From: p00098@mail.psi.net (Jones M Murphy Jr)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa,alt.appalachian
Subject: Re: civil war connections
Date: 13 Sep 92 13:37:35 GMT
Organization: NatWest Investment Bancorp,National Westminster Bank PLC
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.11)

>DATE:   Thu, 10 Sep 92 20:49:21 GMT
>FROM:   Stephen Schmidt <whale@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>
>In article <1992Sep10.195853.12055@odin.corp.sgi.com> zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:
>
>>In article <goose.716148355@camelot>, Bradley Riley writes:
>>>This is very true.  The succsession of the states of the south was not based
>>>soley on slavery. At the time, there was still massive fighting( non-physical) about the 
>>>power of the government and the power of the states....And with the 
>>>possibility of freeing slaves, their economy would have fallen and they thought
>>>the government was out to GET THEM!!
>>
>>But go one level deeper, and you find that the power of the Fed vs. power of the states
>>battles were based on slavery. If it were not so, then why were all the compromises
>>based on keeping the balance of slave and free states equal in the Senate? 
>>
>>JZ
>>  
>That was one issue, but it was not the only issue. Another, equally important
>issue between the states was tariff policy. The Northern states economy
>was based on manufacturing goods which were also made in Europe, and they
>wanted protectionsist tariffs. The South had an economy geared towards
>exporting cotton and indigo to Europe, and they feared European retaliation
>if the US passed tariffs, so they opposed them. Obviously the fact that
>the South had slavery is related to this, but then again, the fact that the
>South had slavery is in part caused by the existence of European export
>markets. Don't put the cart before the horse here... Adding Northern states
>and Southern states in pairs also kept the tariff policy question in
>balance.

And don't claim that the tail is wagging the dog here. The primary 
reason Africans were held as slaves was that they were held in contempt.
Otherwise, whites would also have been forced into slavery as well by the
mere existence of "European markets". Export markets do not in themselves
create slavery, as a rule!

>  Today tariff policy seems like a silly thing to fight over, but when
>the high tariffs of 1836 were passed, South Carolina decided on the
>doctrine of "nullification" of Federal acts in the state and decided not
>to collect the tariff. This objection was only overcome by President
>Jackson's (I think it was Jackson's) threat to send troops to enforce the
>collection. The Nullification Crises almost touched off the Civil War
>24 years early and was an almost equally significant episode in establishing
>the supreme power of the Federal government over the states.

You are magnifying a relatively minor episode. Of much greater significance
was the censorship of Federal mail imposed by the South, with the agreement
of the Federal government. They would search the mail for abolitionist
materials, a grotesque and blatant violation of federal law. This was 
countenanced by President Jackson and Postmaster General Amos Kendall, 
to their discredit. 

Just down the road from me, at the NY Stock Exchange, a 5,000 dollar reward
was offered for the murder of Arthur Tappan, a prominent abolitionist.
Assassins from the South, and their northern sympathizers roamed the streets
of Northern cities looking to kill abolitionists.

Accept it, as unpalatable as it may seem. Slavery was *by far and away* 
the dominant issue here.
Jones
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa