How Did Tariffs Work?

[MobileBoy]

Neil,
I can't understand how you possibly conclude that when 39 out of 40 members of the House of Representatives from states that would secede voted against the Morril tarrif it wasn't an issue.Didn't you notice the records of the vote in all of your study on the Congressional globe?It seems like those results would be pretty difficult to miss.

So your putting the blame of this tarrif on a Southern President is honesty lame and innacurate.First of all I didn't realize one man's opinion was a better assessment than the historical record of the votes of Southern Congressman. Secondly Buchanan wasn't a Southerner in the first place so what on earth are you talking about?

Look at all of the facts of the situation and get back to me.A well reasoned position shouldn't disregard relevant information such as the voting records because it doesn't meet the view one desires to have.

Good to see you back on the boards again though.You were missed.

[mobile_96]

{So your putting the blame of this tarrif on a Southern President is honesty lame and innacurate.First of all I didn't realize one man's opinion was a better assessment than the historical record of the votes of Southern Congressman. Secondly Buchanan wasn't a Southerner in the first place so what on earth are you talking about?}
Although not a real Southerner, Buchanan did lean toward the South. In fact, Lean is not the right word.
"throughout his carer he had shown a strict allegiance to party, He had accepted all the Jacksonian doctrines, good or bad: he had hewn to the Democratic under Polk. While often statesmanlike in his speeches and papers, he had also often been cehaply partisan. This party constancy, however, was less remarkable than his equally unswerving alignment with the Southern proslavery wing of his party....In the middle thirties he had spoken against the abolition of slavery in the Federal District, had declared for tabling the abolitionist petitions in silence, and had pressed for the admission of Arkansas as a slave state. He had espoused a measure making it unlawful for postmasters to distrubute printed material touching upon slavery if this was forbidden by state law. He also remonstrated Against an act of the Pennsylvania legislature obstructing the recovery of fugitive slaves, and also supported the purchase of Cuba and was a ready participant in the Ostend Manifesto upon acquisition of the island.
"Each one of these acts was from his standpoint arguably correct. It was nevertheless remarkable that this son of Franklin's State, this fellow townsman of Thaddeus Stevens, had never once deviated from a line Congenial to advanced Proslavey men"

All the above from Allen Nevins in Vol.1 "The Emergence of Lincoln."
Maybe Ole or Cash could give thoughts from Freehling and Potter on this line of thought, as both those books are in my Must Read pile, but not today.

Now, while President he was totally dominated by his cabinet, which was basically Southern in nature. Even when he tried to go the legal and proper course, he would back down under numerous threats of secession, on the hope that doing so would help prevent or avert the breaking apart of both the Democratic Party and/or the North and South.
Chuck in IL.
Almost forgot. Buchanan submitted the Morril tarrif to put money back into the treasury, which by late 1859-1860 was going dry.

[samgrant]

Someone has been on a rant lately about something he calls the "Morril tarrif", and that somehow this thing proves that the war was not intrinsically about slavery.

Well, to me it sounds like just another ploy, (a "red herring"?), a desperate attempt, if I may say so, to ignore the overwhelming evidence presented in this and most any other unbiased forum that the issue of slavery was central to the events leading to the war.

-----

I will not admit that you who hold this theory do not have your defenders:

Karl Marx, 1861: "The war between the North and the 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 sovereignty."

------

And by the way, this thing is more commonly referred to as the "Morrill Tariff", and here is some, theorhetically unbiased, info about it:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff

[unionblue]

samgrant,

Please quote the entire article by Karl Marx and you will find that he does NOT mean that the tariff was the cause of the war. He was merely answering British newspapers that had made that claim.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[samgrant]

Neil,

Thanks for that. Now I see that Mr. Marx was refuting that assertion! Huzzah for Karl!

Strike that from my post.

[MobileBoy]

Samgrant,
Is it merely coincidence that the two serious attempts at secession occurred when after the tarrif of abominations and around the Morril Tarrif controversy.One would have to blind in both cases not to recognize Southerners vehemently opposed both tarrifs and voted against it.So the only two serious considerations of secession happened around high protectionist tarrifs.Why not secession at another time ?

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Samgrant,
Is it merely coincidence that the two serious attempts at secession occurred when after the tarrif of abominations and around the Morril Tarrif controversy.One would have to blind in both cases not to recognize Southerners vehemently opposed both tarrifs and voted against it.So the only two serious considerations of secession happened around high protectionist tarrifs.Why not secession at another time ?

Most probably, as there were scores of tariff disputes before, in-between, and after those two to which you refer.

Now, as for coincidences, is there one in the fact that in the Declarations of Causes of Secession (by the 4 states of Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolins, and Texas), there are collectively 82 incidents of the words "slave(s)" or "slavery", while there are exactly zero incidents of the word "tariff".

[cash]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Neil,
I can't understand how you possibly conclude that when 39 out of 40 members of the House of Representatives from states that would secede voted against the Morril tarrif it wasn't an issue.Didn't you notice the records of the vote in all of your study on the Congressional globe?It seems like those results would be pretty difficult to miss.

Why don't you show us in the Congressional Debates where they threatened secession if the tariff passed?

Regards,
Cash

[cash]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Samgrant,
Is it merely coincidence that the two serious attempts at secession occurred when after the tarrif of abominations and around the Morril Tarrif controversy.One would have to blind in both cases not to recognize Southerners vehemently opposed both tarrifs and voted against it.So the only two serious considerations of secession happened around high protectionist tarrifs.Why not secession at another time ?

That is the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc.

It is also ahistorical because it ignores the fact that tariffs in the 1830s were used as a stalking horse for slavery [see William Freehling, Prelude to Civil War ] ignores the fact there was another secession crisis in 1850, dealing with slavery, and ignores the fact that the secessionists in 1860 and 1861 clearly said they were seceding because of slavery. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." [Mississippi Declaration of Causes]

Regards,
Cash

[samgrant]

"post hoc ergo propter hoc"

I had to look this up, not being any type of logician, and it means:

"after this therefore because of this"


l