I am excited about the level of debate regarding the causes of the Civil War we are seeing, including Tom Quinn”s recent “Problem with Analysis.” Quinn makes some excellent points, but also makes some common mistakes.
The debate over the causes of the war is between those who believe it was all about (or mostly about) slavery and those who believe the primary causes were related to power and economics. Two significant things potentially undermine the “It was all about slavery” view: The Morrill Tariff (vastly increasing the tariff being mostly paid by the South), and the Corwin Amendment (a proposed Constitutional Amendment that would irrevocably guarantee slavery forever.)
The common approach to undermine the Morrill Tariff is to show that it did not become law until March 2, 1861, after the Deep South already seceded. The implication is that since the Morrill Tariff passed after seven states seceded, it could not have been a reason for them seceding. But this ignores the fact that Morrill proposed this tariff in 1859 and on May 10, 1860, the bill passed by a vote of 105 to 64 in the House. The South had just lost the equilibrium in the Senate, and with Lincoln”s election in November 1860, the Morrill Tariff could be delayed but not stopped. South Carolina seceded a month afterward, just it had threatened to do when faced with a similar crushing tariff in 1828. So to claim that the Morrill Tariff was irrelevant to secession ignores the fact that it became inevitable prior to secession.
Why was this a concern to the South? Due to how foreign trade had evolved, upwards of 80 percent of the tariff was paid by the South, while upward of 75 percent of it was being spent in the North. The North had a 2-1 advantage in the House (where appropriations are made), and the Senate tie was broken in the North”s favor in 1859. Half of the first 16 presidents were from the North. The “Southern Dominance” theory does not stand up to scrutiny. With Lincoln”s election, it was no longer possible for the South to stop the doubling of the tariff (tax) that would have crippled the Southern States. When faced with submission or secession, they chose secession.
The North could have done what it did in 1832 to avert that secession (nullification) crisis; agree to a lower tariff. Instead, it dangled the “slavery forever” Corwin Amendment in front of the South. Lincoln endorsed it, and it went to the states for ratification, where it remains today. The hope was “if we give them slavery, we will get the tariff.” But the South was not about to agree to such a huge transfer of their wealth.
So if it was “just about slavery,” why didn”t the Corwin Amendment settle the issue? Between this, the Dred Scott Decision, and the Fugitive Slave Law, slavery would be safe. By seceding, the South lost all the benefits of these protections and any remaining rights to the territories. Secession actually weakened slavery as a fugitive slave was now safe if he/she made it to the North. So why secede? Is it possible that the real battle was over breaking the power of the slave-states, and not slavery itself?
How do the “It was all about slavery” folks deal with these challenges? As stated above, they pretend that the Morrill Tariff just suddenly appeared after secession and they simply ignore the Corwin Amendment; why discuss actions when you have the racist rants of some secessionists to prove your point?
Accepting what really happened is not racist or revisionist as many might claim. Obviously, slavery played a huge role in the North/South differences. But to ignore or belittle other significant factors does a disservice to our historical understanding and is unfair to the people who lived before us.
Phil Smoley
Lakeport
