- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why did the Union not allow the Confederacy to secede without a war?
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:12 am
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:12 am
Sorry if this topic has been discussed before. I wish there was a History board for this type of topic.
I'm a big fan of the podcast The Rest is History, which is allegedly the world's most listened to podcast. But I'm late to the party. I did not start listening until last year. Right now, I'm catching up on some of their earlier episodes.
The podcast is hosted by two English historians.
In 2022 they did a 4-part series on the American civil war. They had a guest who is a professor at Oxford who is supposedly an expert. I listened to it this morning during my daily run and while walking my dog.
They briefly discussed the question of why the Union did not just allow the Confederacy to secede without going to war. They did not provide any definitive answer.
I've never thought about this before, but now the question intrigues me.
Are there any historians here who care to enlighten me?
I'm a big fan of the podcast The Rest is History, which is allegedly the world's most listened to podcast. But I'm late to the party. I did not start listening until last year. Right now, I'm catching up on some of their earlier episodes.
The podcast is hosted by two English historians.
In 2022 they did a 4-part series on the American civil war. They had a guest who is a professor at Oxford who is supposedly an expert. I listened to it this morning during my daily run and while walking my dog.
They briefly discussed the question of why the Union did not just allow the Confederacy to secede without going to war. They did not provide any definitive answer.
I've never thought about this before, but now the question intrigues me.
Are there any historians here who care to enlighten me?
29
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:14 am to TulsaSooner78
Money/resources and power like all other wars.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:15 am to TulsaSooner78
Cotton was king at the time
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:18 am to TulsaSooner78
Suggested reading:
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:19 am to TulsaSooner78
Didn't secessionist armed forces begin to seize US military property right away? Those are armed rebellion activities.
If those secessionist violent activities had never happened, we can't know for sure, but, probably POTUS Lincoln would have called up troops to invade the South, just like he did in response to the violence.
People may get tired of talking about the ACW, and I understand that, but, one must admit that in all of human history, the ACW is a very unique event.
If those secessionist violent activities had never happened, we can't know for sure, but, probably POTUS Lincoln would have called up troops to invade the South, just like he did in response to the violence.
People may get tired of talking about the ACW, and I understand that, but, one must admit that in all of human history, the ACW is a very unique event.
This post was edited on 5/17/26 at 8:20 am
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:28 am to CaptEasy
quote:
Cotton was king at the time
Understood, but the north also had resources that the south needed.
Why not just allow the south to form their own country, then engage with them in international trade just like with other foreign countries?
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:28 am to TulsaSooner78
We just had a long, lengthy, in depth discussion about this, some 400+ posts and I don't remember how many pages ... late last month.
You'r typical yankee worshipping Marxo-Commie assclowns, SFP, et al, basically devolved it over time but ... it's worth a read.
Do a search ... it's not far back in the archives.
You'r typical yankee worshipping Marxo-Commie assclowns, SFP, et al, basically devolved it over time but ... it's worth a read.
Do a search ... it's not far back in the archives.
This post was edited on 5/17/26 at 9:56 am
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:30 am to TulsaSooner78
quote:
Jonathan Clark
Nov 1, 2017
The Civil War is perhaps the most misunderstood event in the history of the United States while ironically, appears to be the single historical event most Americans believe they fully comprehend.
It’s likely difficult for many of us — and nearly impossible for younger generations — to imagine a world without air conditioning, refrigeration, and amply-filled grocery stores. Which is nothing to say of a life without the Internet, smartphones, and Amazon.
Consider for a moment that just over a hundred years ago, many Americans didn’t live to see their fiftieth birthday — and the most common cause of death was dysentery.
Life in 1860 America, the year Abraham Lincoln was elected president, was nothing like it is today.
The Southern states were mostly rural, and agriculture was the primary industry while in the North, the industrial revolution was in its infancy. Few Americans had more than a primary school education, and medicine was one level above medieval.
And yet, too many of us mistakenly believe we can make value judgments about a time of which we know little.
To truly understand any historical event, one must study it within the proper context — what is commonly referred to as “contextualization.” But as generation after generation pass, we internalize notions about why people behaved the way they did in the past.
And often, we interpret stories of events through the lens of popular culture — many of which are not entirely accurate.
The American Civil War is chief among these.
For most of us (including me), we attended public schools where we were provided roughly the same instruction regarding the Civil War: Our country was composed of the North, where people opposed slavery, and the South where slavery was embraced. Abraham Lincoln rose to the presidency and fought against the South to end slavery and saved the Union.
Like most of my high school peers, this story seemed plausible enough to me and after all, it ended happily: Slaves were freed and the Union remained intact.
Plausible enough until I read a couple of books by Charles Adams, a tax historian and author from New England — hardly a Southern extremist with an ax to grind.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:32 am to scrooster
quote:
In these fascinating books, Adams explores how taxation affected historical events and how the popular interpretation of the Civil War survives in the face of some obvious facts.
I had to revise my thinking.
Consider that throughout the presidential campaign of 1860, then-candidate Abraham Lincoln had all but promised not to interfere with Southern slavery, which he reiterated in his first presidential inaugural address.
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
This seems to run contrary to conventional thinking. Wasn’t he an abolitionist?
Furthermore, Lincoln promised to enforce the fugitive slave laws as president — laws passed by Congress in 1793 and 1850 to provide for the return of slaves who escaped from one state into another state or territory.
Indeed, Southern secession would have made slavery more precarious without the protection of the Constitution and the Supreme Court. From a slave property standpoint, staying in the Union made more sense than leaving.
Adding further confusion are the numerous accounts from contemporary newspapers from the North, South, and Europe — all of which tell the tale of a “tariff war,” not the popularly-held notion that the Civil War was a “war against slavery.”
But if the war wasn’t over slavery, what then?
Like most historical events, this too was complicated.
It’s too easy to assign blame for the Civil War on the South and slavery — and intellectually lazy.
Like many other conflicts, the Civil War was decades in the making and the culmination of unresolved issues between the Northern and Southern states. And it finally came to a head during the 1860 presidential campaign and election.
To fully understand the Civil War, it’s vital to recognize that we are dealing with two separate issues: The cause for secession and the cause of the war.
Let’s begin with secession.
In 1860, nearly all federal tax revenue was generated by tariffs — there were no personal or corporate income taxes. And the Southern states were paying the majority (approximately eighty percent) of the tariffs with an impending new tariff that would nearly triple the rate of taxation.
Adding insult to injury, much of the tax revenues collected from imports in the South went to Northern industrial interests and had been for decades. The 1860 Republican platform promised more of the same, which was further eroding the trust of Southerners.
Remember that slave labor practices of the South contrasted greatly with the industries of the North. Without slave labor, most Southern plantations wouldn’t have survived; there simply weren’t enough workers. Slavery was inextricably linked to the South.
While the issue of slavery was, in fact, a primary concern for the South, the secessionist movement began decades before the Civil War.
In 1828, Congress passed a tariff of sixty-two percent which applied to nearly all imported goods. The purpose of the tariff was to protect Northern industries from low-priced imported goods. But it effectively increased the cost of goods for the South, which sans manufacturing capacity, relied heavily on imported goods.
At the same time, the tariff reduced the amount of British goods sold to the South, effectively making it more difficult for the British to pay for Southern cotton. It’s no wonder the South would refer to the Tariff of 1828 as the “Tariff of Abominations.”
The government of South Carolina declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable, creating a precarious situation between the state and the federal government. Of little surprise, President Andrew Jackson refused to accept South Carolina’s defiance. Without the Compromise Tariff of 1833, it’s likely that South Carolina would have moved to secede from the Union.
While the crisis was averted, tensions between the North and the South were just beginning to grow.
More tariffs in 1842 and 1857 along with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision worked to further divide the country. In May of 1860, the House of Representatives passed the Morrill Tariff Bill, the twelfth of seventeen planks in the platform of the incoming Republican Party — and a priority for the soon-to-be-elected new president.
Charles Dickens, from his journal, All the Year Round, observed, “The last grievance of the South was the Morrill tariff, passed as an election bribe to the State of Pennsylvania, imposing, among other things, a duty of no less than fifty per cent on the importation of pig iron, in which that State is especially interested.” (1)
Soon after, America elected its first “sectionalist” president: Abraham Lincoln. And the rupture of the Union was finally at hand.
On December 20th, 1860, South Carolina voted unanimously to secede. Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana soon followed and before Lincoln’s inaugu
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:32 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
Suggested reading
I would add The Impending Crisis by David M. Potter
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:33 am to TulsaSooner78
quote:
Why not just allow the south to form their own country, then engage with them in international trade just like with other foreign countries?
Might set a bad precedent. The West and Midwest could follow suit.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:34 am to scrooster
quote:
The war to save the Union.
To understand how the war began, we should begin with the words of Abraham Lincoln.
“I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them,” Lincoln said in his first inaugural on March 4, 1860. (3)
While promising not “to interfere with the institution of slavery,” Lincoln also argued, “no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union.”
Then he threw down the gauntlet against rebellion.
“In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” (Emphasis mine)
Lincoln argued that secession was legally and constitutionally impossible, a view that stood in stark contrast to his stated beliefs while a member of Congress just twelve years prior.
In a speech in the House of Representatives regarding the war with Mexico, Lincoln argued in favor of secession.
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right — a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” (4)
Perhaps his views changed between his time in Congress and becoming president. But it’s doubtful given his involvement in the creation of the state of West Virginia during the Civil War, which provided his party additional electoral votes and congressional representation — an act Lincoln’s own attorney general believed was unconstitutional.
In a December 1862 written statement, Attorney General Edward Bates declared, “I observe, in the first place, that the Congress can admit new States into this Union, but cannot form States: Congress has no creative power, in that respect; and cannot admit into this Union, any territory, district or other political entity, less than a State. And such State must exist, as a separate independent body politic, before it can be admitted, under that clause of the Constitution — and there is no other clause.” (5)
It seems that Lincoln wasn’t opposed to secession if it served his political purposes. But now as president of a divided country, he was facing a challenge of potentially dire economic consequences: Should the Southern states have been allowed to leave the Union unmolested, they would have taken with them millions in tax revenues.
After the first states seceded, many in the Northern press expressed opposition to war with the South. Writing in the New York Tribune, Horace Greeley declared, “We hope never to live in a republic where one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets.” (6)
The Tribune was among the great newspapers of its time, an influential journal of the Republican party, and Greeley was among the day’s opinion leaders.
Moreover, many of Lincoln’s advisors also recommended against any action that might lead to a war with the South. Even Lincoln’s top Army commander wanted nothing to do with war. “Let the wayward sisters depart in peace,” urged General Winfield Scott.
Secretary of State, William Seward, also advised the new president to let the rebellious states go and avoid actions that could upset the states of the upper-South. He thought that eventually, the aggrieved states would see the error of their ways and campaign for reunification. “I do not think it wise to provoke a Civil War beginning in Charleston and in rescue of an untenable position,’’ Seward insisted.
But it didn’t take long before Northern newspaper editors did the math and realized what secession really meant for Northern enterprises. In addition to the loss of tax revenue, the South’s free trade position would’ve had dire consequences for Northern ports.
In his inaugural speech as Governor of South Carolina, Francis W. Picks pledged the state would “open her ports free to the tonnage and trade of all nations” should secession occur.
The Chicago Times foretold the impending economic disaster.
“In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with Lincoln.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:37 am to scrooster
quote:
In fact, soon after Jefferson Davis became the first president of the CSA, he dispatched a commission to Washington, DC to negotiate a treaty and an offer to pay for all Federal property in the South. (10) But Lincoln refused to meet with the emissaries, believing acknowledgment would discredit his position that secession was illegal.
And that thinking also thwarted the final attempt to resolve the dilemma through peaceful means.
Lincoln coaxes the South into war.
At the time Southern states began seceding, many of the Union forts within their borders were abandoned, save a few. Consider that the US Military (and government) at the start of the Civil War resembled little like what we have today. The United States had a standing army of about sixteen thousand men in 1861, most of whom served in poorly equipped outposts.
Fort Sumter, a sparsely populated duty collection point in Charleston harbor, was one of the few forts where Union personnel remained. As was evident from Lincoln’s contemporaries, an attempt to send Union troops into any of the Confederate states would provoke a war.
Lincoln knew that if South Carolina and the Confederacy allowed the fort to be provisioned, it would make a mockery of their sovereignty. And if the Confederacy fired on the Union ships, it would have been the Confederacy, not Lincoln who fired the first shots of the war.
“He was a master of the situation,” wrote Lincoln’s private secretaries John G. Nicolay and John Hay. “Master if the rebels hesitated or repented, because they would thereby forfeit their prestige with the South; master if they persisted, for he would then command a united North.” (11)
Lincoln knew what he was doing when he ordered Fort Sumter to be resupplied. He was a cunning politician and Fort Sumter was his opportunity. He seized it believing it would be a short war. He couldn’t have been more wrong.
Viewing the Civil War as a crusade to end slavery is simply not correct; abolitionists never accounted for more than a sizeable minority in the North. The cause of war in 1861 wasn’t slavery. It was about the loss of millions in tax revenues.
Nor was it a Civil War. The Confederate states had no aspirations to rule the Union any more than George Washington sought control over Great Britain in 1776. In both the American Revolutionary War and the “Civil War,” independence was the goal.
The original quagmire.
The idea that the Civil War was some sort of a morality play about freeing Southern slaves is an ideological distortion that obfuscates many of the atrocities that occurred during and after the war.
But if we accept the idea that Lincoln was waging war to free the slaves, it helps justify the loss of over 600,000 American lives. Not to mention the financial cost of the war, which many historians believe could have been avoided.
Indeed, this wasn’t the first time a United States president had faced the issue of secession.
From 1800 to 1815, three serious attempts at secession were orchestrated by New England Federalists, who were infuriated by what they believed was unconstitutional acts by President Thomas Jefferson.
Among the voices for secession was Connecticut Senator James Hillhouse who declared, “The Eastern States must and will dissolve the Union and form a separate government. I will rather anticipate a new confederacy, exempt from the corrupt and corrupting influence and oppression of the aristocratic Democrats of the South.”
“There will be — and our children at farthest will see it — a separation. The white and black population will mark the boundary,” wrote Timothy Pickering, the prominent Senator from Massachusetts. (12)
It was the belief of Hillhouse, Pickering, John Quincy Adams, and others that the South was gaining too much power and influence at a cost to the New England states.
What was Jefferson’s response to the threat of secession? It certainly wasn’t war.
“Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part.” (13)
“Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.” (14)
From all outward accounts, Lincoln wanted a war with the South — some might say he needed it — and that’s what he got. The loss of tax revenues from the Southern ports would not go unpunished as he promised in his inaugural address.
But after more than a year at war, the Union’s prospects for victory were in doubt.
Losses to the Army in significant battles had the Union mired in a bloody quagmire. Moreover, Britain and France were considering support for the Confederacy by recognizing it as a sovereign country, which could have concretized secession and put Lincoln’s forces at risk of having to fight
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:41 am to HubbaBubba
That piece goes on and on ... there's no real surviving link to it that I know of ... I'll copy/paste the rest of it if anyone is interested.
Here's the suggested reading.
quote:
Suggested reading:
Here's the suggested reading.
quote:
Those Dirty Rotten Taxes: The Tax Revolts that Built America
and When in the Course of Human Events by Charles Adams.
Also, The Real Lincolnby Thomas J. Dilorenzo.
All three books are well-written and well-cited.
Notes:
(1) All the Year Round: A Weekly Journal, Volume 6 LINK
(2) Ordinance of Secession, Wikipedia: LINK
(3) First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln: LINK
(4) The War With Mexico: Speech in the United States House of Representatives: LINK
(5) West Virginia Archives & History: LINK
(6) Liberty and Union: A Constitutional History of the United States, Volume 1: LINK
(7) New York Evening Post, March 12, 1861: LINK
(8) HistoryNet: LINK
(9) Lincoln’s Herndon: LINK
(10) Causes of the Civil War: The Differences Between the North and South: LINK
(11) Abraham Lincoln, a Man of Faith and Courage: Stories of Our Most Admired: LINK
(12) Bye Bye, Miss American Empire: Neighborhood Patriots, Backcountry Rebels: LINK
(13) The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743–1826: LINK
(14) The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743–1826: LINK
(15) HistoryNet, Emancipation Proclamation Full Text: LINK
(16) A History of the American People: Critical Changes and Civil War: LINK
(17) Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln: LINK
(18) History Today Volume 61 Issue 9 September 2011: LINK
(19) Lincoln–Douglas debates, Wikipedia: LINK
(20) Speech on the Dred Scott Decision, Abraham Lincoln: LINK
(21) President Lincoln’s Second Annual Message December 1, 1862: LINK
(22) The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 6th Debate Part I: LINK
(23) Democracy in America — Volume 1: LINK
(24) New York Draft Riots, History.com: LINK
(25) The Lehrman Institute, Abraham Lincoln’s Classroom: LINK
(26) President Lincoln suspends the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, History.com: LINK
(27) President Abraham Lincoln Executive Order — Arrest and Imprisonment of Irresponsible Newspaper Reporters and Editors: LINK
(28) ACTA Survey, April 14, 2015: LINK
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:41 am to TulsaSooner78
Read Kenneth Stampp's foundational work, The Causes of the Civil War. Many documents from that era are discussed. One of keen interest is a piece from New York Courier and Enquirer, December 1, 1860.
"We love the Union, because at home and abroad, collectively and individually, it gives us character as a nation and as citizens of the Great Republic; because it gives us nationality as a People, renders us now the equal of the greatest European Power, and in another half century, will make us the greatest, richest, and most powerful people on the face of the earth...."
Other pieces talk about manifest destiny. Preventing Southern alliances with European powers at the expense of the Union. How surrendering to secession is the suicide of government.
"We love the Union, because at home and abroad, collectively and individually, it gives us character as a nation and as citizens of the Great Republic; because it gives us nationality as a People, renders us now the equal of the greatest European Power, and in another half century, will make us the greatest, richest, and most powerful people on the face of the earth...."
Other pieces talk about manifest destiny. Preventing Southern alliances with European powers at the expense of the Union. How surrendering to secession is the suicide of government.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:44 am to TulsaSooner78
They wanted that damn COTTON. 
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:47 am to TulsaSooner78
The North had more people....that resource.
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:50 am to TulsaSooner78
quote:I think the problem was that the northern states were behind Europe, specifically the UK in producing industrial goods and would have been at a competitive disadvantage in trading. I think taxes and tariffs were an attempt to force the southern states to trade with the northern states more than the market would have dictated. The UK was a better trading partner for the southern states at that specific point in time. It was farther along in the industrial revolution and needed cotton for its textile industry.
Why not just allow the south to form their own country, then engage with them in international trade just like with other foreign countries?
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:51 am to Beau Fontenot
Can’t be much of a tyrant if you don’t have subjects to loot from and terrorize.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News