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 great caisson covers thrown over a ridge pole and set on two stout forks were converted into a shelter, and one night when a storm of rain made sleeping impossible, we sat through the night on our blanket rolls and talked. An animated debate on the American tariff system sprang up, which ended in a burst of anger between two men at opposite ends of the shelter. In the struggle blows were struck that always hit the wrong man, and the forks were thrown over, and the wet shelter came down in a heap upon all of us. When at last in the darkness the tent was righted and peace restored, the two pugilistic debaters were by unanimous vote and effort put out into the rain to take care of each other, and to settle forever, if they could, the American tariff system.”
James Power Smith, With Stonewall Jackson In The Army Of Northern Virginia, p.13.
I have raised this issue once before about the Morrill Tariff and it somehow being a huge protective tariff instituted by the North at the expense of the South.
It's simply not true nor is it factual history. The Morrill Tariff was urged by President Buchanan to assist in restoring the flow of revenue into the Treasury. It was a revising of the Tariff of 1857 to the rates of the Tariff of 1846 with incidental protection on iron and wool. And it was part of a bi-partisan effort to resolve a fiscal crisis during Buchanan's administration. The House passed the Morrill Tariff/tariff act of 1861 in the session of 1859-60, well before the war. Both Republicans and Democrats supported the tariff revision. It was in this version it passed in the Senate without material change, before Lincoln took office in January 1861. When the war began with the firing on Ft. Sumter, and additional revenues were needed to fund the war. In the summer of 1861 additional custom duties were imposed and again in December 1861, still further increases in duties were made. But NOT in the original Morrill Tariff of 1861.
With these facts, that tariffs were at their lowest point since 1846 and were not considered protectionist by the majority of the states in Congress or the Senate and that the Morrill Tariff DID NOT impose any huge increase in duties when first enacted, how did tariffs become a cause of the war?
They didn't.
I can provide (again) the table of rates comparing the Tariff of 1846, 1857 and the Morrill Tariff of 1861, and it shows without a doubt that the Morrill Tariff REDUCES the rates in almost ALL instances.
Some additional facts about the tariff. 92.4% of the net tariff ($52,300,000) collected in 1860, was collected in Northern ports. Only 7.6% ($4,000,000) was collected in Southern ports.
If one take the population of the United States in 1860 and divides it into the above tariff revenues, it comes to about $1.60 cents per person for the year. And if one takes the population of the soon to secede states of the South, it comes to about $6 per person for the entire year. Is this enough to go to war over? Enough to kill your fellow countrymen for?
And remember, the folks in the South had the highest per capita wealth figures per the census of 1860, so how were they being hurt by the tariff? And was every man of the South importing goods that caused a duty to be imposed on him? Not very likely.
The federal government realized a fraction of 1% of its total revenue from Charleston, SC imports, less that 5% or 6% from the entire South.
No tariffs were collected on goods from the North shipped to and sold in the South prior to the rebellion.
Again, how did the tariffs become a cause of the war?
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
Very much appreciated Bill Torrens' addition to your debate. Nothing like a touch of humor to even things out.
Re your debate. You both seem to be well read on the subject. Would very much appreciate being pointed in the right direction to find out the compositions of the congresses that imposed tariffs and the votes regarding each imposition. It took me about a month to figure out how to access this site, and I had help. It would take a forever of nights to get to the proper site.
Mr. aphillbilly. As evidence that the evil North wanted nothing more from the South than its money, you cited Wilbur Cash, a resolution of Franklin County, an excerpt from the 1860 Republican Party Platform, and U.S. Senator Wigfall (Southerner?) -- primary sources, all. While quotable and indicative of contemporary political climate, there appears to more partisan rant than reality. Just a thought.
Will appreciate your directions.
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
I will try and find out that info by a web search and get back to you on the compositions of the congresses in question.
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
I found out the Morrill Tariff Bill, H. Res. 58, was passed in the House on 10 May 1860 by a vote of 105 - 64.
There were 237 members in the House, Republicans 109, Democrats 101, Americans 26, Whig 1.
Of the 64 Congressmen who voted against the tariff bill, 57 were Democrats, 4 were American, and 3 were Republicans.
The breakdown by state is as follows:
STATE ----- PARTY VOTING AGAINST THE TARIFF.
New York -- Democrat 1, Republican 1.
Maryland -- Democrat 2.
Virginia -- Democrat 9.
North Carolina -- Democrat 3, American 1.
South Carolina -- Democrat 4.
Georgia -- Democrat 6.
Alabama -- Democrat 7.
Mississippi -- Democrat 3.
Louisiana -- Democrat 2.
Ohio -- Democrat 5, Republican 1.
Kentucky -- Democrat 4.
Tennessee -- Democrat 3.
Indiana -- Democrat 3, Republican 1.
Illinois -- Democrat 2.
Missouri -- Democrat 4.
Arkansas -- NO VOTES CAST FOR OR AGAINST.
Michigan -- No Votes against.
Florida -- NO VOTES CAST FOR OR AGAINST.
Texas -- Democrat 1.
Iowa -- No Votes against.
Wisconsin -- No Votes against.
California -- Democrat 1.
Minnesota -- No Votes against.
Oregon -- NO VOTES FOR OR AGAINST.
It is extremely interesting to note how many representatives from each state, to include those of the South, did NOT vote against this tariff.
20 Republicans from seven states did not vote at all on the Morrill Tariff.
33 Democrats from twenty states did not vote on the bill either.
12 'American' Congressman from four states did not vote on the Morrill Tariff.
This makes for a grand total of 65 Congressmen not taking any position on the Morrill Tariff. Some may have been out sick or taking care of personal matters in their home states, so I will research a bit more to see if they were present for the vote or not and at a later date get back to you.
STATE ----- PARTY VOTING FOR THE TARIFF.
Maine -- Republican 5.
New Hampshire -- Republican 3.
Vermont -- Republican 3.
Mass. -- Republican 10.
Rhode Island -- Republican 2.
Connecticut -- Republican 4.
New York -- Republican 16, Democrat 1.
New Jersey -- Democrat 2, American 2.
Pennsylvania -- Republican 17, Democrat 3.
Delaware -- Democrat 1.
Maryland -- Democrat 2.
Virginia -- No Votes For.
North Carolina -- No Votes For.
South Carolina -- No Votes For.
Georgia -- No Votes For.
Alabama -- No Votes For.
Mississippi -- No Votes For.
Louisiana -- No Votes For.
Ohio -- Republican 12.
Kentucky -- Democrat 1, American 3.
Tennessee -- Democrat 1.
Inidiana -- Republican 2.
Illinois -- Republican 4.
Missouri -- No Votes For.
Arkansas -- NO VOTES CAST FOR OR AGAINST.
Michigan -- Republican 3.
Florida -- NO VOTES CAST FOR OR AGAINST.
Texas -- No Votes For.
Iowa -- Republican 1.
Wisconsin -- Republican 2.
California -- No Votes For.
Minnesota -- Republican 2.
Oregon -- NO VOTES CAST FOR OR AGAINST.
This information can be found on the above American Memory site, under the 36th Congress, 1st session, on the Congressional Globe, May 10, 1860, page 2056. On this page you will find how this session of Congress voted for on this particular tariff.
On the very first page of this session, dated Wednesday, December 7, 1859, you will find a list of the Senators and Congressmen and the states they represented.
It took a while, but I finally waded through enough pages of the Congressional Globe to find these items. To me, they tell a very interesting story. Add this to the actual rates of the Morrill Tariff which shows the rates were being returned to the Tariff of 1848 at President Buchanan's request to make up shortfalls in the Treasury, and this tariff bill simply does not add up to a cause of the war nor an indication that tariffs were a major concern compared to the issue of slavery.
The high, wartime tariffs and custom adjustments that came AFTER this bill and those tariffs were used to fund a hidiously expensive war. These facts are proof positive that the Morrill Tariff was NOT in any way a protectionist tariff in the classic sense. Too often this bill is mistakenly lumped in with the later wartime adjustments and tariffs as some sort of Republican plot to steal revenue and 'crush' the South under some huge tariff burden. The historical facts and documents simply do not add up to the idea that tariffs were a cause or even a major cause of the war.
On two other web sites that I have provided on this thread, the period of 1848 to 1861 has been referred to a 'golden period' for the US economy, as it was robust, profitable and as near to a free trade environment the nation got to for the time. So how, if this 'golden period' held fast for the ten years leading up to the war, could tariffs be a source of such contention to lead to a civil war?
Answer: IT COULDN'T.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
(Message edited by Unionblue on December 24, 2004)
(Message edited by Unionblue on December 24, 2004)
__________________ "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
So many thanks for the information. Tariffs, as a cause for war, has been a red herring. Of all the contributing causes, the tariff issue has the least connection to slavery. If slavery is to be pronounced a non-cause, then it must have been tariffs.
The congress seated early in 1857 was democratically controlled. The previous congress was about even in the house and overwhelmingly democratic in the senate. The spiteful, vicious republicans obviously didn't much care one way or another.
I just finished reading that only two groups objected to the 1857 reduction of protectionism: Pennsylvania steel and western wool growers.
Again, many thanks for your herculean efforts to help out a newbie.
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
Ole,
What is not partisan? Everything was partisan. There was not then nor is there now an Oracle that can dispense a singular truth of what is and what will be. If there had not been partisan there would never have been a war.
Neil,
Nope, once again you are grasping. You are implying to me that the Morrill Tariff was not protectionist? You are kidding yourself if you think it was to help bring in revenue because of the nation’s treasury was in need of cash. Secondly, you seem to be implying that the 46 tariff was a cushy little tariff. It was only cushy in respects to the fact it was another step on reducing it to pre 28 abomination. The 46 tariff was indeed called the Free Trade tariff and was decent enough COMPARED to the previous ones. But the Morrill Tariff affected different things. And even the claim when it was raised later was to fund the war was odd considering it wasn't an real revenue tariff but a protectionist one. You's think that during a war you'd LOWER tariffs on war materials eh? But oddly enough Morrill just happened to be a steel manufacturer, as was Thaddeus Stevens. Both had been pushing this tariff for 3 years.
The Morrill tariff was on the table a long time. as was his Land Grant Act(which he has forever gotten credit for but he just slapped his name on the Turner idea) The Radical Republicans were practically wetting themselves to pass it. When there were far, far infinitely far more important things to be taking care of, what were they doing? Passing their damp dream of a protectionist tariff. I would also like to point out what your beloved Radical Republican did with those tariff unopposed in congress over the next few decades. It was not called the Gilded Age for nothing. Shiny and Oh-So-Holy on top. Rotten to the very core underneath. Good job. And it stated in 1860.....But I guess those tariffs starting then were nothing to do with the very Republican platform on which Lincoln ran, it was merely incidental. And shucks, the South should have been glad of it. A GREAT incintive to stay in the Union eh? Should have said Thank you Sir, may I have another?
From Wikipedia,
The Morrill tariff of 1861 reintroduced protectionist rates, which continued upward to 1913. It was part of a tariff war between Northern States against Southern States in United States.
As I said several times before, the north had been waging economic warfare upon the South for over half a century. The first shots of the war were not at Federal forts. They were in congress. Pressing John "Helper wrote our Manifesto, go kill" Sherman as the Speaker of the House and the Morrill Tariff. Bang Bang South, you're dead. Even, nay, especially if you stay, you are dead. Hallehluah
Speakig of Sherman, let us not forget his part in this. Soon after entering Congress Morrill became the acknowledged leader of the protectionists, and at the request of John Sherman, then chairman of the ways and means committee, he prepared a new tariff bill, which was introduced in the house in March 1860. To this relatively conservative bill, which substituted in many instances ad valorem for specific duties, and was intended by its author to be a revenue as well as a protective measure, were added many amendments which made the bill more strongly protectionist even to the point it was opposed in places by Morrill. Don't blame the war on these protectionist tariffs. The war did not go on for the next 50 years. But protectionist tariffs did. Just what the Black Republicans wanted. Talk about partisan.
(Message edited by aphillbilly on December 24, 2004)
Of course everything is partisan. It's the name of the game. And, partisanship from either or any side is best ignored when it comes to the serious business of developing opinions based on unbiased information.
And, yes, we ain't gonna find a "singular truth." What we will find is a convivial exchange of information and challenges from which we can each develop our own conviction.
We all read through a glass darkly and write with slanted pen. The challenge is to look on things as others might see them. Then pronounce them wrong. (OK. Walk a mile in his shoes, etc.)
And the Morrill Tariff hardly raised eyebrows on the political scene. Compared to earlier tariffs, it was benign.
If this reaches you too late for Christmas wishes, from my house to yours, have a healthy and prosperous year. And keep on truckin!
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
Referring to your post above (Friday, December 24, 2004 - 03:19 pm), once again, I am NOT grasping nor am I kidding you. If researching primary source documents (i.e. the Congressional Globe where the vote on the Morrill Tariff is recorded along with President Buchanan's speech to Congress asking for the increases by revising the 1857 tariff for increased revenue) is grasping, then we had better redefine the term.
And by-the-way, you are aware that the 1846 tariff was passed, "by the Democratic party with the aim, of putting into operation, as far as was possible, the principles of free trade." So if you see it as 'cushy' or not, it is plain to see the Democratic party had no problems with it.
In spite of your colorful use of descriptive terms, the Republicans were not 'wetting themselves' to pass the Morrill tariff. By reading through the Congressional Globe, it is plain to see that the push for this tariff came from President Buchanan to make up shortfalls in the Treasury caused by the crisis of 1857 which caused deficits in the governments finances. No economic warfare, no bunch of bed-wetting Republicans shaking the protectionist tree, at least, not to the extent you seem to wish. In a statement taken from the The Library of Economics and Liberty web site, under the articles titled "Tariffs of the United States,"
"the period from the Mexican to the civil war is our golden age, if we have any. As far as the balance of trade is concerned, it never was more regular and equal than in the period."
From the Tariff History of the United States, by F.W. Taussig, he states,
"There is no doubt that the period from 1846 to 1860 was a time of great material prosperity, interrupted, but not checked, by the crisis of 1857. It would be going to far to assert that this general prosperity was due chiefly to the liberal character of the tariff. Other causes exercised a great and perhaps a predominant influence. But the moderate tariff presumably was one of the elements that contributed to the general welfare. It may be well to add that prosperity was not confined to any part of the country, or to any branches of industry."
Again, where is the agitation of the tariff being a main cause of the war? Before the firing on Ft. Sumter, there is none. And I cannot understand this idea of shoveling on all the blame onto the Morrill Tariff when the rates shown were returned to the 1846 tariff rates on some items, lowered them on others and only returned some protection to iron and wool.
As for your listing Wikipedia as some kind of proof the Morrill Tariff was as it states there it was 'part of a tariff war by the North against the South,' you of course know that the Wikipedia is a site that is open to anyone to edit any of the subjects listed there, an open site, as it were. The main page of this site states: "Welcome to Wikipedia, a free content encyclopedia that anyone can edit." To include one's own personal views too?
How about checking other sites for information on the Morrill Tariff?
University of Southern California lists Tariffs, 1861 - present. It show the separation of the Morrill Tariff from the war time increases added later.
As I have found out, in spite of your conclusions, the North was NOT waging economic warfare upon the South for over half a century. At least it wasn't from the Mexican War on until the firing on Ft. Sumter.
Again, I offer these two sites and I urge you to look for President Buchanan's speech on the need for a tariff revision that led to the Morrill Tariff. I also ask you to return to the Congressional Globe site and review the proceeding up until the vote on the tariff bill. They will plainly show that for every effort put in to offer protection on certain goods, they were in turn debated and voted down before the final vote. All except for wool and iron. This was NOT an act of war, but an act of Congress in reply to a request of the President of the United States.
All the protectionist actions were taken after the war began when the North realized the war was not going to be a short one. As for your claims of how the tariffs went after the war, I have little argument against your views on protectionist tariffs, to include those of the Gilded Age.
But you have no proof that the tariffs proceeding the war had anything to do with sparking off that conflict. Not according to the primary source documents I have read.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
(Message edited by Unionblue on December 28, 2004)
__________________ "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
Neil,
Your Taussig quote does not invalidate was I was saying. If fact if you will read all of Taussig you will see he believed there was no reason whatsoever to raise the tariff in 59. That the free trade tariffs were working fine. The only one's wanting it raised where the protectionists.
As to your economic links, I'm lost what they are supposed to show me. That protectionist tariffs were something Southern states wanted?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
