More on how Wall Street greed provoked the South and triggered the “Civil War”

Spread the love

[Continuing from Texan and historian Ray Goodwin’s essay here on why the South seceded:]


A good article found on Facebook, taken from

In 1824 Northern manufacturing states and the Whig Party under the leadership of Henry Clay began to push for high, protective tariffs [taxes on foreign products]. These were strongly opposed by the South. The Southern economy was largely agricultural and geared to exporting a large portion of its cotton and tobacco crops to Europe.

In the 1850’s the South accounted for anywhere from 72 to 82% of U. S. exports. They were largely dependent, however, on Europe or the North for the manufactured goods needed for both agricultural production and consumer needs. Northern states received about 20% of the South’s agricultural production. The vast majority of export volume went to Europe. A protective tariff was then a substantial benefit to Northern manufacturing states, but meant considerable economic hardship for the agricultural South.

Confederate fallen hero


Northern political dominance enabled Clay and his allies in Congress to pass a tariff averaging 35% late in 1824. This was the cause of economic boom in the North, but economic hardship and political agitation in the South. South Carolina was especially hard hit, the State’s exports falling 25% over the next two years. In 1828 in a demonstration of unabashed partisanship and unashamed greed, the Northern-dominated Congress raised the average tariff level to 50%. Despite strong Southern agitation for lower tariffs the Tariff of 1832 only nominally reduced the effective tariff rate and brought no relief to the South. These last two tariffs are usually termed in history as the Tariffs of Abomination.

This led to the Nullification Crisis of 1832 when South Carolina called a state convention and “nullified” the 1828 and 1832 tariffs as unjust and unconstitutional. The resulting constitutional crisis came very near provoking armed conflict at that time. Through the efforts of former U. S. Vice President and U. S. Senator from South Carolina, John C. Calhoun, a compromise was effected in 1833 which over a few years reduced the tariff back to a normal level of about 15%. Henry Clay and the Whigs were not happy, however, to have been forced into a compromise by Calhoun and South Carolina’s Nullification threat. The tariff, however, remained at a level near 15% until 1860. A lesson in economics, regional sensitivities, and simple fairness should have been learned from this confrontation, but if it was learned, it was ignored by ambitious political and business factions and personalities that would come on the scene of American history in the late 1850’s.


High protective tariffs were always the policy of the old Whig Party and had become the policy of the new Republican Party that replaced it. A recession beginning around 1857 gave the cause of protectionism an additional political boost in the Northern industrial states.

In May of 1860, the U. S. Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Bill (named for Republican Congressman and steel manufacturer, Justin S. Morrill of Vermont) raising the average tariff from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. Although this was remarkably reminiscent of the Tariffs of Abomination which had led in 1832 to a constitutional crisis and threats of secession and armed force, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Bill 105 to 64. Out of 40 Southern Congressmen only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it.

U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South.

In the 1860 election, Lincoln, a former Whig and great admirer of Henry Clay, campaigned for the high protective-tariff provisions of the Morrill Tariff, which had also been incorporated into the Republican Party Platform. Lincoln further endorsed the Morrill Tariff and its concepts in his first inaugural speech and signed the Act into law a few days after taking office in March of 1861. Southern leaders had seen it coming. Southern protests had been of no avail. Now the South was inflamed with righteous indignation, and Southern leaders began to call for Secession.

All over Tariffs, not slaves. And the first shot of the war were on Fort Sumpter, a tariff-collection agency.

Writing in December of 1861 in a London weekly publication, the famous English author, Charles Dickens, who was a strong opponent of slavery, said these things about the war going on in America:

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.”

“Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as many, many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”

Karl Marx, like most European socialists of the time favored the North. In an 1861 article published in England, he articulated very well what the major British newspapers, the Times, the Economist, and Saturday Review, had been saying:

“The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power.”

Ryan Dawson, a Native American, sheds some light on the real history of the Civil War…
Like · Comment ·

  • Rosemarie Clark likes this.
  • ᚨᛚᛂᛪ ᛖᚾᚴᛡ ᛣᛚᚪᚱᚴ One last point needs to be made. The war of 1861-65 was not a “civil” war. To call it the “Civil War” is not a historically accurate and honest use of language. It is the propaganda of the victors, having attained popular usage. No one in the South was attempting to overthrow the U. S. government. Few Southerners had any interest in overthrowing their own or anyone else’s state governments. The Southern states had seen that continued union with the North would jeopardize their liberties and economic wellbeing. Through the proper constitutional means of state conventions and referendums they sought to withdraw from the Union and establish their independence, just as the American Colonies had sought their independence from Great Britain in 1776 and for very similar reasons. The Northern industrialists, however, were not willing to give up their Southern Colonies. A more appropriate name for the uncivil war of 1861-65 would be “The War for Southern Independence.”

    But had it not been for the Morrill Tariff there would have been no rush to Secession by Southern states and very probably no war. The Morrill Tariff of 1860, so unabashed and unashamed in its short-sighted, partisan greed, stands as an astonishing monument to the self-centered depravity of man — and to its consequences. No wonder most Americans would like to see it forgotten and covered over with a more morally satisfying but largely false version of the causes of the Uncivil War.
  • John D. Nugent Excellent information, comrade, thank you!
    My only critique is 1) that the essay is a bit p.c.; slavery was also an issue — and had been brewing for decades; it was not cooked up just to protect tariffs.
    Southerners feared (wrongly) that Lincoln was a liberal on race, a nut who would free the slaves down South to go on a rampage against white men — and white women.
    But they rightly feared the “Radical Republicans” (such as Thaddeus Stevens; photo)   behind Lincoln, who were authentic South-haters and DID want exactly that.
  • 2) Southerns are culturally and psychologically different from Northerners: more relaxed, respectful, genteel, polite, gracious, friendly, slow-talking  and rural-oriented. ( I spent 20 years in Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina and Florida.) One look at the cold Stevens tells you he was not a Southerner. 😉
    They value honor above money.
    They are more Protestant, more English or Scotch-Irish (i.e. far fewer Germans, Irish, Italians, Poles,  and no Dutch or Scandinavians at all.)
    They find Yankees abrupt, money-grubbing  and rude.
    Had the South won, today we would all accept they are a different nation with a different mindset, just as Canadians are similar to but not the same as Americans.
    I ran for Congress and nearly won in 1990 in Tennessee. Southerners are great. I would just turn the temp and humidity down 15 degrees.  😉
  • Damyankee Nazi nearly wins Republican primary for Congress, Sixth District of “Tinnessee” ! WMZ-TV, Nashville, the then largest TV station in Tennessee, seen also in Alabama and Kentucky, broadcast stories constantly about the race.

McAtee Nugent WSMV TV Nashville



Around July 1989 de Nugent moved to Metairie, Louisiana to study the electoral victory of pro-white State Representative David Duke, staying in Louisiana until the late spring of 1990, and was in a relationship 1989-91 with one of Duke’s former lady friends.

David Duke in the 1990s

In June-August 1990, de Nugent, using the campaign name “Jack Nugent,” ran in the Republican primary for Congress in the Sixth District of Tennessee, south and east of Nashville, on a pro-white platform. He achieved 26.7 percent of the vote, albeit de Nugent suspects that massive electronic vote fraud denied him an outright victory on primary day, August 10, 1990. He received extensive local publicity and references to his race were made by Time and the op-ed page of the New York Times.




De Nugent wrote a Texas friend named Ray:

Well, let me tell you, Ray, about the kind of man I was in 1990. When I ran for Congress in 1990, in Tennessee, I was a “damn yankee” (northerner) and from microscopic Rhode Island! —  who had barely set foot in that southern state and yet wanted to be their congressman. Absurd to even dream that way!

Rhode Island (“RI”) in the upper-right of this map is a tiny state, 35 miles east-to-west and 60 miles north-to-south, no bigger than Ontonagon County in Upper Michigan, where I am today. Tennessee (“TN”) in blue, lower-right-middle, is a true Southern tobacco and cotton state that was home to President and war hero Andrew Jackson, to Confederate cavalry hero Nathan Bedford Forrest, to Memphis barbecue and to Elvis Presley. It was a segregated southern state, and Martin Luther King was assassinated here in 1968.


Statue of Nathan Bedford Forest, a brilliant and fierce Confederate cavalry general, in Memphis, Tennessee, with myself and Margi (from North Carolina) in November 2008


BUT in Tennessee just 50 signatures were enough to put me on the ballot, and the district was 92% white, and, most of all, Southerners have been overtly racial in their identity since the six-state Confederacy broke away from the US in 1861.

In 1990, however, it was exactly like a Protestant Orangeman from Ulster waving a Union Jack wanting to become the prime minster of Catholic Ireland! He would be seen as an invader and traitor on your soil! And me not even a former Klansman and thus at least a southerner — but instead a “Nazi” and thus a kind of “Germanized” American —  mentally a foreigner as well as a “damn-yankee”! ;-)

And yet off I drove from New Orleans, alone, alone, alone, in a decrepit, unreliable 1980 Oldsmobile diesel car, and drove up from Louisiana (where I had learned all I could about pro-white candidacy from David Duke), I arrived in Nashville, got the papers to file for US Congress, and then went to the supermarket near my motel in Murfreesboro to get 50 signatures in the boiling summer sun of Tennessee, all alone.


Tennessee Map


Why all alone? Why? There was NO “movement” at all in Tennessee, no Klan, no National Alliance, no Nazis, nobody. Zero activism.

And yet I ended up as I did, either winning the Republican primary (we cannot know due to the vote fraud), or I came very close, in a state I was NOT FROM, a damn yankee northerner in a southern state, with the wrong accent, and no local support. What does a nerd like [a critic of mine, and a mathematician] know about running for office, the money needed, the organization, the willingness to be ridiculed, defamed and threatened with beatings and death?

John de Nugent Presidential Video 1A(9:58 to 19:02 )

Did [my critic] ever have a millionaire approach his manager with a $10,000 under-the-table money offer in the last, desperate week of a campaign so as to set him up for arrest by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation? (10:11 to especially the “quarter” experience and then to the very end)

I am that same man today as I was then, Ray — but stronger, wiser, sadder, better prepared, and more full of hatred for the  genociders.





Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.