A Question Eric Foner Doesn’t Know How To Answer

(December 28, 2016) As I continue through Dr. Eric Foner’s Civil War lectures I discovered that the professor admits he doesn’t know how to explain why few Northerners were willing to avoid Civil War by letting the Southern states secede peaceably. After noting that the abolitionist publisher of The New York Tribune, Horace Greeley, opined that the erring sisters should be permitted to leave in peace, Foner says:

Why not just let them go? Good question! You can adduce answers [such as] The American Mission, Unionism, Nationalism. Very few people in the North said, “Let them go.” Why? [To answer that] requires us to do what no historian has ever successfully done.

Foner’s inability to understand why Northerners were unwilling to let the South secede reflects his gigantic blind spot. He is unable to see the obvious: Northern motivations to “save” the Union lie in economic self-interest, not altruistic abolitionism. In short, Foner is unable to change perspective from North to South even though mere children realize that perspective changes everything. This is an all too common fault among many modern academic historians but the greater evil is their censorship of contrary viewpoints.

why-north-fought

First, Southern cotton alone accounted for about sixty percent of all United States exports and all Southern exports represented about seventy percent of the country’s total. A truncated federal union composed solely of Northern states could not hope to maintain a favorable international balance of payments thereby causing a steady drain on the nation’s gold reserves.

The situation would be even worse if the Northern states tried to match the Confederacy’s anticipated low tariffs. Ten days before South Carolina led the cotton states into secession on December 20, 1860, the Chicago Daily Times editorialized on the calamities of disunion:

In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would be idle. . . We should lose our trade with the South, with all its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins . . . If [our protective tariff] be wholly withdrawn from our labor. . . it could not compete with the labor of Europe. We should be driven from the market and millions of our people would be compelled to go out of employment.

Second, if the Confederacy were to survive as a separate country its import tariffs would certainly have been much lower than those of the Federal union. President Jefferson Davis announced in his inaugural address, “Our policy is peace, and the freest trade our necessities will permit. It is…[in] our interest, [and those of our trading partners] that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon interchange of commodities.” Low Confederate tariffs would create two problems for the abridged Federal union: 

  1. Northern manufacturers sheltered by protective tariffs would lose their Southern markets because low Confederate tariffs would prompt Southerners to buy European manufactured goods. If all of the slave states were to join the Confederacy the loss of market could total $200 – $400 million. Among the hardest hit would be New England’s textile mills and Pennsylvania’s iron makers.
  2. Articles imported into the Confederacy from Europe would divert tariff revenue from the North to the South. Since tariffs accounted for about 90% of Federal tax revenue, the diversion would be a serious problem. If all the slave states were to join the Confederacy the tax-revenue loss could total $21 million of the $54 million in 1860 tariffs, based upon the slave-state proportional share of America’s population.  

Thus, after the opening shots at Fort Sumter the Northern states chose to fight to “preserve the Union” because they wanted to avoid the anticipated economic consequences of disunion—not because they had a mystical love for a Union with a people they hated and ridiculed. In January 1861 The Philadelphia Press editorialized, “It is the enforcement of the revenue laws, not the coercion of the state [South Carolina] that is the question of the hour. If those laws cannot be enforced, the Union is clearly gone.” In When in the Course of Human Events author Charles Adams reasons:

If trade were to shift to the Southern ports because of a free trade zone, or extremely low duties relative to the North, then [the] great cities [of the Northeast] would go into decline and suffer economic disaster. The image painted by these editorials [from newspapers of Northeastern cities] is one of massive unemployment, the closing of factories and businesses, followed by unrest, riots, and possibly revolution. The inland cities of the North would also go into decline, like Pittsburgh, where duty-free British steel and iron products would cripple the American steel industry.

Foner’s obsessive depiction of Southern immorality regarding slavery deludes him into believing that Northern war motivations could be nothing less than noble.

My Amazon Author Page

16 thoughts on “A Question Eric Foner Doesn’t Know How To Answer

  1. Pingback: Washington Post Criticizes My Speech: Part I | Civil War Chat

  2. Pingback: New York Replies to Southern Secession | Civil War Chat

  3. Pingback: New Jersey Replies to Southern Secession | Civil War Chat

  4. Pingback: Why did Southerners Fight the Civil War? | Civil War Chat

  5. Pingback: Mickey Mouse Harassment | Civil War Chat

  6. Pingback: Second Coming of the Gag Rule | Civil War Chat

    1. Phil Leigh Post author

      Thanks, David.

      Most modern historians conscientiously search for the reasons the South seceded and then automatically assume those are the reasons for the Civil War. They are so obsessed with identifying the causes of secession they generally don’t stop to consider that the North could have let the South depart in peace and thereby avoided the War.

      Due to that failure, many modern historians give little thought to the reasons that the North decided to coerce the South back into the Union. When they do attempt to come un with explanations, they generally ascribe it to a widespread desire to “preserve the Union” and thereby clothe it in a nobel but mystical feeling of kinship or something. Gary Gallagher is among those who have researched that angle the most. He admits that it is hard to get his students to understand why the concept of Union was so important. Their conclusions of their common sense is correct. The real reason that the Northern states would not permit the South to depart in peace was to avoid the economic consequences of disunion.

      Reply
      1. David Connon

        Hi, Phil. You make some very interesting points. I, too, have wondered why the North didn’t let the seceding states “depart in peace.” Thank you for giving me much to think about.

      2. Phil Leigh Post author

        When experts ignore obvious unanswered questions, the reason is always fascinating and often involves money.

      3. Phil Leigh Post author

        Tariffs were a major source of federal revenue in the 19th century. There were two types of tariffs: (1) ad valorum and (2) specific duty. The obvious question is, “Why two types?”

        Ad valorum rates were a percentage of value. For example, if steel was imported at $25 a ton and the rate was 20% then the duty was $5.00. If, however, the price dropped to $20, the duty would be only $4.00. If instead the specific duty was $5.00 it would not change if the price os steel dropped to $20 a ton. It would remain $5 and at $20 per ton steel price it would essentially be a 25% tariff. Specific duty tariffs provided greater protection against price drops in the world market.

  7. Pingback: Leading Historian Cannot Connect the Dots | Civil War Chat

  8. Eddie Inman

    There was a tremendous article in the December 10, 1860 Chicago Tribune, “The Value of the Union” that lays out exactly the financial cost to the North of letting the South go.

    Reply
    1. Phil Leigh Post author

      Thanks for the reference. It is actually in The Chicago Times and is excerpted in my post.

      I appreciate your interest. Please let me know if you learn of other material that you think will be useful.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.