How Did Tariffs Work?

[MobileBoy]

Lets see Lincoln promised that he would collect the revenues from Southern ports and promised not to interfere with slavery.

Consider this little tidbit from the pro-Lincoln New York Evening Post, March 2, 1861 edition:

"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.

"What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled?"

The war was waged by the North for economic reasons.Would the North be richer or poorer with an independent Confederacy?The answer is obvious don't think Lincoln and other Northern politicians had a different answer.The North didn't go to war for slavery.You guys need to get real.

[milhistbuff1]

Mobile Boy,

There have few if any wars in history that was not for economic motives. The diffence in this case is the that slavery was not only an economic system but a way of life and had been in the western hemisphere since the late 1400's.
respectfully, Matt

[MobileBoy]

Hey Matt,
I can agree that without slavery the Southern states don't secede.I simply think the North (not the fighting men nor average citizens) fought the war for economic benefit and slavery had nothing to do with Northern efforts to preserve the Union.If the abolitionist weren't a tiny minority in the North and if Lincoln hadn't stated over and over slavery wasn't the issue then I might believe otherwise.Of course one also has to consider the way blacks were treated up North.It wasn't as evil as slavery but they were definitely 2nd class citizens and not given equal rights.In short I guess the South fought for basically slavery and the North fought for basically money would be accurate as the main causes of the war in my opinion.

[cash]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Lets see Lincoln promised that he would collect the revenues from Southern ports and promised not to interfere with slavery.

Consider this little tidbit from the pro-Lincoln New York Evening Post, March 2, 1861 edition

Since when did newspapers set national policy?

And, by the way, let's consider the actual facts, shall we?

In 1860, the tariff collected in Northern ports amounted to $48.3 million (92.4% of the total tariff collected), in Southern ports $4.0 million (7.6% of the total tariff collected). The tariff collected at the port of New York alone constituted 66.7% of the total -- $34.9 million. By comparison, the total value of all goods imported through Charleston was only $2.0 million (and the net tariff collected there in 1858/59 was only $299,339.43). [Douglas B. Ball, Financial Failure and Confederate Defeat, p. 205, Table 18, "Trade Figures by Port in 1860" and "Customs Collections by Major Port (1860)."

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

The war was waged by the North for economic reasons.

Once again, this is the logical fallacy known as Ignoratio Elenchi, also known as the red herring. It ignores the fact that it was the confederates who started the war, not the Federals. It also ignores the historical fact that the Federals' war objective, preservation of the Union, had several factors entwined in it, only one of which was the fact that a Union of 33 states was economically stronger than a Union of 22 states. Also entwined was the principle that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land and no state had the right to claim it no longer applied to them. The Founding Fathers had warned of the dangers of disunion in the Federalist Papers, and Thomas Jefferson had warned of those dangers in his letter to John Taylor. Washington had warned against charlatans who would try to weaken the ties to Union in his Farewell Address.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

The North didn't go to war for slavery.

Again, this is the logical fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi, also known as the red herring. Nobody here is saying the Federals went to war for slavery, yet you continue to act as though everyone is saying that.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

You guys need to get real.

You need to stop attributing things to us we didn't say, get off of the logical fallacies, and look at the actual historical facts.

Regards,
Cash

[milhistbuff1]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

In short I guess the South fought for basically slavery and the North fought for basically money would be accurate as the main causes of the war in my opinion.

I agree with your asessment of both sides motives, however i would add industry along with money for the North. For the south i would add disgust with the federal government, a feeling of being disenfrancised. Elsewhere on this message board people have gone into how the south was not controling the federal government in the period prior to the war, so i wont go into details here. Considering that all the south had won at the federal level in terms maintainance of its economic system was the Fugitive Slave act, and Dred Scott decision, i believe the average southern slave owner would think the federal government did not represent him or his interests. All that being said, i believe other factors such as the dissalution of the union were of far greater concern to lincoln, as opposed to economics.
To quote Benjiman Disraeli referring to warfare" Money is not to be thought of in such matters, only success is to be thought of."
respectfully,
Matt

[samgrant]

Well, Yes in a way.

The North was a "Free Labor" economic system.

The South was a "Slave Labor" economic system.

[samgrant]

Ignoratio Elenchi - Not an Italian cartographer.

I have learned a lot about the Civil War on this site.

I never expected to learn logic, but here we are!

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

[cash]

Originally Posted by samgrant

I have learned a lot about the Civil War on this site.

I never expected to learn logic, but here we are!

All part of our full-spectrum service, and free of charge as well.

Regards,
Cash

[MobileBoy]

Cash,
Since when did newspapers set national policy?
And I would say back at you stop attributing things to me I didn’t say.

Also entwined was the principle that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land.
And I suppose only the Southern states should be bound by the Constituion.Among Lincoln’s unconstitutional acts were launching an invasion without the consent of Congress, blockading Southern ports before formally declaring war, unilaterally suspending the writ of habeas corpus and arresting and imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens without a warrant, confiscating private property, including firearms, and effectively gutting the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. I do not spend most of my time making excuses and bending over backwards to concoct “rationales” for Lincoln’s behavior.Or to use your language I don't endulge in fallacies.



The Founding Fathers had warned of the dangers of disunion in the Federalist Papers, and Thomas Jefferson had warned of those dangers in his letter to John Taylor.

You might want to check out this quote by Thomas Jefferson regarding the Louisiana Purchase. "Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the Western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the Eastern." He wrote that if those of the Mississippi valley should "see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in Union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were also authored by founding fathers Jefferson and Madison.When New England considered seceding there is a record of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson’s correspondence.Nowhere in there will you find secession described as illegal by either founding father.So your point was what?Warning of the dangers of disunion doesn’t mean an endorsement of coercion.

[cash]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Since when did newspapers set national policy?
And I would say back at you stop attributing things to me I didn’t say.

Did you or did you not offer a newspaper editorial as evidence that the US Government pursued war in order to get tariff revenue? If you did, then you are claiming newspapers set national policy.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Also entwined was the principle that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land.
And I suppose only the Southern states should be bound by the Constituion.Among Lincoln’s unconstitutional acts were launching an invasion without the consent of Congress,

Just to be clear, exactly which invasion are you talking about?

Those who actually understand what the Constitution and the law says about this will know that no congressional consent was needed for an invasion in any case, since the President has the constituitonal authority to put down rebellions.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

blockading Southern ports before formally declaring war,

Also not a violation of the Constitution.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

unilaterally suspending the writ of habeas corpus and arresting and imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens without a warrant, confiscating private property, including firearms, and effectively gutting the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Wrong again. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was not a violation of the Constitution, since the Constitution clearly gives the US Government the power to suspend the privilege of the writ and does not claim that power belongs to only one branch of the government.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

I do not spend most of my time making excuses and bending over backwards to concoct “rationales” for Lincoln’s behavior.Or to use your language I don't endulge in fallacies.

Yet you fantasized violations of the Constitution above where none existed.

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

The Founding Fathers had warned of the dangers of disunion in the Federalist Papers, and Thomas Jefferson had warned of those dangers in his letter to John Taylor.

You might want to check out this quote by Thomas Jefferson regarding the Louisiana Purchase. "Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the Western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the Eastern." He wrote that if those of the Mississippi valley should "see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in Union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."

Inapplicable to the events of 1860 and 1861, since it envisions a separation agreed to, before separation, by all parties involved, and over events unrelated to the beginning of the Civil War. His letter to John Taylor has applicability to the events of 1860 and 1861 because it directly addresses a unilateral break based on one party gaining power in elections:

"But if on a temporary superiority of the one party, the other is to resort to a scission of the Union, no federal government can ever exist. If to rid ourselves of the present rule of Massachusets & Connecticut we break the Union, will the evil stop there? Suppose the N. England States alone cut off, will our natures be changed? are we not men still to the south of that, & with all the passions of men? Immediately we shall see a Pennsylvania & a Virginia party arise in the residuary confederacy, and the public mind will be distracted with the same party spirit. What a game, too, will the one party have in their hands by eternally threatening the other that unless they do so & so, they will join their Northern neighbors. If we reduce our Union to Virginia & N. Carolina, immediately the conflict will be established between the representatives of these two States, and they will end by breaking into their simple units." [Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 4 Jun 1798]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were also authored by founding fathers Jefferson and Madison.

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions don't support unilateral secession of a state, and they also have no force of law. Those who have not read them but instead have read propaganda written about them often make the mistake of assuming they support unilateral secession.

"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of -98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a SINGLE [emphasis in original] party, with the PARTIES [emphasis in original] to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the PLURAL [emphasis in original] number, STATES [emphasis in original], is in EVERY [emphasis in original] instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the word RESPECTIVE [emphasis in original], prefixed to the 'rights' &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c, should united in contending for the security of them to each.

"It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, Vol. 2, with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject." [James Madison to Nicholas Trist, 23 Dec 1832]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

When New England considered seceding there is a record of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson’s correspondence.Nowhere in there will you find secession described as illegal by either founding father.

New England never considered secession. There were some extremist Federalists who as individuals threatened secession, but they had no political following and did not speak for New England.

Regards,
Cash