The CSA: political and social style

[Augment]

I was talking to a friend and he said that the CSA were fairly Liberal and most were against slavery.
This flabbergasted me because i always thought they were right winged bible thumpers.

Were they Liberals with secular idea's or were they conservatives?

[El Brujo]

The Confederate people were overwhelmingly conservative, mostly because it was a rural nation dependent upon agriculture. They were about as religious as the North. By the standards of the day they were hardly right wing extremists, and the Confederate Constitution created a state that was tied with the U.S. for having the most liberal form of government in the world.

The Southern people were very supportive of slavery, saw any criticism of it as an attack on themselves, and worked themselves into intellectual pretzels trying to morally justify it.

[Augment]

So its probably better that the North won.

[El Brujo]

So its probably better that the North won.

Southern vehemence in defense of slavery came from the fact that Northerners were going through one of their religious phases and were attacking the institution at every turn. Southerners for whatever reason were unable to distinguish between attacks on slavery and attacks on them(probably because abolitionists didn't either). It was also a time of great paranoia. Paranoia in the South over slave revolts like what happened in Haiti, and paranoia in the North over a fictional but widely believed "slave power conspiracy". Most likely this was transitory and when the bottom fell out of the cotton market Southerners would have been able to look at their peculiar institution much more reasonably, like they had done in the era preceding the invention of the cotton gin. But in 1860 the whole nation was gripped with hysteria and that zeitgeist didn't create a favorable environment for criticizing important institutions.

Basically what I'm saying is that the Civil War era was transitory and there is no way of telling how a victorious Confederacy would have turned out. Maybe better maybe worse than what historically happened. Though slavery was dying all over the Western world and this probably would have brought defense of slavery to a fever pitch before they found a way to reconcile themselves to abolishing it(most likely after being greatly pressured by the US and UK). How they ultimately resolved that crisis and the ensuing racial questions would have determined whether a Confederate victory was better or worse, and that is something we can never know. I personally like to think it would have turned out about like Brazil but more first-world.

This isn't even delving into the possible conflicts and wars that could have happened with their neighbors, or the economic disaster resulting from dramatically falling cotton prices in the second half of the 19th century.

[Augment]

Very enlightening, thank you siré

[conon394]

and paranoia in the North over a fictional but widely believed "slave power conspiracy".

The South did get to call 3/5th of its property people for purposes of electoral votes and such - that's not paranoia - that's reality the south enjoyed unrealistic political power because of slavery. I mean if new England got to count 3/5ths of their ships as people, the Federalists would have beat Jefferson ...

In essence an attack of slavery was an attack on the south since removing slavery threatened to overturn the political structure of the South and reduce its overall political power compared to other regions.

Though slavery was dying all over the Western world

That's problematic because slavery was not the same, in the CSA it was sustainable, efficient and featured very few revolts - I'm hard pressed to see why it would die out.

[El Brujo]

The South did get to call 3/5th of its property people for purposes of electoral votes and such - that's not paranoia - that's reality the south enjoyed unrealistic political power because of slavery. I mean if new England got to count 3/5ths of their ships as people, the Federalists would have beat Jefferson ...

That's not really what the conspiracy theory was about. They used it as proof of course, but the conspiracy claimed the Southern "Slavocrats" intended to take over the whole country and make slavery a nation-wide institution, and abolish democracy in the process. Complete fiction but the South played into it when they demanded federal slave codes in the late 1850's.

That's problematic because slavery was not the same, in the CSA it was sustainable, efficient and featured very few revolts - I'm hard pressed to see why it would die out.

It was pretty sustainable in Brazil too wasn't it? When the CSA is the only country left in the region with slavery, cotton prices are collapsing, and the US and UK are threatening sanctions if emancipation isn't granted, it would have become much more difficult to hang onto. I think the CSA wouldn't have done it on their own because slavery was too intertwined with the rest of society but I think a lot of people underestimate the leverage combined UK/US diplomatic action would have.

[Viking Prince]

Slavery would not be justified as an economic institution for agriculture. Mechanization was going to make capital investment in agriculture more profitable that large numbers of slaves. So, the institution of slavery would porbably have been abolished shortly in any case. Even within the south -- the support for slavery was based on a perception of economic necessity. Once slavery was no longer necessary for the cash crops of tobacco and cotton -- the support would diminish.

The real problem was that such perceptions of necessity would remain long after the political clout to maintain the institutions would collapse. The continent was growing and the growth was not in cotton and tobacco growing regions. So it was impossible to maintian a political balance in the uS House and even if the US Senate. The for all practical purposes civil war that took place in the Kansas territory showed the futility of maintaining a political balance between slave and free.

Even Texas was only nominally a slave state. Within a few years, Texas would probably have outlawed slavery on its own. With that blow -- the political support would crumble. Sam Houston was pro Union and also opposed slavery. Only with the outbreak of the Civil War, was the pressure sufficient to decide the issue. Also remember that cheap labor from Mexico would also compete for slave labor within the economy. To be honest, the cheap Mexican labor was more economically efficient.

[bushbush]

The real problem was that such perceptions of necessity would remain long after the political clout to maintain the institutions would collapse. The continent was growing and the growth was not in cotton and tobacco growing regions. So it was impossible to maintian a political balance in the uS House and even if the US Senate. The for all practical purposes civil war that took place in the Kansas territory showed the futility of maintaining a political balance between slave and free.

indeed, the uneven race of free or slave state in expansion (and consequently the unequal power distribution in the senate) meant such conflict would occur sooner or later. The original compromise on slavery was an uneasy one and such conflict had to be resolved one way or another eventually.

[El Brujo]

Even Texas was only nominally a slave state. Within a few years, Texas would probably have outlawed slavery on its own. With that blow -- the political support would crumble. Sam Houston was pro Union and also opposed slavery. Only with the outbreak of the Civil War, was the pressure sufficient to decide the issue. Also remember that cheap labor from Mexico would also compete for slave labor within the economy. To be honest, the cheap Mexican labor was more economically efficient.

Texas at this time was, economically, merely an extension of the Deep South and slavery was absolutely critical to its economy. Even if mechanization and moral disapproval among nations weakened the institution it would still require some sort of outside intervention to deliver the killing blow.

And Mexican labor only became relevant after the Mexican Revolution. Before that they were like 3% of the population of Texas.

[Viking Prince]

Texas at this time was, economically, merely an extension of the Deep South and slavery was absolutely critical to its economy. Even if mechanization and moral disapproval among nations weakened the institution it would still require some sort of outside intervention to deliver the killing blow.

And Mexican labor only became relevant after the Mexican Revolution. Before that they were like 3% of the population of Texas.

All correct. I was looking at what would happen to Texas if the war had not broken out. All of the future growth was in non-slave based agriculture further west and away from the already developed east Texas cotton and rice. Also remember the immigration waves in the 1880's would have had a prfound effect if war had not broken out. Also remember that new agriculture developement is more likely to adopt the new technology and thus have less need for established institutions such as slavery. Even the improvment of the railroads was going to have a profound effect.

[El Brujo]

All correct. I was looking at what would happen to Texas if the war had not broken out. All of the future growth was in non-slave based agriculture further west and away from the already developed east Texas cotton and rice. Also remember the immigration waves in the 1880's would have had a prfound effect if war had not broken out. Also remember that new agriculture developement is more likely to adopt the new technology and thus have less need for established institutions such as slavery. Even the improvment of the railroads was going to have a profound effect.

Just want to point out that only a comparatively small number of immigrants came to the South during the immigration waves. Even as late as the 1960's Southerners saw America as a strictly Anglo-Saxon nation, largely due to the small number of immigrants in that region. Texas received more than the rest of the South but this was dwarfed by immigration from the former Confederacy.

[Hanny]

Just want to point out that only a comparatively small number of immigrants came to the South during the immigration waves. Even as late as the 1960's Southerners saw America as a strictly Anglo-Saxon nation, largely due to the small number of immigrants in that region. Texas received more than the rest of the South but this was dwarfed by immigration from the former Confederacy.

Yes, uptop 1860 imigration into the the slave states was under 10% of the total forgiem imigration, and all southern states exported lareg numbers of both white and non white to the west, more so in proportion than the free states did. Inter regional population movement in the USA is intresting and understanding it does help undersnat the civil war.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

I was talking to a friend and he said that the CSA were fairly Liberal and most were against slavery.
This flabbergasted me because i always thought they were right winged bible thumpers.

Were they Liberals with secular idea's or were they conservatives?

"conservative" and "liberal" distinctions don't really work for this time period. Hallmarks of modern liberalism did not exist at this time, especially not in America. The only "liberals" were the European style (small government that stays out of people's lives).

Many poor farmers were against slavery, and there were local anti-slavery movements in the South. But at the time, slaves were vital to the economy, so a lot of people either supported the institution or were OK with it because it was so important to the economy.

Slavery would have been ended on its own without a bloody war that killed thousands of Americans and trampled over the rights of states. Every other Western country outlawed slavery without a civil war afaik. There is no reason why America couldn't. Technology would have eventually phased out the need for slaves as well.

[Viking Prince]

You cannot use the stats of post war to then suggest that the immigrants would not have changed the balance in texas if war had not broken out. The immigrants were coming to build a better life. A war torn South is not the same as a Texas without the war.

Anyways, this alternate history discussion is getting a bit off track to remain in the VV main.

Getting a bit more on the original topic: The South knew that at some point the constitution would be amended to eliminate the counting of slaves for purposes of apportioning the US House. They were on the way to losing even a 1/3 count of the states as the country grew. The fight over slave vs. free in Kansas did not help the South either. It was only a matter of time. When the South could no longer help elect a President to be freindly to slave interests, there was nothing really left for the slave states to stay within the union.

The problem with the outbreak of the civil war was that this reduced the support the south did have in Congress. The southern states withdrew and sympathetic states such as Illinois and Indiana were lost. Even the slave holding states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware remained in the union. The coal mountain counties in Virginia split off and were admitted as West Virginia. The outbreak of war destroyed the south politically and diplomatically and probably in and of itself decided the decision on slavery. Any reconciliation after the outbreak of war was going to eventually end the institution of slavery.

[Hanny]

Getting a bit more on the original topic: The South knew that at some point the constitution would be amended to eliminate the counting of slaves for purposes of apportioning the US House. They were on the way to losing even a 1/3 count of the states as the country grew. The fight over slave vs. free in Kansas did not help the South either. It was only a matter of time. When the South could no longer help elect a President to be freindly to slave interests, there was nothing really left for the slave states to stay within the union.

The problem with the outbreak of the civil war was that this reduced the support the south did have in Congress. The southern states withdrew and sympathetic states such as Illinois and Indiana were lost. Even the slave holding states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware remained in the union. The coal mountain counties in Virginia split off and were admitted as West Virginia. The outbreak of war destroyed the south politically and diplomatically and probably in and of itself decided the decision on slavery. Any reconciliation after the outbreak of war was going to eventually end the institution of slavery.

I concur with almost everything, the only differnce i see is that a constitional amendment was not required, the 3/5 represenation was created to allow slave states to gain political representation, to encourage by posative law the emanicpation of its slaves and turn them into full citizens of states with rights, unlike say Marlyaland who had in 1790 arounda third of white poulation as indentured anda massive slave population, that would over time move south and west, changing the demographic of where slavery was widely practiced.

[Viking Prince]

Whether it was required or not, the Constitution was amended. From wiki (just because I am lazy):

Following the Civil War and the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1865), the three-fifths clause was rendered moot. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1868) later superseded Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. It specifically states that "Representatives shall be apportioned ...counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed..."

The purpose of the clause was only to balance interests in electoral votes and apportionment of seats within the US House. It was a part of the original 1787 constitution convention(after the Articles of Confederation) and just like the compromise on the US Senate to balance the influence of the larger states against the smaller populated states -- this was meant as a means to balance the slave states against the states without slaves.

There was nothing else to the clause. As to indentured servants -- they were considered a countable part of the population. Like many citizens of the time, they did not have the right to vote since there was usually some property holding requirement. The census ignored this as an issue though, just as the census would count women and children.

The problem with slaves was that the slave states did not count slaves as people, but they wanted the US Census to count them for apportioning seats just as women and children were counted. The northern states did not think that they should be counted at all since there was no prospect of the slaves being counted as people within the slave states.

I am actually sympathetic to both positions. Like many compromises, this one was not stable over time. It served its purpose to get a new constitution in place and solve the weak central government problem related to the Articles of Confederation. In hindsight, if I were a slave holder -- I think sticking with the weaker central government would have served the slave interests better. Fortunately -- the slave states felt otherwise at the time. And as they say -- the rest was history.

If anything, this showed the dependence of the slave states on the industrializing north even in the 18th century.

[Hanny]

Whether it was required or not, the Constitution was amended. From wiki (just because I am lazy):

Lazy works for me also!.

The 13 amendemnt made them citizens of the nation, under federal law, framed by SC Pinckeney and before him Frankin, in the relavent acts that allowed only free whites to be citizens of then Union, no free negro could be a citizen of the USA and thus could not vote ofn federal matters, he could only be a full and free citizen of a state. Thats what the 13th changed, they were now full citizens of the Union.

The purpose of the clause was only to balance interests in electoral votes and apportionment of seats within the US House. It was a part of the original 1787 constitution convention(after the Articles of Confederation) and just like the compromise on the US Senate to balance the influence of the larger states against the smaller populated states -- this was meant as a means to balance the slave states against the states without slaves.

Debates that created the clause, were that the North would not tolerate the counting of property as voters of full rights and insisted on slaves being under represented at the political level, as you write a comprimse was enacted as the souther aboliotionsist wanted to encourage states to increase teh emancip[ation rate of its slaves.

[quote]
There was nothing else to the clause. As to indentured servants -- they were considered a countable part of the population. Like many citizens of the time, they did not have the right to vote since there was usually some property holding requirement. The census ignored this as an issue though, just as the census would count women and children. [/.quote]

Actually they were, they are/were rather persons not taxed as they were not federal citizens of the union only citizens of a state, which may or may not allowed them a vote at state level depeding on state constition.

The problem with slaves was that the slave states did not count slaves as people, but they wanted the US Census to count them for apportioning seats just as women and children were counted. The northern states did not think that they should be counted at all since there was no prospect of the slaves being counted as people within the slave states.

Actually they did, and only SC denied them full citizenship upoin being manumision, and only a handfull of northern states granted them state citizenship upion manumision, the rest required them to quit the staste and denied them state citenship, under the naturlisation laws i referfed to earlier, that meant they could not become citizens of any other state as they had been frefused by one member of the Union.

It was northern SC that rulled slaves were not part of the federal comnpact and refused them citizenship, it was southern SC that rulled they were, except SC who also reuire3d them to quit the state on manumision without citizenship.

Who could become a Citizen of one of the several States, and hence, a Citizen of the United States within the constitutional definition of the term, had already been declared once and for all by the first Congress in the Naturalization Act of 26 March 1790:

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled,
That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens;
Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States;
Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed

Hobbs v. Fogg
a free Black man sued for the right to vote in Pennsylvania. The State supreme court replied:
...[A] free ***** or mulatto is not a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and of the State of Pennsylvania, and, therefore, is not entitled to the right of suffrage.... But in addition to interpretation from usage, this antecedent legislation declared that no colored race was party to our social compact. Our ancestors settled the province as a community of white men; and the blacks were introduced into it as a race of slaves; whence an unconquerable prejudice of caste, which has come down to our day.... Consistently with this prejudice, is it to be credited that parity of rank would be allowed to such a race?... I have thought fair to treat the question as it stands affected by our own municipal regulations without illustration from those of other States, where the condition of the race has been still less favored. Yet it is proper to say that the second section of the fourth article of the Federal Constitution, presents an obstacle to the political freedom of the *****, which seems to be insuperable.

The Ohio supreme court Calvin v. Carter
It has always been admitted, that our political institutions embrace the white population only. Persons of color were not recognized as having any political existence. They had no agency in our political organizations, and possessed no political rights under it. Two or three of the States form exceptions. The constitutions of fourteen expressly exclude persons of color by a provision similar to our own; and, in the balance of the States, they are excluded on the ground that they were never recognized as a part of the body politic.... Indeed, it is a matter of history, that the very object of introducing the word white into our constitution, by the convention framing that instrument, was to put this question beyond all cavil or doubt, by, in express terms, excluding all persons from the enjoyment of the elective franchise, except persons of pure white blood.

Thacher v. Hawk Indiana supreme court
This exclusion of persons of color, or, of any degree of colored blood, from all political rights, is not founded upon a mere naked prejudice, but upon natural differences. The two races are placed as wide apart by the hand of nature as white from black, and, to break down the barriers, fixed, as it were, by the Creator himself, in a political and social amalgamation, shocks us, as something unnatural and wrong. It strikes us as a violation of the laws of nature. It would be productive of no good. It would degrade the white, if it could be accomplished, without elevating the black. Indeed, if we gather lessons of wisdom from the history of mankind — walk by the light of our experience, or consult the principles of human nature, we shall be convinced that the two races never can live together upon terms of equality and harmony.

Crandall v. The State Connecticut supreme court
The persons contemplated in this act are not citizens within the obvious meaning of that section of the Constitution of the United States which I have just read. Let me begin by putting this plain question: Are slaves citizens? At the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State was a slave State.... We all know that slavery is recognized in that Constitution; it is the duty of this court to take that Constitution as it is, for we have sworn to support it.... Then slaves were not considered citizens by the framers of the Constitution....
Are free blacks citizens?... To my mind it would be a perversion of terms, and the well known rules of construction, to say that slaves, free blacks, or Indians were citizens, within the meaning of that term as used in the Constitution. God forbid that I should add to the degradation of this race of men; but I am bound, by my duty, to say that they are not citizens.

In the decision of the NC Supreme Court in State v. Manuel, 4 Devereaux & Battle 25-26 (N.C., 1838), Gaston concluded that free blacks were citizens saying:

All free persons born within the state are citizens of the state….
The term “citizen” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people–and he who before was a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the state.”

I am actually sympathetic to both positions. Like many compromises, this one was not stable over time. It served its purpose to get a new constitution in place and solve the weak central government problem related to the Articles of Confederation. In hindsight, if I were a slave holder -- I think sticking with the weaker central government would have served the slave interests better. Fortunately -- the slave states felt otherwise at the time. And as they say -- the rest was history.

You refer i think to the pop increase of the slave poulationh increasing faster than the rate of emncipation, slave holders did not have to consider the 3/5 clause as it did not effect the governemnt or threaten slavery, as slavery was protected in the constition other articles fully and completly and in all parts of the Union.

If anything, this showed the dependence of the slave states on the industrializing north even in the 18th century.

How so?, the north was net importer from the southern region untill the war, just as the south contributed the majoirity of federal income, while recieveing less of it in return.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...ew=image&seq=1
Essays on the progress of nations, in productive industry, civilization, population, and wealth: illustrated by statistics of mining, agriculture, manufactures, commerce, banking, revenues, internal improvements, emigration, mortality, and population./ By Ezra C. Seaman.
Author: Seaman, Ezra C. (Ezra Champion), 1805-1880.
Collection: Making of America Books

Federal expenditures 1789-1860

________1789-1834____1834-1837____1838—1850____1851—1860______Total
Fortifications
Free____$5,265,332___$1,122,644___$4,711,611___$5, 281,373____$16,380,960
Slave___$10,019,249__$1,666,990___$4,357,427___$6, 004,100____$22,047,767
Internal improvements
Free____$2,452,635___$1,779,958___$2,013,511___$1, 780,077____$8,026,183
Slave___$1,859,710___$1,872,903___$545,229_____$1, 428,090____$5,705,932
Lighthouses
Free____$2,001,946_____$509,319___$1,155,375___$2, 976,079____$6,642,720
Slave___$2,161,047_____$530,769_____$636,760___$2, 044,640____$5,373,218
Hospitalization
Free________________________________$392,032___$68 8,238______$1,080,271
Slave_______________________________$282,005___$75 7,813______$1,039,819
Pensions
Free____$21,894,322___$8,012,252______________$5,5 89,210
Slave___$6,816,542____$2,588,091______________$2,8 16,534

includes data from 1854-1860 only.
From data compiled in John van Deusen’s book, Economic bases of Disunion in South Carolina

[Viking Prince]

The use of Northern shipping was central to the economy. Do not just look to the importation and exportation of goods. Services also count. I do not have a good source for you on this, but the South clearly needed the North and if outside the constituional framework would have been subjected to excise taxes and trade restraints. Much more than the North needed the South. This is always the case with agricultural areas though -- even today.

[Hanny]

The use of Northern shipping was central to the economy.

Central in what way?, not in voluime, more went by land between north and south, and while the merchant merine was owned more by the north it carried almost excluscvly southern origined resourources foer internation al export.

Do not just look to the importation and exportation of goods. Services also count.

Such as abanking you mean?, 65% of teh nations gold was held in southern banks as it was in the south that then principle money exchange was made, this figure could rise to 75% in peak cotton export period.

Dickens:
"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel". the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions."

I do not have a good source for you on this, but the South clearly needed the North and if outside the constituional framework would have been subjected to excise taxes and trade restraints. Much more than the North needed the South. This is always the case with agricultural areas though -- even today.

Actually no they did not, northern factories are of no use without southern resourc es to turn into end product, the north could not even feed itself without imports bfrom the south in 1840. It had to spend vast amounts just to feed it livestock because of climate, ist hay crop was required to feed itself through wintwer without forage, while southern states had no such extra burden for agricuilture..

If outside of the constitional framwork?, why would they so be penalised?, it was after all when the CSA adopted a tariff that suited its export economy that prompted Lincoln to have to worry about NY secesion over the probable recesion it woulod cause to northern buissiness and solve the problem by assuring the northern banks that he would crush the rebelion and they tghen lent him 200millionh to fund it rather than risk finaiacial disaster in a trade war witha CS who was now cheaper than the North.

Georgia convention considering secession in 1860:

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic, the navigating, commercial and manufacturing interests of the North, began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks, sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business, which yet continue -- and half a million of dollars are now paid them annually out of the Treasury.
The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign ship builders, and against competition in the coasting trade; Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts, gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burthens of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen, upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above two millions annually for the support of these objects.
These interests in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers, and the reduction of postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about seven millions of dollars annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury, under the name of postal deficiency.
The manufacturing interest entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slaveholding States. Wielding these great States, it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons, rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor, the infancy of their business in this country,the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries towards them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence; these reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased, they were no less clamorous for government protection; but their clamors were less heeded, -- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial, and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from fifteen to two hundred per cent, upon their entire business, for above thirty years, the Act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free-trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people.
The South, and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal, -- upon the direct issue, none at all. All these classes saw this, and felt it, and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support; but a united North was now strong enough to control the government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon.
Time, and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive, -- it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us: we had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it, how -- in relation to slavery -- was the question, then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North, and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation, and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it, on the line of the Missouri restriction, or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections -- of all; and therefore it belonged to all, upon the principles of equity and justice.

Ive just linked you to a good source that explains that,1 can give you more, if required.