Virginia's John Randolph Explains What Really Led to the Secession of the Southern States and Ultimately to the Civil War (and it wasn't Slavery !)

Latest Polls (view all)

In the shadow of the political assassination of Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning USA, a stain now exists upon our nation's collective conscious, a condition that must be excised, or our nation will not function properly as one of a self-governed people. Understanding these long standing truths: What would you suggest as a quick, and, or proper corrective measure?

20% Destroy the Fascist Donald Trump and all of MAGA, because America must never be Great Again.

80% Our self-governed people, and their properly restored institutions, under President Trump, must discover the root causes to properly correct, and save our Constitutional Republic.

0% I thought we had to shut down Free Speech we don't like to save our "democracy," so I am totally confused now.

Click Here to Vote
10 Vote(s)

View all Polls

Virginia's John Randolph Explains What Really Led to the Secession of the Southern States and Ultimately to the Civil War (and it wasn't Slavery !)

Published: Sunday, June 12th, 2016 @ 10:32 am
By: Diane Rufino ( More Entries )

Login to Send a Private Message to Diane Rufino

    In 1824, Rep. John Randolph from Virginia addressed Congress and condemned the high protective tariff that it was poised to pass, explaining how it would inflict great economic harm on the Southern states. He reminded his fellow congressmen that the Colonies had seceded from Great Britain for tax reasons which were minor compared to what the Northern-dominated Congress was doing to the South. He warned that the South could not stay in the union under such conditions and under such abuse. Congress went ahead and passed the tariff anyway.

    The tariff would increase two more times (Tariff of 1828 and then the Tariff of 1832, which led to the Nullification Crisis). While campaigning for president, Abraham Lincoln promised to raise the tariff to its highest rate ever. The money would be funneled to the industries and the bankers of the North. The South would be plundered to enrich the North. Lincoln, originally a Whig (and strong supporter of Henry Clay) believed in a strong federal government, high protective tariffs, business subsidies, federal funding of internal developments (for the North, to build industry), and a strong central bank. Lincoln may have changed parties but he never changed his ideology and his view of the role of government.

    When Lincoln was elected, six southern states seceded. When Lincoln refused to recognize their sovereign status, initiated hostilities at Fort Sumter, and then requisitioned troops to invade those states, 5 additional southern states seceded. They knew that the government was only interested in revenue and not preserving the Union. The government simply could not lose its revenue source and would not lose it. Lincoln used powerful, misleading, and most times, blatantly false language to convince the North and Congress that his position was the right one and then assumed unprecedented power to hijack the full resources of the federal government to wage his unconstitutional war and force the Southern states back into the Union.

    As I have said for years now: Lincoln waging war to save the Union is like a husband beating his wife to save the marriage.

    By the way, 4 slave states remained in the Union and slavery continued to be protected by the US Constitution and the government of the United States.

    The persistent narrative that the Civil War was fought over slavery is a merely concoction to deny generations of Americans the truth of why our country endured the bloodiest and most costly of all of its wars and to divert culpability away from our very government.

Go Back

Login to Leave a Comment

Comments

Bobby Tony said:

( June 9th, 2016 @ 6:51 am )

I am in full support of State's Rights and Diane's positon, But:

Whatever the proper legal basis of the State's Rights argument, it was effectively rendered mute in modern times by the Dixiecrats led by Strom Thurmond and others to continue the segregation in the South. While, I am in total agreement that the federal government should be limited to its constitutional defined power, as a practical matter, I am afraid that ship has left the dock. Diane has pointed out in the comment section to her Memorial Day article, "Prior to the 13th Amendment, the American flag stood for the protection of the institution of slavery." The southern states were within their rights to dissolve their association with the union regardless of the abhorrent practice of slavery. The doctrine of States Rights has unfortunately been so associated with race relations and slavery that a reasoned discussion is all but impossible in light of the high emotional baggage attached to it. That is a legacy that we must live with which is a gloomy commentary of constitutional government.

Stan Deatherage said:

( June 9th, 2016 @ 5:50 am )

Diane Rufino, from New Jersey, is a huge state's rights advocate, and sees the Civil War as the turning point when that concept of limited federal government began to diminish.

Now, most Americans have no concept of the state's rights construct.

Could we lose our Republic?

Bobby Tony said:

( June 8th, 2016 @ 6:11 am )

Thanks for another interesting and thought provoking article. Like most of your articles, it requires one to think. It reminds me of my history Professor Dr. Sellers. His final exam was dramatic as well as demanding. He entered the class and wrote on the blackboard.

Civil War.

Why?

Underneath it he wrote. DO NOT USE THE WORD SLAVERY

I do not remember my grade for that class or the final I do remember that I passed. I loved essay-based finals where I could attempt to BS my way through a lack of knowledge.

That was in the mid-1960's scarcely 100 years removed from the Civil War. Professor Sellers was not some historical revisionist trying to deflect the role of slavery in the historical context. He covered the subject of slavery broadly and deeply I believe now looking back his main point was that there were many nuances to the problems between the north and the south economic being one of the major ones.

I had less than a passing interest in history at the time but I do remember vividly his passionate belief that we southern Rebels get out of our bubble and explore the broader foundations for the conflict.

Thankfully, I eventually found an interest in this complicated subject. Abraham Lincoln was an accomplished politician who used every issue possible to maintain his view of an all powerful federal government. The letter was not written until 1862 when the outcome of the war was very much in doubt. His letter to Horace Greely deafly deflects the issue and illustrates his efforts to keep the Border States in line. The link below displays the letter but also editorializes on the misconception that Lincoln was merely saving the union rather than broader economic issues as well.

“I would save the Union. … If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. … What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union.”

www.abrahamlincolnonline.org