Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 7th, 2012, 07:23 PM   #391
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 647

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiver View Post
None of that is evidence that the south bought more imported goods than the rest of the nation.
It's not about whether they consumed more than the rest of the nation in gross tonnage terms (they probably didn't), but instead that the ruling class in the South was much more into imported manufactured goods than the urling class in the North.
MAlexMatt is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 7th, 2012, 08:18 PM   #392

WeisSaul's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Amsterdam
Posts: 2,418

Was the Civil War even a civil war? It definitely was one in the south where the population was very split on secession, but in the nation as a whole it could more accurately be defined as a rebellion, or perhaps even an attempted war of national liberation (Dixons fighting to be free of the Yankee yoke?)

Slavery caused the secessions in South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, and Texas. Texas was pretty split though,

Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee left over States' rights.

The war was caused by the slavery debate but fought over a variety of other factors.
WeisSaul is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 08:39 PM   #393

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,396
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by WeisSaul View Post
..Texas was pretty split though,
The vote tally was to 46,129 to 14,697 in favor of leaving.
Governor and slave owner Sam Houston refused to recognize the
action and was kicked out of office.
tjadams is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 09:45 PM   #394

WeisSaul's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Amsterdam
Posts: 2,418

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
The vote tally was to 46,129 to 14,697 in favor of leaving.
Governor and slave owner Sam Houston refused to recognize the
action and was kicked out of office.
That's what I meant. The population was very pro-secession and the government wasn't, hence Texas was split.
WeisSaul is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 10:04 PM   #395

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 2,673

Quote:
Originally Posted by WeisSaul View Post
That's what I meant. The population was very pro-secession and the government wasn't, hence Texas was split.
If Texas's state government opposed secession, Texas wouldn't have left the Union. To my knowledge, the votes for secession were carried out by the state legislatures, not by referendum votes by the people in the states.
Sam-Nary is online now  
Old November 8th, 2012, 07:36 AM   #396
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Alabama
Posts: 279

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
If Texas's state government opposed secession, Texas wouldn't have left the Union. To my knowledge, the votes for secession were carried out by the state legislatures, not by referendum votes by the people in the states.
In Alabama delegates were voted on by the people. These delegates voted on secession while representing their constituents. It gets a little more complicated than that with "cooperationists" and all that, but thats the way I've always thought they did it.
Unrevised is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 07:54 AM   #397

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by WeisSaul View Post
That's what I meant. The population was very pro-secession and the government wasn't, hence Texas was split.
About the only ones in the Texas government who were opposed to secession were Sam Houston and delegate James Webb Throckmorton (who was hissed when he voted for union during the convention, and replied "The rabble may hiss when patriots tremble.") The population of Texas was decidedly pro-secession, with the exception of some strong Unionist sentiment in the north part of the state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
If Texas's state government opposed secession, Texas wouldn't have left the Union. To my knowledge, the votes for secession were carried out by the state legislatures, not by referendum votes by the people in the states.
Texas was the only one of the Cotton 7 states to hold a public referendum on secession. The other states held secession conventions, which steadfastly refused to submit the matter to public referenda.
Rongo is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 08:54 AM   #398

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrevised View Post
In Alabama delegates were voted on by the people. These delegates voted on secession while representing their constituents. It gets a little more complicated than that with "cooperationists" and all that, but thats the way I've always thought they did it.
Yes, Alabama held a secession convention, with delegates elected by the people. During the convention it was clear that the vote could be close, but would probably favor the secessionists. But even though the vote was going to be close, there was no consideration of putting the question to a popular referendum. Instead, William L. Yancey was willing to brand any of the dissenters as traitors, and to deal with them "as such", if they went against the decision of the convention:

Quote:
"It is useless to disguise the fact, that in some portions of the State there is disapprobation towards our action; and, I venture to tell the gentleman from Tuscaloosa, that when that Ordinance shall be passed, even if it be by the meagre majority of one, it will represent the fullness, and the power, and the majesty of the sovereign people of Alabama. When it shall be the supreme organic law of the people of Alabama, the State upon that question will know no majority or minority among her people, but will expect and demand, and secure unlimited and unquestioned obedience to that Ordinance... Men, who shall, after the passage of this Ordinance, dissolving the union of Alabama with the other States of this Confederacy, dare array themselves against the State, will then become the enemies of the State. There is a law of Treason, defining treason against the State; and, these who shall dare oppose the action of Alabama, when she assumes her independence of the Union, will become traitors--rebels against its authority, and will be dealt with as such." - William L. Yancey, January 9, 1861

Source: William Russell Smith, 1815-1896. The History and Debates of the Convention of the People of Alabama : Begun and Held in the City of Montgomery, on the Seventh Day of January, 1861; in Which is Preserved the Speeches of the Secret Sessions and Many V
Nice. Very nice.
Rongo is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 09:20 AM   #399
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,320

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
The vote tally was to 46,129 to 14,697 in favor of leaving.
Governor and slave owner Sam Houston refused to recognize the
action and was kicked out of office.
Not sure of the significance of referenda on seccession. The VA referendum went 5-1 for secession, but it was held after the convention had voted to seceed and after the start of the war. There was no secret ballot then. Some counties in VA that voted Constitutional Unionist in the election of 1860 voted unanimously for seccession. There were other counties in what was now WV that went 30-1 against secession. There were secessionists at many of the polling places intimidating voters. Might have been more of a free election in TX, but doubt it was really 3-1 for secession.
betgo is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 12:28 PM   #400
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Mohawk Valley, New York
Posts: 391

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAlexMatt View Post
Because some sections bought far more goods far more frequently than others.

I mean, the explicit purpose of protective tariffs is to stop consumers from importing cheaper foreign goods so that domestic producers can sell to them instead at inflated domestic prices. That's a bald transfer of wealth if I've ever seen one.
Southern states with industries received the benefits of tarriffs just as much as Northern industries.. The sugar industry of Texas and Lousiana, the hemp industry of Tenn, the industries in Virginia and Maryland all recieved benefits of protective tarriffs yet these are always overlooked...
wilber6150 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
acw, myth, slavery


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Biggest Myth about Slavery. etamaze Middle Eastern and African History 75 March 29th, 2013 09:59 AM
The 9/11 Myth Lord Sonny Speculative History 20 March 4th, 2013 02:27 PM
History or Myth? Caracalla General History 4 October 25th, 2011 07:29 AM
Your Favorite Myth??? Salah General History 48 April 17th, 2011 08:35 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.