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.
The Wikipedia excerpt you pasted is from a larger account of the 1861 tariff that is not entirely correct. For instance, it states that the Morrill tariff immediately raised average rates to 32.6%, though these were results of the 1862 tariff act. (and this inaccuracy is the result of "scholars" like DiLorenzo)
If you'd like the rates of the 1828 tariff, you can find them in the Library of Congress site, Statutes at Large, 20th Congress, 1st Session, p.270.
I am reluctant to introduce the rates here though, because as compared to the 1846 rates, they seem quite irrelevant, and I think they will only act to confuse the discussion. But if you wish to enter them, I think you'll find they are much higher. I suggest you read Taussig's Tariff History of the United States for an explanation on the tariffs that were considered "abominations" and then make those comparisons of actual rates from the separate tariff acts. For instance, raw hemp was scheduled to be charged $60/ton in the 1828 act, while the 1846 act affixed the duty at 30% ad valorem and the 1861 act affixed it at $35/ton.
I think the 1846 act is more relevant, because it was said to be the aim of Morrill as to revenue collected, and more importantly, because it was regarded as a "free trade" tariff by even Southerners and caused almost no agitation in the years since its passage. If the 1846 act was the benchmark of fair tariffs, then the 1861 tariff act will have to be shown to be far worse in order to deserve the bad reputation it is given.
Rather than have a fencing match of flawed excerpts repeated ad infinitum, I'd hope the actual examination of rates here will provide a far better foundation for their regard as an alleged engine of northern oppression against the South.
Talk is cheap, and political talk is cheaper. Lets look at the evidence itself.
Cedarstripper
Last edited by cedarstripper; 11-27-2005 at 03:42 PM.
Thought this thread should be brought 'forward' as it seems to have much more info on tariff related questions than the other 'tariff' thread.
Sincerely,
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
Well, not all of the facts are in, which is why I'd like to see more examples of normal prices in US dollars for goods in 1860. The more we can compare, the better we can become familiar with the actual act and the less ground there will be for those who want to stand on myth, one way or the other.
In FY 1860, the following seven articles brought in 75% of tariff revenues:
sugar/molasses.................16.14%
manufactures wool.............15.11%
manufactures cotton..........13.19%
manufacturessilk...............12.03%
manufactures iron/steel.......8.96%
wines/spirits......................6.15%
cigars/tobacco...................3.23%
Total revenues collected......$ 53,979,570
Not somnolent stuff, at all cedarstripper.
If you don't mind my asking, where did these data come from?
Regards,
JT
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Now why do you suppose none who lean to the idea that the Morril Tariff was that all-increasing tariff that brought on the Civil War if none of the facts support that contention?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
With all due respect to Cedarstripper, his facts are not the facts that were partly responsible for secession. Southern businessmen, Congressmen and planters were not idiots nor were they ignorant to the economical environment they did business in. Why do you suppose they all believed the tariff was adversely effecting Southern economy? Unless you believe it was mass hysteria, you simply have to give weight to their voices.
Regards,
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
Not somnolent stuff, at all cedarstripper.
If you don't mind my asking, where did these data come from?
Regards,
JT
Welcome to the forum, Mr. Taylor. The percentages I posted I calculated from figures given in a speech by Senator Gwin, California, Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session, p1055:
Total merchandise imported............$279,872,327
Free goods admitted....................... $82,291,614
Total duties collected..................... $53,979,570.
Of these $54 million of import revenues, $40,378,943 were collected on just seven different articles:
Senator Gwin accredited a Treasury report for the source, although I'm not aware of which report. Gwin was from Louisiana and an ardent secessionist and speaking in opposition to the 1861 tariff act, so although he represented California, it seems safe to assume that he could not be skewing the figures to favor the North.
In fact, my foggy memory thinks he was arrested several times during the war. Its also noteworthy that when it came time to vote on the 1861 tariff bill, Gwin, along with 14 other senators didn't bother to.
The figures he gave originally caught my eye because of the classic (or classically shallow) argument against tariffs in general which consistently held PA iron and NE textile manufacturers to the flame for the interest behind tariffs. I'd never seen any real importance given to sugar, though it actually lead the list, and I'd never have dreamed that something like silk would be responsible for about 35% more duties collected than the not-really-so-almighty-iron.
I thought it put a valid perspective on the discussion, and I still think that if we are to show an alleged oppressiveness of tariffs against the South or show a disproportionate share of her consumption, then this list is the place to start. If we wanted to demonstrate a burden to a particular industry, say, shipbuilding, then this list is not the place to start, but rather a list of materials relevant to their use.
I've been gone for the weekend and am surprised to see so much discussion on the tariff, particularly in the other tariff thread. I look forward to the information you and Mr. Eros will bring to the discussion and will try to add in when I get the time soon.
With all due respect to Cedarstripper, his facts are not the facts that were partly responsible for secession.
Dear Rose,
I'm not really sure what that means. They are not my facts, anymore than if I pointed out an apple fell, gravity would be my theory. They are simply wholesale prices with the tariff rates applied for the respective acts for comparison. I'd hoped that wholesale prices for a large array of goods could supplied so we all could do a short stint as Customs inspectors and apply the duty to see what the effect of the 1861 act really was as compared to the 1857 and the "free trade" act of 1846.
Although it is not pre-war as I would have preferred, I found the 1862 wholesale price for Scotch pig iron (Philadelphia market) was $23.87/ton.
I'm sure that somewhere, the 1861 act does raise duties considerably above the rates of the well liked, Democrat passed, free trade tariff act of 1846. Let's find out where and if it was on something that there was much of it imported. So far, though, I haven't been able to.
... In fact, my foggy memory thinks he was arrested several times during the war. Its also noteworthy that when it came time to vote on the 1861 tariff bill, Gwin, along with 14 other senators didn't bother to.
...
Cedarstripper
Gwin didn't bother to vote? I guess the issue didn't bother him too much or maybe he felt his vote wouldn't change anything.
On another forum, a poster asked a very good question. If tariffs were such an important issue (and I would include myself amongst the people who believes it was important, not decisive, but contributory, at least), why were there no tariff-modifying proposals amongst any of the so-called peace settlement proposals that went on after Lincoln's election. Tariffs find no place amongst the Peace Conference proposals, the Committee of Thirty-three, Gov. Letcher's proposals, etc. A good question. I could not answer that.
Perhaps large scale slaveowners/secessionists knew that it was an emotional issue that would get the rank and file Democrats/Southerners on board the secession bandwagon. What the leadership (who were in a position to influence the contents of the various compromise proposals) really wanted was to protect the institution of slavery (which the proposals actually did deal with). This would support a thesis that large-scale slaveowners were using tariff mania (which had a broader appeal than strictly protecting slave-owning per se) to stir up support for secession as a policy response.
I don't know. Probably worth discussing.
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Gwin didn't bother to vote? I guess the issue didn't bother him too much or maybe he felt his vote wouldn't change anything.
I gave a better explanation of the vote and the occurrence of non-voting in post #324 in the "irrelevance of sumter and slavery" thread.
We can speculate on why he didn't cast his no vote - maybe he had measles that day, I don't know. But for me, it tends to dispel the idea that there was such an earth-shaking debate over it to cause separation, or that Republicans now had a monopoly on legislation. It has more the quality of any "business as usual" debate carried on and voted on in Congress, where many didn't bother to vote. I also find it hard to believe that if the vote over the Morrill tariff was indeed so strong an issue as to force the South to risk their necks in secession, that the last debates over the bill quibbled over things such as should old books be admitted free or pay the duty of new books. Its telling that no man was ever beaten half to death with a cane over something like how much duty imported hammered iron should pay.
I don't deny there was opposition to a change from the 1857 act, and I don't deny that the South's intent was to drag her feet and try to keep anything from passing. At the same time, I think too that she was jealous, for lack of a better word, of the North and her growing prosperity, modernization, and population growth and that she was naturally opposed to anything that would benefit prosperity for that section. But my reading has brought me so far to the position that secession was brought on, and nothing less, as a reply to the ascension to the presidency of Black Republicanism, and it wasn't a worry of runaway Republican tariffs that made secession a reality, nor a grudge of whose wharves were being rebuilt or who was getting a new US courthouse, or who was getting a new lighthouse. The commonality that coagulated the slave south into a political bloc and into a confederation of her own was the maintenance of her slavery.
The other issues, while they may have attempted to bolster legitimacy for the cause of secession or possibly an urgent need, in themselves I can't see where they ever would have caused disunion. They appear more like everyday politics.
Those are my opinions, and I'm happy to consider altering them if more knowledge comes to play.
Quote:
Perhaps large scale slaveowners/secessionists knew that it was an emotional issue that would get the rank and file Democrats/Southerners on board the secession bandwagon. What the leadership (who were in a position to influence the contents of the various compromise proposals) really wanted was to protect the institution of slavery (which the proposals actually did deal with). This would support a thesis that large-scale slaveowners were using tariff mania (which had a broader appeal than strictly protecting slave-owning per se) to stir up support for secession as a policy response.
That's kind of ironic. I have read where just the opposite was argued, having its origin in Georgia's declaration of causes. It was insisted that, while tariffs were the genuine reason for secession, they would fail to incite the necessary passions, so slavery was harnessed up for the job.
The tariff was clearly no cause for such extreme dissatisfaction among southerners. They might have felt put upon, and the origin of that feeling needs to be rooted out and examined.
Voting records on tariff issues are enlightening, as well. We frequently hear -- as proof that the tariff was detrimental to the south -- that southern representatives voted against it as consistently as northern representatives voted for it. The same statement could be taken as evidence that the southern reps didn't very much care one way or another. The south held virtual control of both houses, as well as the presidency, cabinet, committee chairs, and other positions of power. Had the southern representatives worked together, they could have accomplished whatever they agreed upon to do. But there's strong evidence that the states had no more in common before the war than they had during the war, except for the people uniting to fight the war.
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
Here is one of the tariff threads I thought should be brought forward as this subject has once again made itself known on the 'Slavery, THE Cause?' thread.
Sincerely,
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
