"the North is fighting for money. It is fighting for its supremacy to rule and levy tribute upon us. Its all is based upon its connection with us--commerce, manufactures, industry and wealth of all sorts. The people of the North know it. Financial ruin for all times stares them in the face. They are staking all--life, blood, political liberty--all upon the hazard. They must have money."Charleston Mercury, August 8, 1861
36th Congress 2nd SessionMarch 4, 1861 I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution which amendment, however, I have not seen has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. Abraham Lincoln - 1st inaugural speech
In 1861 the United States experienced a record number of business failures.And when you consider that it took only 2/3 of the American states to make that record - most Southern states were not included in the count because of secession - things must have been rather desperate in the North.No cotton to ship. No cotton for its mills. No cotton goods to sell.
No more Southern tax monies for corporate welfare, either.
I have just did some research on Cold Southern Steel on this very subject. Both Lincoln and Buchannan admit the cause was "revenue". After the war one of the first acts of Johnson was to set up tax and revenue collections points. Start reading here and read about the next four posts. https://coldsouthernsteel.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/a-proclamation/
Simpson made a whole post about this graphic, and Tweeted it, as well. Sez he, "The major historical inaccuracy here, of course, is that while most people did not go to war to free the slaves, a healthy number of them said that the reason they seceded was to protect slavery. To pretend otherwise is to lie."So he agrees with the graphic. As for the "healthy number" who said they seceded to protect slavery ... secession is not war, so that part of his statement is irrelevant. Secession and war are two different things. The graphic is about war, not secession. It says nothing about secession.
Absolutely correct, It should also be remembered that slavery was not the only cause of secession. There are many reason outlined in the Immediate Causes of Secession, slavery is just the issue that neo-yankees look for to justify their position.To lie is also to say the war was about slavery, when clearly the war was about the collection of revenue. Simply put if the war was about slavery, when the South seceded, the issue of slavery was settled for the North. If the North's fight was about preserving the Union, then the fight was also about preserving slavery, since slavery was legal under the Constitution.My point is the yankees try to own both sides of the moral high ground, and it is impossible with acknowledging these facts. Either way the fact remains that the North invaded the South with a armed fleet at Charleston.
Comments are welcome, but monitored.