How Did Tariffs Work?

Neil,
As I recall only one tariff actually helped the sugar and hemp etc. I know the 'Western' States instituted one tariff and if I recall correctly it was to protect grains, and in doing so helped the South's sugar etc. It might have been a rider on the bill, I'm not sure. But I am so-so sure that the tariff was not lobbied by the South. And even so, the issue was never just the tariffs but who ended up having the revenues. Do you think the bulk of the tariffs the us had in the 70 years of tariffs helped the South? You think they received their fair share of the tariffs they paid? You think it was fair?

[unionblue]

Tommy,

From what I have gathered, the South, North and West, compromised many times over the issue of tariffs. Sugar was pushed by Louisiana sugar growers and their reps in the House and the Senate. And the South did lobby for the tariff with John C. Calhoun at the head of such a lobby, at least once.

As for your idea that the South paid the majority of the revenues, how was that done? What info do you have that this is a fact of history and not just a cherished opinion, really?

Unionblue

Neil,
Are you contending the South did not pay more because of the tariffs? That they were not the ones it affected negatively the most?

““The Civil War and Reconstruction represent in their primary aspect an attempt on the part of the Yankee to achieve by force what he had failed to achieve by political means: first, a free hand in the nation for the thievish aims of the tariff gang, and secondly, and far more fundamentally, the satisfaction of the instinctive urge of men in the mass to put down whatever differs from themselves . . .Wilbur Cash



"Resolved, That in as much as the movements now made in Congress of the United States of North America, and the incoming administration thereof, threaten to blockade our ports, force revenues, suspend postal arrangements, destroy commerce, ruin trade, depreciate currency, invade sovereign States, burn cities, butcher armies, gibbet patriots, hang veterans, oppress freemen, blot our liberty, beggar homes, widow mothers, orphan children, and desolate the peace and happiness of the nation with fire and sword,-these things to do, and not to disappoint the expectation of those who have given him their votes. Now, against these things we, in the name of right, the Constitution, and a just God, solemnly enter our protest; and further, when that which is manifested shall have come upon the country, we say to Tennessee: Let slip the dogs of war and cry havoc!" - Resolution of Franklin County, Tennessee for secession, adopted unanimously at Winchester, February 25, 1861
Notice the first thing that Franklin county mentions is ‘forced revenue.’


"That, while providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imposts, sound policy requires such an adjustment of the imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interest of the whole country, and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the working men liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence." - Republican Party Platform of 1860

I am reminiscent of being asked more than once how the South knew a big tariff was coming....heh I wonder if that platform might have been a clue.

"You suppose that numbers constitute the strength of government in this day. I tell you that it is not blood; it is the military chest; it is the almighty dollar. When you have lost your market; when your operatives are turned out; when your capitalists are broken, will you go to direct taxation?" - Louis T. Wigfall, United States Senate, December 1860

He saw it coming didn’t he? He did not have to have the prognosticator skills of Nostradamus to see it either. It was very obvious. The whole goal of the Federalists-Republican-Whig was wrapped around money. Nothing else really mattered.

I honestly wonder if the Morrell Tariff had not been so eagerly and promptly been passed. Had it not almost sexually pursued and passed, I wonder if the upper South would have seceded. It did nothing to reassure the South did it?

I mean, Nation in crisis, I got an Idea! Lets spend this crucial trying to cram Sherman down their throats as the Speaker of the House, in spite of his admonishing the nation to accept Helper’s book as a manifesto. Yes, let us do that, but wait!! I got a better idea, let us pass the highest tariff we have ever had. Yes, Yes This is surely going to heal our country. The South loves tariffs. Oh yes, BTW Mr President, you be sure to let them know we will force them to pay whatever we pass.

I’m sure this was on Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina and Arkansas’ minds when it came time to decide.

(Message edited by aphillbilly on December 23, 2004)

[unionblue]

Tommy,

One bit of information I turned up.

From the book, The Railroads of the Confederacy, by Robert C. Blake, University of North Carolina Press, 1998.

"In point of fact, the long standing Federal sugar tariff imposed to protect Louisiana sugar growers was extensively debated at the Montgomery Convention and, in spite the highly touted Confederate devotion to free trade principles(I knew I had read that line somewhere -Neil), was retained in the Confederacy through out the Civil War. Additionally, the Confederate States of America placed tariffs on <u>exports</u>, including a duty on exported cotton (Tariffs on exports were prohibited by the US Constitution). The pre-war Federal tariff iron import, so despised by Southern firebrands, was continued by the CSA."

My research on the web provided me with another shocker, that on February 16, 1861, the Provisional Confederate Congress passed a bill providing for free import of railway iron. And then a month later, as money problems in the South began to grow, an ad valorem tax was imposed on such goods at the rate of 15%.

The South and the Confederate government also passed the Confederate Tariff Act of 21 May 1861, found here at the following web site:

Tariff of the Confederate States of America, May 21, 1861.

http://www.civilwarhistory.com/_officaildocs/6.htm

Please note the many items and rates at which imports were 'taxed.'

Now, my problem is this, if tariffs were such a source of anger and problem with the South, why resort to the same system, to include almost exactly the same items in their tariff that caused them so much grief when the North had 'imposed' their tariffs, isn't it a bit like calling the kettle black in a way? Doesn't the imposement of these tariffs by the Confederate government invoke the same hardships and financial burdens as they did when imposed by the Federal government?

You also mentioned above that the South, in your 'so-so sure' memory that the South had not lobbied for a tariff. You are right concerning the Tariff of 1816, 1824, 1828 and 1832. But the Tariff of 1833 was opposed by New England, not by the South. I cannot speak to the Tariff of 1842, but the Walker Tariff of 1846 was supported by the South as was the Tariff of 1857.

As for the South paid more in tariff revenues than the North, where is your evidence on that point?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on December 23, 2004)

Neil,
The tariffs the South supported, 33, (Which was supposed to be gradually decreased but in practice never was. In fact, it was only down to 20% for a mere two months before the 42 Tariff was put into play.) 42 46 and 57 were reductions not increases in most instances. The South was not Anti-Tariff. They were anti-protectionist tariffs that were exceedingly high. When it was 15-20 percent they were kind of ok with it, granted it was only on certain items naturally. But tariffs, bounties etc were considered ok by the South to help infant industry. But once industry was out of it’s diapers it was time to let go of the teat.


And as to the CSA, tariffs to raise revenue for national defense would have been acceptable. But as with the infant industries, once the crisis was over they’d have to lower the tariffs etc to more acceptable levels.


Ok, railroad steel. This is an odd one and fairly difficult to grasp for me as my metallurgical knowledge is a bit shaky. The tariffs varied on what form the steel took. You can read Taussig’s work to find out about railroad steel. The US had the same issues with it from day one. I do not really understand it all.


You can see the contention over tariffs from Taussig’s work. It destroyed the Whig party and created the Republican party even. Taussig said not only were the tariffs not needed to help the north once the infant industries had grown and in fact did little or nothing to help the north but it landed with “particular weight” upon the South.

[unionblue]

Tommy,

I learned that the South also support the Tariff of 1816 and was considered a 'Southern' tariff.

Here is a site I think you will find is perhaps one that seems to be impartial on the subject.

Tariffs of the United States

http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBo.../llCy1011.html

I also tend to agree with you that the South was not anti-tariff and was against the idea of using tariffs to simply protect industries when they no longer needed protection.

BUT, that being said, the tariffs from the Walker Tariff of 1847 to the Tariff of 1857, was NOT a source of agitation for the South, and from what I read, neither was the upcoming Morrill Tariff in the months and weeks before Lincoln's election. It is becoming extremely hard for me to view tariffs as a war-causing issue of such huge import if the South used the same methods to finance their new country and made little if no outcry at the tariffs previous to the war.

Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on December 23, 2004)

Neil,
I'd like to know your source supporting that the South wasn't against the Morrell Tariff. Did not they vote on it and only 1 Tennessean rep. voted for it? wasn't it only 15 reps from the north voted against it? Mostly from Maine as I recall.

The Tariffs you mention (With the exception of the 1816, which still was revenue oriented but mostly to help infant industry) the South supported were virtual free trade tariffs. The Walker Tariff reversed the earlier higher tariff. In fact a reduction of the tariff that was in place at the time. Not an increase. It wasn't the South raising tariffs. Southern supported tariffs were LOWER. That is why they supported them.

What you seem to be saying is the South supported a lower tariff so therefore they supported tariffs, so tariffs were not an issue. South Carolina did not threaten to secede because it supported tariffs. It threatened to secede because of how high the tariffs were.

(Message edited by aphillbilly on December 23, 2004)

[unionblue]

Tommy,

No, I am not saying the South supported a lower tariffs and therefore they supported tariffs in general. But what I am saying, and it is the same thing South Carolina said in 1860, that tariffs were not the issue, slavery was. There is even some doubt that South Carolina was concerned about the tariff in 1832 as the real issue for its nullification.

Tariffs had become so low and were only generating revenue for the operation of the government, which earned so much revenue that in 1857 the tariff was reduced even more. With the panic of 1857, there came a protest to reinstate a protective tariff, but it was resisted and only added slightly to protective measures.

THEN the war started and the Morrill tariff became a war time tariff with the intent of providing money to finance the war for the Union. The original Morrill tariff simply did not have the strength on its own to cause such a huge row and to cause the war. In fact, none of the tariffs previous to this one did either.

The more I read and the more I find out, the less this area as a cause of the war makes sense to me. But I intend to read over the original Morrill Tariff Bill and see if it is hugely different before the war tariffs for the North take effect.

Unionblue

Neil,
The Morrill Tariff preceded the war. It was on the table even before the election. It was a significant increase, even before the wartime jump. A President had just been elected whose platform was largely protectionist.

There was, as I said, a HUGE contention over tariffs for years. You can just skim Taussig’s work on Tariffs in US History to see what a bone it was. It was a major, major, major, bone. One the North continued to dig up. I am not a fan of Taussig. And a few of his conclusions I have trouble with. But he is pretty much all we got outside of a serious library. You often, very often, bring up what was said re slavery during secessionist speeches etc. The articles as well (although you conveniently ignore the ones that omit it, but anyway) (forget it was a murder filled issue the Republicans brought up and fueled the fires under corpses as much as they could to breed division) but you think they never mentioned tariffs? You think it was not a major extremely vital issue to them? If so, then indeed you have not read enough to make sense of it. Look at Texas' complaints on the issues. Look at Taussigs work. Read contemporaries of the times discuss it. It was not a non issue, one that you can dismiss as nothing that mattered. You have blinders on. You want a single bullet and a smoking gun. Seems your lab just wants to convict. Regardless of DNA that points in a direction you do not wish to see. But it just isn’t that simple.

I honestly wonder if the Morrell Tariff had not been so eagerly and promptly been passed. Had it not almost sexually pursued and passed, I wonder if the upper South would have seceded. It did nothing to reassure the South did it? Do you think it did not matter? Seriously I'd like to know. Do You think the passing of the Morrell Tariff had no effect whatsoever on the Upper South if not all of them? Slavery outside of the South would not put a penny in anyone in the South's pocket. But that Tariff sure would take them out.

(Message edited by aphillbilly on December 23, 2004)