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.
What I am trying to say is your contention that tariffs were a cause of the war, especially the Morrill Tariff, is not correct. And frankly, some Southern States wanted protectionist tariffs, not just industry in the North. The tariffs were not the source of contention you have been saying they were, at least from the period of 1846 until 1861.
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
Neil,
I agree tariffs were not a point of contention from 46 to 60. But the Morril Tariff was. And the Southern States did not support the MorrilL Tariff. In fact there is good reason to suspect that the western states would not have supported it nor Maine. But Sherman wanted it. And it is no surpise once the protectionist were in the catbird seat things turned out the way they did for the next 50 years.
Just another couple of nice-to-view web sites on the tariff.
One site, titled North America, Volume 2, by Anthony Trollope, on page 49 of the e-book, gives his opinion on the tariff being the start or a cause of the war.
And a site with a LoveToKnowArticle on the TARIFF, which gives tariff information and practices from around the world and the United States. Scroll on down to the section on US tariffs and the Civil War on this one.
Thanks to you and Thea and the both of you insisting tariffs as a cause of the war, I have done more basic research on this subject than I ever thought I would. I do agree with you that tariffs after 1816 were pretty much a protectionist affair by industry in the North UNTIL the Democrats got hold of Congress from 1846 on. But after that year, duties kept going down and became neither a source of contention or anger from ANY section of the country.
Your contention about the use of tariffs AFTER the Civil War leaves no doubt to the intentions of Republicans or the Federal government in the use of tariffs as a protectionist tool, even helping to contribute to the serious economic woes of the US in the 1930's.
What I am trying to say is that even Taussig says the tariffs were NOT a source of contention for war nor did the Morrill Tariff, as it was first passed by Congress in 1860 and then by the Senate in 1861 WITH NO MAJOR CHANGES, was NOT the hugely inflated bill you claim it was. That came later in the summer of 1861 with revisions and additions to finance the war, a distinct and separate set of actions well after the firing on Ft. Sumter.
As for my links above, what they are trying to show you is what I have repeated here, that there were distinct and separate actions that led to the drastic rise in tariff duties during the war, NOT at the initial passing of the Morrill Tariff by the Senate in 1861.
Don't you see by the rates imposed by the Morrill Tariff that the Federal government had not yet raised any duties on tariffs from the 1846 level (except iron and wool and in other areas, actually lowered duties) because BOTH the North and the South thought the war was only going to last for a short while? 90 days were the first estimates on both sides.
But after Bull Run and other set backs, the North realized it was going to take a lot more than green troops and 90 days to defeat the South, hence the raising of duties and additional wartime tariffs to fund the most expensive war ever conducted by the United States.
You were the one, Tommy, that suggested I go to the Congressional Globe and see for myself the importance of tariffs in the House and the Senate. I have done that with the Morrill Tariff and was frankly surprised I what I learned there. Because of it, I am going back to that site and research the 1846 and 1857 tariff bills, to see who voted for what.
I also suggest you might be confusing the Morrill College Land Grant Act with the Morrill Tariff. I know the one bill where Morrill tried to get support for three years was his one that supported the idea of land grants to the States for agricultural colleges were held up mainly by Southern Congressmen and Senators for free it would promote the creation of more free States and people who had no desire to promote slavery. Buchanan vetoed it at the urging of Southern representatives, even though he initially favored passage.
Read a bit more of Taussig and roll down on the other Tariff site I have given you and you will read that hardly anyone, North or South was pushing that hard for protection as Taussig stated in his paper, "Manufactures in general continued to flourish; and the reduction of duties which was made in 1857 had the consent and approbation of the main body of the manufacturing class." And a bit further on he states, "It is clear that the Morrill tariff was carried in the House before any serious expectation of war was entertained; and it was accepted by the Senate in the session of 1861 without material change. It therefore forms no part of the financial legislation of the war, which gave rise in time to a series of measures that <u>entirely superseded the Morrill tariff.</u>"
You say Sherman was in the catbirds seat with other protectionist and that the Morrill tariff was a point of contention while the tariffs of 1846 and 1857 were not. That the Western States or Maine would not have supported it.
Sherman was far from the catsbird seat, he wasn't even speaker yet when the Morrill tariff was passed in the House. During the vote in the House, as you can see above, Maine DID support the Morrill tariff along with the Western states of Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Border states like Delaware and Kentucky supported the bill also while Maryland was evenly split on the bill. Tennessee had one vote for, 3 votes against and 6 not voting on the measure. It was not a clean North/South vote as you think.
It seems plain to me that the tariff in the form it went through both the House and the Senate was no big deal, no source of contention, no cause of war.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
(Message edited by Unionblue on December 28, 2004)
(Message edited by Unionblue on December 29, 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,
You say except for wool and iron, or steel I might add. There is the rub. Then as today. That is were it all comes to the nub. Steel. Iron. There is no progress. There is not a single thing divided Anglos and the Savage but iron and steel. The North was getting filthy rich off of steel. Not only that but railroads cost far more to build in the South because of that cost. To the point it seemed only northerners with direct connections to steel manufacturers could head any railroad. Even those in the South.
No, I'm not confusing Morrill’s land grant act. Which, BTW, he forever gets credit for but really was a man named Turner's deal. Morrill just slapped his name on it. Much the same way he slapped his name on what was really Sherman's Tariff. We already know how he felt about the South. "Peaceably, if we can; Violently, if we must." A avowed protectionist and a rabid South hater. So rabid in fact it appalled his brother, Mr Firebug.
My point is this. Look what protectionist Radical Republicans were setting out to do. What they actually did. Not just for the 50+ years after the war. But before as well, when they had the chance. If you elect a party whose very platform is protectionist, you Know what is going to happen. It does not take a crystal ball. and guess what. It DID happen. And It never stopped. Thanks to Lincoln. You can lay it at his door. Unbridled tariffs, Taxes, hey, Morrill was the guy who laid down the guidelines for the I.R.S.
You say there was no contention? None? That this was going to be good for the South? You say, “oh they only raised the tariff because of the war” Honestly and with all do well earned respect but it is Total BS Neil. Then and now. It was merely, and I use the word merely very deliberately, an excuse. Excuse. Merely an Excuse. And I can prove it. Without any shadow of a doubt. All you have to do is look at the many, many decades that came. The protectionist tariffs that followed. Just as certain rich men were buying dangerously faulty guns from the Government only to resell those same gun back to the Government, guns that blew up in their faces and maimed and blinded men, these men were the masters of steel. You think they regretted a war? Before, during or after? You honestly think that if there had been no war the tariff would not still have risen just as they did after the war anyway? Honestly. I'd like to knw if you believe that.
The South had has such protectionists calling the shorts before. It took 40 years to get those tariffs back down and 3 years later back up they start. Gee. I cannot see a single reason why they’d not like that. Ask States Rights Gist’s parents how they felt about the protectionist tariffs they had experienced.
It wet through the house because the South was already gone. No, Sherman was not speaker yet. And why not? "Peaceably, if we can; Violently, if we must." But he was indeed in the catbird seat. Along with every one of those who signed that manifesto. Including Weed. Protectionists all. With an axe they could grind. Try looking at it from a Southern POV. Not so un-contentious item then.
Sorry for typos etc, etc ad nauseam. No sleep in...errr..20 hours now. Medicated to the high heavens so I’m sure I babbled like a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide.
I am trying very hard to make sure you understand that from what I have read from the record is only what I am repeating to you, no BS and no attempt to skew what I have read.
I did not state anywhere in any of my above posts that the tariff of 1860/Morrill tariff was going to be 'good' for the South. If anything, the debates on the Morrill tariff show that the South was concerned about the effects of the tariff on certain goods and products imported into the country or the idea that certain others merited protection.
But Tommy, in no way can you justify by the evidence I have seen, the documents I have researched, any claim that this particular tariff was the cause of the war, nor that any tariff bills passed after 1842 were of such contention and such discord that this issue of funding the United States government became ANY type of issue that would cause a war between the North and the South.
The Morrill tariff, as it was debated and passed by the House in 1859-1860 session, with the South's representatives STILL in attendance, DOES NOT have the high rates you claim it had before the firing on Ft. Sumter. No BS, no made-up data, no pre-disposition on my part. Those rates are NOT there. Not in the bill, not in the debate nor are there any changes made by the Senate, when the South's representatives HAD gone, when it passed in early 1861. NO CHANGES, none, nada, nowhere, nohow.
Yes, I agree with you that before 1842 there were protectionist tariffs that were passed. Yes, I agree that there were Northern business elements, New England, PA and others that continued to lobby for protection via the tariff. I even agree that after the war the tariff situation went entirely protectionist to a large degree. You stated such and when I researched the Morrill tariff, before and after, the facts bear you out.
BUT NOT ON THE MORRILL TARIFF ITSELF. But on this point I will use the very same word that you have used. The idea that the Morrill tariff, even the issue of tariffs as the primary cause the South seceded from the Union, is an excuse. Merely an excuse. And I have proved it to my satisfaction.
I understand why this excuse HAS to work for those who would defend the honor and reason for the South leaving the Union. If this excuse is knocked out of the 'reasons for the war' column, it leaves precious few other 'reasons.' Government interference for one. States Rights for another. And last, but by no means least, slavery.
Time after time, I have heard that the Morrill tariff increased duties up to 47% and then even higher. What those persons fail to realize or don't want to realize, is that the original Morrill tariff bill did not have these rates when it was passed by the House and the Senate. It has become the 'excuse' to forget the timing of these increases, to leave out certain facts and dates and legislative actions that took place later, AFTER the war had started. The fact of the matter is these duty increases took place AFTER the war started but in order to make this 'excuse' work the Morrill tariff must assume all of the wartime increases when it passes the Senate when the South is gone and two days before Lincoln takes office. It must work this way or the eternal excuse of tariffs as a cause for the South leaving the Union JUST WON'T WORK.
And if that excuse is gone, the BIG interfering Federal government must be the next excuse. 16,000 troops, a part-time attorney general and a handful of Federal marshalls? The biggest contact an average citizen has with the Federal government is the POST OFFICE? And with the Senate and Supreme Court still under Southern influence? Excuse number 2 gone.
States Rights? And after all, States Rights Gist's parents named the lad, so it MUST have been the soul reason for the war, right? Now, what right was it the states of the South were most worried about in 1860? Well, if it wasn't the tariffs, which had not been an issue since 1842 and it wasn't big Federal government reaching out into everyone's life with a postage stamp, then what was the remaining right the states had been debating, arguing and killing one another over prior to Ft. Sumter being fired on? All those people in Kansas died over the Morrill tariff debate? The Wilmont Priviso was about duties collected? The Fugitive Slave Act, the Dred Scott decesion and the Missiouri Compromise were over steel and iron? BUNK!
Timing is everything and with this, the subject of tariffs is nowhere even close to the real issues that caused the war.
Best I can do with what I have seen.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
PS Tommy, I have read ALL of Taussig's paper, much to my eyes distress and my aching head. I hope your medication is not doing you any serious harm and your Doc appointment went better than normal.
(Message edited by Unionblue on December 29, 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
I wanted to post this one more time, so that you, and others viewing this debate, could see.
From the published essay entitled, Incidental Protection: An examination of the Morrill Tariff, by Jane Flaherty at Texas A&M.
"...the Morrill Tariff did not introduce much higher incidence upon consumers. Under the tariff of 1846, the highest average ad volorem rate of duty on free and dutiable goods reached 23.5% in 1854; under the tariff of 1857, 17.3% in 1858. Yet in 1861, the rate reached only 14.1%. Nor did the Morrill tariff introduce protective tariff rates...As Morrill claimed, the duties imposed reflect those of the tariff of 1846, with incidental protection on iron and wool."
"The Morrill act is often spoken of as if it were the basis of the present protective system. But this was by no means the case. The legislators who struggled to resolve the fiscal problems that arose during the Buchanan administration were <u>not implementing a new for of 'industrial capitalism.'</u> Rather, through the passage of the Morrill tariff, they attempted to correct what appeared as a short-term disruption in an otherwise <u>prosperous era.</u> Wedded to a system of tariff financing, the options available to restore the flow of revenue into the Treasury were limited. <u>Revising the tariff provided the most practical answer. Both Republicans and Democrats supported tariff revision, the solution urged upon Congress repeatedly by President Buchanan..The Morrill tariff DOES NOT represent an attempt by the Republican party to establish a new economic program; instead, it represents a bi-partisan effort to resolve a fiscal crisis."</u>
Here are the tables of rates for the 1846, 1857 and Morrill tariffs:
Note: ad valorem is the tax assessed on the value of the goods or property, not the quanity, weight, extent, etc.
These rates are drawn from Hays Importer Guides, Hunts Merchant Magazine 44, no. 4 April 1861, The Shipping and Commercial List and New York Price Current, 47-48, January 2, 1861 - July 30, 1862.
To further quote Ms. Flaherty from her essay;
"The Senate vote on the above bill (Morrill Tariff bill) was 25-14 on February 20, 1861. The withdrawal of the Southern Senators <u>gave</u> the Republicans a majority in the chamber. Eight Northeastern Democrats supported the measure, as well as six Border State Opposition Unionist party members. Four Republicans voted nay. Eleven Republicans who voted in favor of the Morrill Tariff also voted for the tariff of 1857. President Buchanan who had urged passage of the Morrill Tariff in his final Annual Message, signed the bill on March 2, 1861 (NOT Lincoln, as some have claimed, when he first took office). Thus, higher tariff rates that protected manufacturing did not constitute the sole reason Republicans favored the Morrill Tariff. As with the tariff of 1857, the government's fiscal needs, in this case raising rather than lowering government income, inspired the call for tariff revision."
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
One more bit of information. By February 1, 1861, seven Southern States had seceded from the Union. SC, MS, FL, AL, GA, LA, and TX in that order. Each State took two senators apiece with them from the Senate of the United States for a total of 14 Senators.
It is indeed somewhat strange to look at the Senate vote on the Morrill Tariff of February 20, 1861, and see that it passed that body by a vote 25 to 14. If the South had kept in the Union and its Senate representation, the vote might have been 25 to 28 with the bill being defeated by a majority of Deep South voting no.
Just an observation.
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
A plague on all your houses. The tariff issue has become consuming. I've had to abandon my favorite studies to look into the issue.
So far as noted historians go (read, commonly popular books), tariffs are not mentioned all that often .. or maybe I slid over the subject as uninteresting. However, noting aphillbilly's insistence on the subject, I feel bound to check things out for myself.
So now I've pulled six books from my shelves and am trying to understand his points. This stuff is not fun! Thank you for disrupting my life.
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 was half-heartedly looking up some info on the earliest tariff debates. The 1789 one was pushed by the Hamiltonites as far as I can see. Anyway I gave up looking out of fatigue but I found these again I found very interesting.
"This government subjects everything to the Northern majority. Is there not a settled purpose to the Southern interest? We thus put unbounded power over our own property in hands not having a common interest with us. How can the Southern members prevent the adoption of the most oppressive taxation in the Southern states, as there is a majority in favour in the Northern states?"
Patrick Henry (1736-1799) lawyer, statesman, legislator
"Is it to be expected that the Southern States will deliver themselves bound hand and foot to the Eastern States? A few rich merchants in Philadelphia, Boston, and New York could thereby monopolise the staples of the Southern States and reduce their value."
George Mason (1725-1792) author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He refused to sign the Constitution because of its centralisation of power and its failure to limit slavery.
"Whenever Northern and Southern prejudices have come into conflict, the latter have been sacrificed, and the former soothed. Monarchical Federalists, employing the government as a stepping-stone to monarchy, brought all this about by adopting constructions of the Constitution that they had promised would never occur in their earlier arguments supporting that document's acceptance."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
(Message edited by aphillbilly on December 31, 2004)
Ole sorry about the interruption of your studies, but I fear you will be hard pressed to find any current sources concerning the tariff as a cause of the war from current historians.
Tommy, as I have stated in posts above, I too have found that tariffs instituted prior to 1842 were in favor of the North and protection of Northern industries. As I also have stated, from 1842 ON is where I find it very hard to believe that the tariffs were a major source of trouble up to and to include the Morrill Tariff of 1860-1861, as all were supported by the South in one degree or another.
And now for some more trouble for Ole's study time and Tommy's research. Found a very interesting view of tariffs and the South from a period resource. Check out 'Hezekiah Niles and the New South,' at:
Tommy, you have not commented on the above Morrill Tariff rates as they compared to the 1846 and 1857 rates and the contention that the Morrill Tariff increase of rates were asked for by President Buchanan due to short falls in the Treasury.
I also would like you views on the above paper by Jane Flaherty in which she states that the Morrill Tariff was NOT a deliberate design to increase protection for Northern industry.
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
