Southern view argued well in pointed exchange with distinguished historian Richard Jensen on the causes of the War Between the States, September, 2005

Gene Kizer: "I believe I won this debate, but  please read what is written below and send me your comments, especially on Richard Jensen's interpretation of events, which I believe to be way off base. The entire lengthy exchange is scholarly, engaging and moves fast. It is published verbatim below, with no additional comment. You be the judge."

The debate begins

     Richard Jensen is a distinguished historian and moderator of the online e-mail discussion group, ConservativeNet, sponsored by the University of Illinois at Chicago. A brief bio on the UIC web site states that Jensen "is a scholar with many books and articles; he was professor of history for over 35 years at several schools, including the University of Illinois, Harvard, Michigan, West Point, and Moscow State University."
     His position with respect to the War Between the States is typical of a Northern academic. It is condescending and refuses to acknowledge that the South even had a right to a view. The reason I believe he was thoroughly outdebated is because, as CNET moderator, he would not even publish my last post even though it was clearly the best of the entire lengthy exchange and was scholarly, well-written and right on topic.
     What prompted the exchange was a discussion thread about the use of federal money to rebuild New Orleans, and even whether New Orleans should be rebuilt (as incredible as that sounds). A gentleman, John Grigg, had written in, arguing that New Orleans was important enough at the mouth of the Mississippi to be rebuilt. Professor Jensen then added the following comment about New Orleans being "lost," but recovered by Abe Lincoln in 1862, which prompted my reply. Here's Professor Jensen's CNET comment, Monday, Sept. 5, 2005, 10:15 a.m.:

(Your editor will note that it took a lot of trouble to get New Orleans. It was a liberal Democrat--Thomas Jefferson--who bought it in the first place. Another liberal Democrat, Andrew Jackson, kept the Brits from seizing it. After it was temporarily lost, it was a Republican, Abe Lincoln, who recovered it in 1862. If Lincoln had not made the effort he could have avoided 600,000 deaths. RJ)

---

Gene Kizer to CNET, 1st posting
published by Richard Jensen, Monday, September 5, 2005, 2:54 p.m. under Subject line: cnet: Rebuild New Orleans??

from Gene Kizer gkizer@bellsouth.net 

The argument about whether New Orleans will be rebuilt or not, is ridiculous. Of course New Orleans will be rebuilt and ASAP. The moment the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gets the levee system repaired, the rebuilding of New Orleans will start. The problem was not the hurricane. It was  the levee system, so that is what must be solved early in the rebuilding  process. I admit this is a huge problem that might take years but my  Lord, this is the USA in 2005 and we can and will do it. I live in Charleston and we have survived epidemics, floods, hurricanes, wars, earthquakes, and there is never a doubt that the place will be rebuilt because it is so good living here. It is worth the chance one takes doing  so.

With all due respect to our editor, New Orleans was hardly "lost" when it  was a significant part of the Southern Confederacy. Louisiana, like EVERY other Southern state, following procedures similar to the debate and  ratification of the original Constitution, debated the issue of secession, elected delegates who went to conventions and voted to secede, then the convention votes were ratified by the people in every single Southern  state. New Orleans and the rest of the South wanted independence and freedom. Lincoln's war did cost 600,000 on the battlefield, and historians say another 400,000 or so civilian casualties, so Lincoln's effort was more like a million dead, but his collection of taxes was important, indeed  crucial to  the "Union." Certainly not to the South who adopted a miniscule tariff  for the basic operation of a small federal government with no largesse like Northern mercantilist corporate welfare (bounties, subsidies that were choking the South) or internal improvements that were made in the North but  paid for with Southern money. Three-fourths of the taxes in 1860 were  paid  by the South through ports like New Orleans and Charleston, yet  three-fourths of the revenue was spent in the North. Of course New Orleans and the rest of the South wanted to be free of all that.

But back to the present: New Orleans is an American treasure and will certainly be rebuilt with a better levee system, and like all rebuilding after hurricanes, it will be newer and stronger and even more beautiful  than  before. Nobody takes the argument seriously that New Orleans won't be  rebuilt.

Gene Kizer

[ed: the editor makes one comment on neo Confederacy.  The Confederate States in spring 1861 imposed the current tariff rates on all imports from the USA. That is, it imposed tariffs on what previously been untaxed internal trade.  This was by far the largest tariff increase of any kind in American history-indeed, the largest tax increase ever. Neo-Confederates seem unaware of it in their mistaken belief that the Confederacy was a low tax paradise of some sort.  In fact its policies quickly destroyed most southern banks, insurance companies, and exporters before Sherman got to them. For example the Confederacy shut down all its own cotton exports to Europe before the Union naval blockade became effective. As for New Orleans, a central policy since the days of Washington had been full access to the Mississippi. When the Confederacy cut off that trade war was quite inevitable, regardless of what happened at Ft Sumter.
Richard Jensen

---

Gene Kizer to CNET, 2nd posting
published by Richard Jensen, Tuesday, September 6, 2005, 3:30 a.m. under Subject line: cnet: New Orleans and the Civil War

from Gene Kizer gkizer@bellsouth.net

I want to respectfully disagree with my friend Richard Jensen on the tariff/tax issue. It is an extremely important issue. Because of it, the economy of the Northern states was on the verge of collapse between the time the first seven Southern states seceded and set up the Confederate government, and the guns of Fort Sumter (January to April, 1861). Indeed, it is my firm belief that the imminent collapse of the Northern economy is what caused Lincoln to start the war during the most tense situation in our nation's history. Lincoln sent troops and military supplies to Fort Sumter after promising for weeks that he would not. His well publicized military convoy is what precipitated the Confederate demand for surrender, but let me backtrack. When Richard says that the "largest tariff increase" in U.S. history came when the Confederates imposed their tariff, he is wrong on two fronts. First, the previously "untaxed internal trade" he referred to was now *foreign* trade to the new Southern nation, and that new nation had every right to impose its tariff on trade with other nations of the world. The tariff was only 10% and it was spelled out specifically in the Confederate Constitution that it could ONLY be used for the operation of a small federal government. It specifically prohibited internal improvements in any state paid for by the general treasury, and it prohibited bounties and subsidies like the North had received for decades at the expense of the South.

Which brings up my second point. Southerners were being taxed through millions of dollars in bounties and subsidies paid to Northern industry and shipping throughout the antebellum period. The protection of Northern industry, which Southerners went along with after the Revolution because of the feelings of patriotism and wanting to build the young nation, became entrenched. Robert Toombs called it a "suction pump" taking the wealth out of the South, and depositing it in the North.

In 1860, Southern cotton was king and was creating most U.S. wealth. Over 60% of U.S. exports were cotton alone. Other Southern staples created additional wealth. The most prominent economist of the time, Thomas Prentice Kettle, wrote that the North was completely dependent on the South, because the South was the North's captive market. The South was more like the North's colony. Without the South, Northern factories would have nobody to sell to and would sit idle. Panic-ridden Northern newspapers echoed the same sentiment after March, 1861. The protectionist North, with the Southern states out of the Union, had passed the Morrill Tariff of 40 to 60%. This made trade a no-brainer for England and other Europeans. They could ship through Southern ports and pay 10%, or they could ship through the North and pay 40-60%. The South was poised to take over almost the entire trade of the county overnight because of its tariff. The South had always wanted a low tariff and believed in free trade because it could buy goods from Europe a lot cheaper than Northern goods with their high prices jacked up by protectionist tariffs, bounties and subsidies.

Other Southern advantages included control of so much of the Mississippi River from where railroads to the West could be built. While the Northern economy was on the verge of collapse, there was total elation in the South. Southerners were now independent like the Colonies in 1776, but for the first time ever, they had economic independence. The English, who were the chief industrial competitors of the North, were dying to build factories in the South and be close to plentiful Southern commodities, especially cotton. Northerners even feared they they would not have access to the Southern raw materials their factories needed.

So, Lincoln manufactured his own Pearl Harbor and a million people ended up dead, but he guaranteed the ascendance of the North.

I agree with Richard that once the war started, it was foolish to keep cotton off the market. That was an error made by the South, but one must consider that Southerners had just set up a brand new nation and
found themselves at war with a powerful adversary with a much larger population, nearly all the manufacturing and a functioning government. For the next 80 or 90 years, after the War, there was a shipping differential that made it cheaper for Northerners to ship to the South, but more expensive for Southerners to ship to the North, which
virtually guaranteed to stunt Southern industry. This was a
constitutionally-prohibited unfair trade situation that contributed to keeping the South in poverty until World War II. We can certainly have some learned disagreements on all this. Richard mentioned American policy being free-access to the Mississippi "since the days of Washington." Southerners revered George Washington and put his likeness on the Great Seal of the Confederacy. They wanted to take Washington's advice and stay out of foreign conflicts, especially with a powerful neighbor to the North, but Lincoln knew what his advantages were. He knew that they were best in April, 1861, and would never be that good again, thus the war came.

Gene Kizer

From the editor:
We have three issues here: first two are the old staples, southern economic grievances  regarding the tariff and the right of secession (let's skip these for now and assume that the Confederacy was a legitimate foreign government).

Gene makes the key point, and I agree, that the Confederacy was making economic warfare on the USA in early 1861 and it was hurting the Yankees very badly. Much of Yankee industry depended on the cotton supply, and the CSA had a near monopoly on it, Therefore its refusal to ship any was designed to cripple the Yankee economy.  That's warfare and that's a very good reason for the US to go to war. Likewise closing the Mississippi was economic warfare.  There were other casus belli: well before Sumter the Confederates seized all the federal arsenals and captured the US Army in Texas. 

The Confederate blunders were monumental.  They declared economic war on both the USA and Britain, arrogantly assuming King Cotton would triumph easily. Here I follow William Graham Sumner, who concluded, "Perhaps the grandest case of delusion from the fallacy of commercial war which can be mentioned is the South in 1860. They undertook secession in the faith that "cotton is king,' and they had come to believe that they had a means to coerce the rest of the world by refusing to and cotton. As  soon as they undertook secession their direst necessity was to sell cotton.  Their error came down to them in direct descent from 1774 and Jefferson's  embargo." [Sumner, Alexander Hamilton, p. 65]

And to rile every good libertarian, the Confederates imposed the biggest tax increase in American history (by keeping the 1857 tariff and extending it to all imports from America)-a policy I am surprised to see Gene accept so easily.  

My point is that an independent Confederate government made a serious of stupendous economic, political and diplomatic blunders that guaranteed a war against a much bigger nation with a vastly larger base of industry and manpower. Defeat was likely (but not inevitable). War was inevitable-I can't see how it could possible have been avoided. I strongly reject Gene's suggestion that the chance for war between the Confederate States and the United States was slim except for a small window of opportunity in April 1861 that Lincoln seized. I think war was inevitable and as Gene points out, the Confederacy started it by deliberately trying to destroy Yankee industry in a massive way with the cotton boycott.  As Jefferson explained in 1802, "There is on the globe one single spot, the possessor of which is our natural and habitual enemy. It is New Orleans, through which the produce of three eighths of our territory must pass to market, and from its fertility it will ere long yield more than half of our whole produce, and contain more than half of our inhabitants."

RJensen

---

Gene Kizer to CNET, 3rd posting
CENSORED by Richard Jensen, Tuesday, September 6, 2005, 11:50 a.m. under Subject line: Re: New Orleans and the Civil War

from Gene Kizer gkizer@bellsouth.net

I again respectfully disagree with Richard. Southerners, tired of creating all the wealth of the nation and being robbed of it through bounties, subsidies and other mercantilist protections for Northern industry, stated clearly in their Constitution from the beginning that there would be NO protective tariffs for any industry, and no state would have to pay for improvements in any other state. Internal improvements paid for out of the general treasury were the same as robbing Southern states for the benefit of Northern states, because three-fourths of the tax money was paid by the South, yet three-fourths of the treasury was spent in the North. This was a much more confiscatory level of taxation than existed in 1776 with the British. Southerners said over and over in the secession debate, that their fathers and grandfathers had not thrown off British oppression just to replace it with worse Yankee oppression.

Northerners, always lusting after government money, ruined their own economic prospects by adopting the Morrill Tariff of 40-60% at the same time Southerners wrote a 10% tariff into their Constitution. This was not, as Richard said, the South making economic war on the North. It was Northern greed, blunder and error that caused their own economic collapse in March-April, 1861. The South was simply following the same economic philosophy it had always followed--it hated a big central government and believed states were sovereign and should govern themselves in every aspect.

Southerners had ALWAYS wanted low tariffs. Remember Nullification and the Tariff of Abominations and John C. Calhoun in the 1830s. A low tariff was always what Southerners fought for throughout the antebellum period. That Southerners would adopt a low tariff the moment they had control of their futures should surprise nobody. It was certainly NOT making war on  the U.S., but it does point out the different economic philosophies of the two regions. The moment they could, Southerners adopted free trade and a low tariff because that's what they had always wanted. Yankees, fed for decades on federal largesse and corporate welfare, became more mercantilist and adopted the astronomical Morill Tariff of 40-60%. The North screwed itself, with its greed and lust for other people's money, and made it so that war was their only way out.

Of course I realize the North could have fought the South at any time after the Southern government was formed, but the reason I said Lincoln choose April, 1861, was because, at that early point, the South was as weak as it would ever be. From that point on, the Southern star was shining brightly and definitely ascending, and Lincoln knew it. Southerners in 1861 were the greatest agrarian nation in the history of the world and they had some industry. Virginia was fairly industrialized and Great Britain was drooling over the prospect of industrializing the rest of the South and being close to the source of King Cotton (and also damaging its chief competitor, the North). One year of cementing close ties with Great Britain and other free trade partners, and working out the bugs in its government, and also Northern ship captains coming South to work out of New Orleans and Charleston, which was happening because of the low Southern tariff--just one year and the North would not have been able to defeat the South. Southerners would have probably had direct military aid from Great Britain after a year of a close economic relationship.

Lincoln knew all this so started his war at the earliest moment he could. His quick blockade chilled Southern relations with many Europeans and caused Great Britain and others to take a wait and see attitude. The rest is history. It was brilliant for Lincoln, but it was not for self government or the ideals set out in the American Declaration of Independence that any people who are oppressed by their government have a right to change it. It was good for a dictator like Lincoln, but not good for the philosophy of John Locke or patriots like Thomas Jefferson with his Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Even H.L. Mencken agreed because he said Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was a joke and nothing could be further from the truth. It was not the North fighting for government of the people, by the people and for the people, it was the South. These were Mencken's own words, and as we know, Mencken was not one to coddle the South.

The North had already caused its own problem with the Morrill Tariff. The huge error Southerners made by withholding cotton from world markets was aimed more at forcing Great Britain to finally take a stand beyond the neutrality that Lincoln's blockade had forced on Great Britain.

Gene Kizer

E-mail, Richard Jensen to Gene Kizer

Gene--
the CSA was stupid
thanks to the blunders of its leaders it lost all its wealth and power

how bad can leadership get?

Richard

---

E-mail, Gene Kizer to Richard Jensen

Richard,

    It sure doesn't seem very gentlemanly or scholarly to encourage me in a debate, then, when you are thoroughly out-debated, refuse to publish my most eloquent response. It's even more surprising you would make a statement like "the CSA was stupid." I thought CNET's moderator was more scholarly than that. If the South was stupid, it was in getting involved with the North to start with. Most of our American Founding Fathers were Southerners and they damn sure didn't need New England to tell them how to found a great nation.

    It is true that we lost our wealth and power when we lost the War Between the States, but we have completely recovered it today and are near-dominant in the country. Conservatism is a Southern ideology with roots in the States Rights beliefs of the Founders, though admittedly, today's conservatism is nothing like what they had in mind.

    And don't forget that in the Confederate leadership, which you revile, was Robert E. Lee, who your dictator, Lincoln, wanted for command of the Northern war machine; but of course, Lee was no murdering, raping thief like those in the Union army who invaded the South.

    We Southerners do take consolation in the fact that at war's end, wealth might have been gone, but honor was intact; and while outnumbered over four-to-one, and out-gunned over ten-to-one, we still killed 100,000 more of Lincoln's murderers, rapists and thieves, than they killed of us. They are "stiff in Southern dust," as the song goes, and deservedly so.

    I'm sure I'll be struck from the CNET list after this. So be it. I have enjoyed it. For the record, following this e-mail is my response which you censored.

Gene Kizer


Conservative-NET posting of 9/6/05 by Gene Kizer, censored by Richard Jensen

from Gene Kizer gkizer@bellsouth.net

I again respectfully disagree with Richard. Southerners, tired of creating all the wealth of the nation and being robbed of it through bounties, subsidies and other mercantilist protections for Northern industry, stated clearly in their Constitution from the beginning that there would be NO protective tariffs for any industry, and no state would have to pay for improvements in any other state. Internal improvements paid for out of the general treasury were the same as robbing Southern states for the benefit of Northern states, because three-fourths of the tax money was paid by the South, yet three-fourths of the treasury was spent in the North. This was a much more confiscatory level of taxation than existed in 1776 with the British. Southerners said over and over in the secession debate, that their fathers and grandfathers had not thrown off British oppression just to replace it with worse Yankee oppression.

Northerners, always lusting after government money, ruined their own economic prospects by adopting the Morrill Tariff of 40-60% at the same time Southerners wrote a 10% tariff into their Constitution. This was not, as Richard said, the South making economic war on the North. It was Northern greed, blunder and error that caused their own economic collapse in March-April, 1861. The South was simply following the same economic philosophy it had always followed--it hated a big central government and believed states were sovereign and should govern themselves in every aspect.

Southerners had ALWAYS wanted low tariffs. Remember Nullification and the Tariff of Abominations and John C. Calhoun in the 1830s. A low tariff was always what Southerners fought for throughout the antebellum period. That Southerners would adopt a low tariff the moment they had control of their futures should surprise nobody. It was certainly NOT making war on  the U.S., but it does point out the different economic philosophies of the two regions. The moment they could, Southerners adopted free trade and a low tariff because that's what they had always wanted. Yankees, fed for decades on federal largesse and corporate welfare, became more mercantilist and adopted the astronomical Morrill Tariff of 40-60%. The North screwed itself, with its greed and lust for other people's money, and made it so that war was their only way out.

Of course I realize the North could have fought the South at any time after the Southern government was formed, but the reason I said Lincoln choose April, 1861, was because, at that early point, the South was as weak as it would ever be. From that point on, the Southern star was shining brightly and definitely ascending, and Lincoln knew it. Southerners in 1861 were the greatest agrarian nation in the history of the world and they had some industry. Virginia was fairly industrialized and Great Britain was drooling over the prospect of industrializing the rest of the South and being close to the source of King Cotton (and also damaging its chief competitor, the North). One year of cementing close ties with Great Britain and other free trade partners, and working out the bugs in its government, and also Northern ship captains coming South to work out of New Orleans and Charleston, which was happening because of the low Southern tariff--just one year and the North would not have been able to defeat the South. Southerners would have probably had direct military aid from Great Britain after a year of a close economic relationship.

Lincoln knew all this so started his war at the earliest moment he could. His quick blockade chilled Southern relations with many Europeans and caused Great Britain and others to take a wait and see attitude. The rest is history. It was brilliant for Lincoln, but it was not for self government or the ideals set out in the American Declaration of Independence that any people who are oppressed by their government have a right to change it. It was good for a dictator like Lincoln, but not good for the philosophy of John Locke or patriots like Thomas Jefferson with his Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Even H.L. Mencken agreed because he said Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was a joke and nothing could be further from the truth. It was not the North fighting for government of the people, by the people and for the people, it was the South. These were Mencken's own words, and as we know, Mencken was not one to coddle the South.

The North had already caused its own problem with the Morrill Tariff. The huge error Southerners made by withholding cotton from world markets was aimed more at forcing Great Britain to finally take a stand beyond the neutrality that Lincoln's blockade had forced on Great Britain.

Gene Kizer

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Jensen" <rjensen@uic.edu>
To: "Gene Kizer" <gkizer@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: New Orleans and the Civil War


> Gene--
> the  CSA was stupid
> thanks to the blunders of its leaders it lost all its wealth and power
>
> how bad can leadership get?
>
> Richard
>
>

---

Final correspondence, Richard Jensen to Gene Kizer

Gene--
the problem is
1) you won't debate CSA policy but keep reverting to prewar issues.

2) violent rhetoric is unsuitable to scholarly-tone we want on cnet. 

3) the original question was New Orleans. I made the point that the USA policy had always been fight to keep NO and control of the Mississippi river--and Lincoln did so. You might want to explore why Jeff Davis (and Lee) did such a poor job defending the Mississippi River in 1862-63.

Richard

 

---

Back to Home Page of