Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I rest my case based on everything posted after yours and mine from last night. It is the issue that will never die, possibly a good reason, possibly a bad one.
Bart
__________________ "Thank You....Noooo."
Major Charles Emerson Winchester III M.A.S.H. 4077th
I rest my case based on everything posted after yours and mine from last night. It is the issue that will never die, possibly a good reason, possibly a bad one.
Bart
It's a dead horse... Neil thouroghly convinced me... pehaps the desperate attacks upon the idea are only further proof that the idea scares some.
Methinks some doth protest too much.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Geez trice, you went and did all of Battallion's work for him.
The Panic of 1857 did weigh heavily upon many western minds--although many in the West were hesitant to advocate a pro-tariff position. Historian Thomas Pitkin argues that even with the enthusiasm of eastern Republicans to increase the tariff and a growing support among westerners, "Western members of the committee on resolutions [at the Republican National Convention] were averse to mentioning the tariff at all in the party platform." (Pitkin, "Western Republicans and the Tariff in 1860," The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Dec., 1940), pp. 406) This was not an example of westerners running with open arms to eastern protectionist tariffs, but a cautious move in response to certain economic concerns, including the Panic of 1857.
The Panic of 1857 had many causes and effects. It was a time of heated expansion, similar to the burst of the Dot-Com Bubble a few years ago. In many ways, the proximate cause that tipped the scales was the sinking of a ship from California loaded with gold. Major financial interests needed the cargo to pay obligations; they defaulted, and everything started to slide faster and faster. But it is pretty clear some sort of a fall was coming (hindsight is great).
All that starts in the 2nd half of 1857. Buchanan came into office in March, and the Tariff of 1857 was passed immediately thereafter. At the time, the government budget was running at a surplus. Going from memory, I think the Federal debt was about $20 million.
If things had kept on that way, the Tariff of 1857 would have stayed reasonable. But the situation didn't stay stable.
There had been a huge ship-building boom in the early 1850s as a result of the California Gold Rush. Most of the those ships were suddenly outdated by the widespread adoption of steamships. Shipping rates dropped like a stone because of excess capability. Many ships were simply laid up. Losses were widespread; many investors were wiped out. This led to a covert revival in the Atlantic Slave Trade to find some way to pay debts -- which the Buchanan administration encouraged by naval protection against the Royal Navy until 1860.
The Panic also caused widespread drops in prices for agricultural commodities like wheat and corn. Small farmers in the West were badly hurt by this. Cotton (virtually an American monopoly) was not affected by this, leading to all the crowing about "King Cotton" and the naive belief that cotton was immune. Tobacco and rice were little affected. Southerners saw this as the superiority of their way of life when it was merely the variations of an economic cycle. Many of them also crowed and gloated over the misfortunes of their northern and western brethern, which did little to help the situation or build friendships with their fellow citizens.
Another "cause" of the Panic was the ending of the Crimean War. During that war, Britain and France maintained an embargo against Russian goods. French & British ships did not (legally) ship goods in or out of Russia. Most of the trade was lost by the British. US carrying of goods from Russia went way up. When the war ended, the British moved swiftly to get that trade back. US volume went down, exacerbating the excess capacity in the US.
As usual with such economic crises, you can find instances of shady financial dealings, fraud, foolish investors, "irrational exuberance", etc. leading to the mess. Also sheer bad luck and an inability to foresee the future. Once again, hindsight makes that easy to recognize.
In Washington, the President and Congress did what is all-too-common. Having reduced income with the Tariff of 1857, they then refused to take measures to increase it when the source of the income, international trade, fell. Also as per usual, they continued spending as if money were grown on trees. Income down, spending up ... big deficits and steadily increasing mountain of debt ... this is why the pressure for an increase in the Tariff built up in the late 1850s.
Note that this is a President elected by the South, the typical dough-faced man of pre-Civil-War Democratic politics, a Northerner who represented Southern politics and views. This is a Congress with a strong Southern presence that can block what they do not like. This was not Northerners or the Republicans driving the country into this mess. It was a result of foolish policies and leadership by all of the nation's leaders.
By 1860, the pressure had built to fix this mess. That is why there was enough backing to push the Morrill Tariff through in 1860-61: the nation was coming to a belief that "something had to be done". That is why they could get it through the House in 1860, where they had failed before that.
If the South had co-operated in the effort, some version of the Tariff would have been passed, but it probably would not have been in the form it was. That's how those things are normally worked out in good times. But there were those who chose to make this a no-compromise issue, a sectional issue across the great divide of North-South, instead of a practical matter of politics and economics that could be worked out and adjusted.
Ignored in all the secessionist discussions of the Tariff we see is the responsibility for all this. The Democratic, pro-South Buchanan administration had presided over an economic disaster, four years of budget-busting financial irresponsibility that quadrupled the national debt. Federal borrowing was becoming more and more expensive as bankers (US & foreign) began to look askance at Federal credit and raise rates. Southern fireworks about the Morrill Tariff ignore the need to resolve this crisis. It was about far more than high ideals, it was about the reality of paying the bills and stabilizing the government debt, about putting the finances of the nation on a firm footing.
The Republicans certainly weren't angels, and the Morrill Tariff certainly doesn't look ideal to me. But clearly the situation in 1860 required strong action to address this financial mess that arose during the Buchanan administration -- and I have never seen any indication that the Southern Congressional delegations were trying to do much to solve it. In fact, one way to look at secession is that the South was attempting to flee from the debts and obligations they had helped incur.
Thanks for the informative posts. It should be enlightening for many to know that, all the shallow rhetoric aside, tariffs were not just beneficial to industry. For instance, duties on raw wool did not help textile or finished goods manufacturers, and raises in duties on finished goods were typically designed to offset the added costs to them. Similarly, duties on pig iron may have helped a domestic iron producer....except when he had to import pig iron or he was a rolling mill or a producer of iron products. Yet mention a tariff on iron and all industry is imagined to have been grinning from ear to ear.
Your latest post I think also does justice to the subject of the need for the 1861 Morrill tariff. It cannot be ignored that it was primarily a revenue tariff designed to put the federal government back in the black. Compared to the 1846 schedule it sought to replace, it was indeed complicated, but I have failed to ever see where it raised any meaningful duty to rates that would shock, iron included. In fact, rates remained in line, if not slightly lower than the 1846 schedule. Do you have any information that shows otherwise?
Thanks for the informative posts. It should be enlightening for many to know that, all the shallow rhetoric aside, tariffs were not just beneficial to industry. For instance, duties on raw wool did not help textile or finished goods manufacturers, and raises in duties on finished goods were typically designed to offset the added costs to them. Similarly, duties on pig iron may have helped a domestic iron producer....except when he had to import pig iron or he was a rolling mill or a producer of iron products. Yet mention a tariff on iron and all industry is imagined to have been grinning from ear to ear.
Your latest post I think also does justice to the subject of the need for the 1861 Morrill tariff. It cannot be ignored that it was primarily a revenue tariff designed to put the federal government back in the black. Compared to the 1846 schedule it sought to replace, it was indeed complicated, but I have failed to ever see where it raised any meaningful duty to rates that would shock, iron included. In fact, rates remained in line, if not slightly lower than the 1846 schedule. Do you have any information that shows otherwise?
Cedarstripper
It was the stated purpose of the bill's sponsors to move the rates back to the 1846 levels. People can argue about whether that was so or not, because the schedule and formulas are not exactly stated the same and there is some difference in products covered, etc. However, it was generally considered to have been aimed at the 1846 levels.
Naturally enough, when the Southern members left Congress in early 1861, there was little opposition left to moderate the more determined supporters. There was little reason to horse-trade provisions or juggle rates for votes. It was a foregone conclusion the bill was going through, and darn quickly: the financial crisis got *much* worse in December 1860 to February 1861, with active refusal of loans to the Federal government by banks. Buchanan had to replace a Cabinet level officer as a result, and the bill was passed and signed before Lincoln took the oath.
Later versions of the Morrill Tariff were more draconian and protectionist, passed to fund the war or otherwise shelter US industry from competition. The initial one was probably not too far off where it needed to be in the short-term. If the South had simply remained in Congress to act thriough the system, it would probably have been a bit more reasonable in its provisions because of their power in the Congress, if nothing else.
The person who provided this link made a similar argument as your own, that on the eve of the Civil war the West supported high tariffs in hopes of internal improvements of their own.
Quote:
Rose: The West had their own interests that they did not share with the Southern planter. Transportation. They even voted for higher tariffs off and on in order to gain the revenue for better transportation.
I don't believe I indicated that I was specifically speaking of the "eve of the war". However, the West did benefit from higher tariffs during the time the railroad was being pushed to the West. They voted with the North on tariff issues. During the 1830's there was a decline in votes for high tariffs. In 1833 they voted by a narrow margin to lower the tariff. In 1842 they voted against a higher tariff, but only by a narrow margin (8 to 5). In
1857 the vote was nearly split in half to lower the tariff or not, 7 yeas to 6 nays. So like I indicated, the West had interests that were unique to the West and did not fully support lower tariffs. Being rather unpredictable, the West was considered the "swing vote".
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
The person who provided this link made a similar argument as your own, that on the eve of the Civil war the West supported high tariffs in hopes of internal improvements of their own.
I don't believe I indicated that I was specifically speaking of the "eve of the war". However, the West did benefit from higher tariffs during the time the railroad was being pushed to the West. They voted with the North on tariff issues. During the 1830's there was a decline in votes for high tariffs. In 1833 they voted by a narrow margin to lower the tariff. In 1842 they voted against a higher tariff, but only by a narrow margin (8 to 5). In
1857 the vote was nearly split in half to lower the tariff or not, 7 yeas to 6 nays. So like I indicated, the West had interests that were unique to the West and did not fully support lower tariffs. Being rather unpredictable, the West was considered the "swing vote".
Rose
I think you are trying to take a complex interaction of normal human beings with many different aspects and force it to fit a narrow preconception. Westerners had lots of different motivations, just as Southerners and Northerners and Easterners did. That is the way people normally are in society.
Here, for example, is the way Laylor, in his "Cyclopćdia of Political Science, Political Economy, and the Political History of the United States by the Best American and European Writers", 1899 edition of a book published first in 1881, described the situation:
=====
—The revenue collected under this tariff was so large, that, in 1857, it became necessary to reduce it, as the circulating medium of the country was being looked up in the treasury. An attempt was made to pass a protective tariff, but it was defeated. The secretary of the treasury had recommended that raw materials should be made free of duty, and also salt, as a necessity for the western packer. The eastern manufacturers favored this measure, and wool was the most difficult commodity to rate, as the west wished it made dutiable and protected. The tariff of 1857 was denounced as the result of a "fraudulent combination of those who favored the protection of hemp, sugar, iron and the woolen manufactures of Massachusetts. It was a blow at the wool grower." By this act the average duty was lowered to about 20 per cent. ad valorem. III.241.22—The crisis of 1857 was followed by deficits in the government finances, and it became necessary to revise the tariff. In 1861 a measure known as the "Morrill tariff" was passed, which was a decided step toward a protective measure, but it remained in force only a few months. ...
=====
Note that sugar protection was important to only Louisiana. Iron essentially meant Pennsylvania and the are that supported it (the eastern Ohio Valley, including the counties of western Virginia, which were more closely associated with Pittsburgh than with Richmond). Hemp was an interest of Kentucky and Tennessee and Missouri in the 1840s and 1850s. The manufacturers were nowhere near as exercised over the price of wool as the ranchers and farmers with sheep were -- which largely meant the North and West. Note also that Lalor tells us the eastern manufacturers were among the supporters of the Tariff of 1857.
The government financial crisis of 1857-1861 required solution. The Federal government, with an empty Treasury, a large deicit, falling income, and an increasing debt, needed to take steps to resolve this crisis. They have only two sources of income: land sales and the tariff on imports. By itself, this is a major reason for people to change their mind on the Tariff.
One of the reasons for all the Panic in 1857 was that the Crimean War had ended, followed by the return of hundreds of thousands of European young males to civilian life and agricultural production. As a result, the need for imported wheat, etc. fell in Europe, leading to falling prices for many American farmers -- severely impacting Westerners. Here is another major reason for Westerners to change their minds on the tariff.
These are not simple issues. They will not coincide with the appearance you wish to see here.
It looks like we're taking a year out of the life of the constant, on-going tariff debates in congress and looking at it like it was typical of the period between 1800 and 1861. The tariff situation was fluid. This year the protectionists added a pet import to the list, during the next administration it disappeared to perhaps be replaced by another or none.
The Dartmouth paper's author noted that in only two periods in our history have tariffs declined -- one from '1830 to '60 and the other from 1930 onward. The chief bugaboo seems to be resentment over protectionist aspects of the different tariffs -- not the need to have tariffs for revenue to operate the government agencies.
I understand that the slaveholding states produced virtually nothing for their own consumption. Their wealth was based on exported cotton, tobacco, rice, hemp, and sugar. They were dependent on imported goods, either from the north, northwest, or from Europe. I'd appreciate some help in understanding what imports were so all-fired important to the South that got it so wadded up?
I can understand a resentment at being pressed toward buying northern-made products rather than European-made products. But things couldn't have been quite that simple. I can understand that the South had been getting the short end of the stick on internal improvements (although those who claim the South got the shaft are looking at the pre-30s when it really did).
So I'm looking for a little help here in understanding how badly was the Southerner actually injured with tariff protections on this and that off and on?
Someone earlier posted a link to a paper on Hezekiah Niles. Recommended reading. He lived until 1836 and saw -- clearly -- the approach of the Civil War. All his words are contemporary and placed in a historical context. Read it.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Maybe we should move this discussion over to the most recent Tariff thread? It's nice for later research that all of the 'eggs' are in one basket instead of scattered over a half dozen threads.
Just an idea,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
