THE ECONOMIC STRUGGLE FOR SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE
Posted By : manager-2
Posted : June 29, 2025
By: Matthew Miller
Mainstream history leads many to believe that our so-called “Civil War” was fought solely over slavery—that anyone who questions this narrative are part of the “lost cause myth.” This is particularly true whenever tariffs and the Great Unpleasantness are mentioned. The establishment claims that “Lost Cause proponents have stressed the primacy of states’ rights and the constitutionality of secession, and have cited the secession crisis—along with political squabbles such as tariff disputes…” Even if some may admit the Tariff was an issue of those times, they detract from the claim that either side based their decisions upon it—“it was all about slavery—the tariff is part of the Lost Cause mythology.” Frankly though, this narrative is entirely incorrect, as you are about to see.
It is my belief that the slavery narrative conveniently ignores the economic and political realities that led to the dissolution of the American Union. As Charles Adams masterfully lays out in When in the Course of Human Events—a book that I frequently recommended in my shop—the root cause of the war was economic in nature, with tariffs playing a primary role in pushing the Southern states to-ward secession. The protectionist policies of the North, enforced through exorbitant tariffs, strangled the Southern economy and left the South with little choice but to seek independence from an increasingly oppressive federal government.
By the mid-19th century, the United States had become an economic house “Lincoln”
divided. The North, rapidly industrializing, favored protectionist tariffs to shield its manufactured goods from foreign competition. The South, agrarian and dependent on exporting its cotton and other cash crops to Europe, required free trade to prosper—or at least minimal, temporary protectionist tariffs. The federal government, under Northern control, increasingly imposed tariffs that extracted wealth from the South and simultaneously benefited the North. They were not merely policies of economic preference but instruments of exploitation, as much of the wealth extracted was spent on Northern internal improvements.
From the Tariff of 1828 (infamously dubbed the “Tariff of Abominations”) to the Morrill Tariff of 1861, a consistent pattern emerged: the North used its political dominance to levy high duties on imported goods, forcing the South to either buy overpriced Northern goods or pay heavy taxes on foreign imports. The result was an economic system that drained Southern wealth and funneled it into the pockets of Northern industrialists, creating a form of economic servitude that the South found intolerable.
The Morrill Tariff was passed in 1861 under President Buchanan and was law by the time Lincoln entered office, this tariff dramatically increased rates, with duties as high as 47% on some imports, and represented an enormous burden on the Southern economy, which depended heavily on imported goods. Many South-ern leaders saw this as an act of economic aggression, with some Southern periodicals clearly citing the is-sue:
“The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this govern-ment form a confederate republic, to a national despotism.”
The grievance is further clarified in Rhett’s famous South Carolina’s secession declaration, where he cites taxation as a primary issue. In reality though, this Republican reinforcement of the tariff which Southerners were fiercely resisting, only strengthened the resolve of other states who were initially on the fence with se-cession. It recognized that as long as they remained under Northern control, their economic vitality would be sacrificed for Northern prosperity.
We witness in today’s educational system the prevailing myth that Lincoln’s motives surrounding the conflict were entirely focused on the issue of slavery, but this is simply not the case. Far from being an abolitionist crusader, Lincoln was primarily concerned with maintaining federal revenue. When in the Course of Human Events breaks it down well: “In 1860, total exports from the South totaled $214 million, and from the North around $47 Million. In both instances the percentage for the South (taxes and exports) was approximately 87 percent, and 17 percent in the North.” To make matters even worse, the majority of that revenue was going for Northern internal improvements.
Secession posed a direct threat to this revenue stream, which is why Lincoln quickly made clear that he would not recognize Southern independence. Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address makes no mention of ending slavery but rather insists that he will continue to collect duties in Southern ports, stating: “The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts.” This declaration makes it abundantly clear that Lincoln’s primary objective was to preserve the Union’s financial structure, which depended on Southern trade and taxation. But the evidence doesn’t end there, it’s further solidified within the first occurrence of the war, Fort Sumter.
This fort, strategically positioned in Charleston Harbor, was one of the federal installations tasked with collecting tariffs. As Adams details in his book, and what Jon White explained in my video series, when South Carolina succeeded, it demanded that the federal government remove its forces from the fort. Buchanan and then Lincoln, however, refused to relinquish control. Today’s establishment historians teach that Lincoln’s attitude was based entirely on the sanctity of the Union, but the historical evidence blows that narrative out of the water, as these three documented conversations verify:
On April 4th, Virginia Unionist John B. Baldwin visits Lincoln. Baldwin suggests Lincoln order the withdrawal of troops from Ft. Sumter and Ft. Pickens, Lincoln responds that “his friends would not be pleased with such a step.” Then, the President added, “Well, what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?”
On April 12th, Virginia Unionist Alexander Hugh Holmes Stuart visited Lincoln. Stuart suggests Lincoln “order the evacuation of the forts.” President Lincoln’s responded, “If I do that, what will become of my revenue? I might as well shut up housekeeping at once!”
On April 22nd, Baltimore YMCA delegation visited Lincoln led by Rev. Richard Fuller. Fuller suggests he “recognize the independence of the Southern States.” Lincoln responded, “what is to become of the revenue? I shall have no Government—no resources?”
Lincoln certainly was a skilled manipulator. By resupplying the fort with Federal troops, he incited the South to fire upon the Federal installation, so as to appear that they were the aggressors. This gave him surface-level justification for his invasion which would force the Southern states back into the Union, therefore securing his revenues. Another critical piece to this puzzle is not just the great loss it would be to the Federal government—but the devastating effect it would have on Northern industry. Had the South done what they were planning to do (to open a free port) it would have meant economic devastation for Lincoln’s political party backers. It was even worse. The Confederates wanted to allow duty free transit of Confederate territory on cargoes bound for northern ports. This included through New Orleans and up the Mississippi. Old Abe simply could not tolerate letting the south go, not for the sanctity of the Union, but for the reason he stated on three separate occasions: revenue.
Another interesting observation on the tariff subject are the conflicts international observers. There were numerous European figures who perceived the secession conflict not as a moral crusade against slavery, but as what it genuinely was: an economic struggle between two competing systems. The London Times, sympathetic to the South’s plight, noted that the war was about the North’s refusal to allow the South economic independence. British leaders, many of whom depended on Southern cotton, understood that the war was fundamentally about trade and taxation, not humanitarian concerns. One figure in particular— the prominent literary celebrity Charles Dickens — had quite a lot to say about the matter in his periodical All Year Round. It was Dickens’ belief that “The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal it’s desire for economic control of the Southern states.” This source, along with the previous credible sources, make a convincing case that economics; the tariff and monetary interests, were a primary driver in the crucial decisions which led to the conflict betwixt North and South. A loss which would economically echo into the next century. Had the South been allowed to peacefully secede, it would have thrived under free trade, much like European nations and (here is the critical point) products through the Confederate States to the United States would have been cheaper than products in the United States through northern ports. Lincoln knew this.
This was a war over economic control, A war where the South sought to free itself from a exploitative tariff system that enriched the north at expense of the South. A war not of emancipation of the slaves, or even “the sacred Union,” but of federal overreach and economic conquest. The South did not fight to preserve slavery—it fought for the right to govern itself, free from economic exploitation.
