extra food and feed were sold to local people. This meant that the general public was eating more healthily than in the northern cities, where there were shortages of fresh, healthy foods.

Considering all of this, the average per capita income of the southern states was double that of northern states.

Another source of wealth that I have not seen in the data was the first gold rush. It was in Virginia! Although discovered earlier, commercial extraction of gold began in 1804 at a rate of $500,000 per year! That is not usually figured into the per capita income.

Please recall that before the Civil War, the United States followed the constitution, which included that “state” meant a separate political entity. That’s still the dictionary definition. I looked.

Therefore, all of the gold belonged not to the United States, but to the state of Virginia.

No, the southern states were not poor. They were comparatively wealthy. And avarice bloomed in the northern states. They wanted that wealth!

According to southern historians, that greed was the root cause of the Civil War.

Follow the money!