How Did Tariffs Work?

[ole]

An astounding display of scholarship, Tom. I read every word with interest and agreed with each of them.

We seem to have dispelled the notion that the slave-holding states were not harmed as much by tariffs as the "tariffists" would like us to believe. But there are wisps of smoke that could mean smoldering embers.

With a nod toward their contention, I could believe that enough residual resentment for earlier tariffs remained to add to the building sectionalism. What you and Neil have demolished is a silly claim and most of the tariffs-caused-the-rift apologies for slavery.

There was some resentment. And it was real. And resentment doesn't automatically fade away. So. We are in agreement that tariffs didn't light the fuse, they did help build the bomb.

My compliments, sir:
Ole

[unionblue]

Ceaderstripper,

Thanks again for the information. Truely appreciated.

Ole, it has been an interesting trip down the yellow-brick tariff road, but at the end of the trip, I keep running into that road block of slavery.

Unionblue

[ole]

Unionblue:

I am very nearly in total agreement with you, but I do believe that sectionalism (alright, primarily based on slavery, abolitionism, etc.) should at least nod at tariffs as a source of sectional resentment.

Loved that "yellow-brick road" reference.
Ole

[cedarstripper]

Ole,

If we can all agree that tariffs were not _the_ cause of disunion, then the next question is (and probably a much harder one), were they a cause at all. I think it would be best to consider this on at least two levels - the common Southerner and the southern politician.

The common Southerner. To borrow from the folks who insist that slavery could not have been the cause because most common people didn't have slaves, I'd ask, did most common people have any idea what effects tariffs might have had on the items they bought. I imagine they didn't, North or South; then or now. Whether the burden of the tariff was eaten by the foreign importer or the end consumer depended on the demand elasticity for that article at that time. We can be shocked now by the price of our coffee when we go to the store, but do we know how much of it is due to a tariff? Not a chance. Do consumers in one part of the country feel they are being ripped off by another part of the country when they buy their coffee because they have more of an export economy? I sincerely doubt it. Nails, clothes, shovels, black powder, chain, bananas, cigars - did the common antebellum purchaser of these products really know from month to month what part of the price reflected a tariff? I just find it hard to believe. More importantly, did he blame the cost of his nails on protectionism? And did he somehow think his cousin up North paid less for his nails? I'm not convinced.

Even if he didn't own a single slave, or ever entertained the prospect of having one, I'd sooner believe he understood that his livelyhood was intertwined with the several big planters in the county; or that he felt the sting of being insulted by northern clergy who held his society in sinful contempt; or that he would have to flee the South if all the negroes there were emancipated. But to what tariffs did to his buying power, I don't think he had a clue.

In fact, I doubt any of us still do. I'll bet you could not now accurately calculate the effects steel tariffs have on the price of a car you buy, or a refrigerator, or a wood stove. Imagine a yeoman farmer in 1855. If twenty economists calculated it, you'd have twenty different answers. There are too many variables involved. There always were.

Southern politicians. The few cases I have read where tariffs are mentioned, they are either regarded in a historical sense, such as the Georgia Declaration of Causes, or they are referred to as "tributes" paid to the North. Southerners who directly and sharply attack the hostility towards slavery and its expansion either don't address tariffs at all, or they beat around the bush about them. They didn't champion direct taxes as an alternative. They didn't call for any repeal of tariff acts in their platforms, nor even pledge to defeat or amend the tariff bill then awaiting debate in the Senate. In short, its very hard to find any consistent or serious initiative to even bring tariffs up, let alone to the forefront of southern politics.

It does seem reasonably likely, that there was much apprehension about making this move to secede. I think every secessionist was adding every possible argument that resembled legitimacy to his list of grievances to establish a persuasive foundation for secession, and Calhoun wannabe Rhett handed SC the tariff grievance that had worn so well over the past thirty years.

To the articles, speeches and editorials that speak of paying tribute to the North, they seem to have in common a purpose of boastfully assuring the southern populace that everything will be alright after secession - that commercially, the south will thrive after establishing direct trade of her mighty produce, as well as build her own industry. While this correctly notes the value of southern commerce, missing still are the direct allegations of disproportionate taxing that is popularly accused today.

Someone here - Shane or Unionblue maybe, posted an excerpt from an excellent speech given by Richard Cobden, the British "Apostle of Free Trade." Cobden said that wherever he traveled, he "at once become the centre of all those who form and who avow strong convictions and purposes in reference to Free-trade principles." He should have been a big hit with Southerners ready to split a nation over principles of free trade. But after Cobden visited Washington in the spring of 1859, he wrote ....."that there was so little interest felt on the Free-trade question. There was no party formed, no public agitation; there was no discussion whatever upon the subject of Free Trade and protection. The political field was wholly occupied by one question, and that question was Slavery."

If there was truly a political movement towards free trade....if there was truly any genuine agitation over real-world tariffs, then it was kept from Cobden as well as it is kept from us.

[unionblue]

Ceaderstripper,

Well said on the above post.

Frankly, it is my opinion that the tariff argument as a cause of the Civil War is used primarily by 21st century observers with a modern-day agenda or by those who wish the cause of the war to be anything BUT the major cause, slavery.

And again, I think that is mainly due to 21st century concerns, not 19th century ones, over protecting their view of their heritage and the imagined slight to their ancestors, etc. Many times I have been told that I veiw the issue of slavery with 21st century eyes and morals. How can I do anything else as I am a product of the 20th & 21st century?

But the documents, speeches and words from the men of the time put it forth clearly and without doubt, the tariff could NOT be the issue that would induce men to kill in large numbers of thier own countrymen. The historical evidence is simply not there, in my own opinion.

And unless serious, sober and documented historical evidence comes to light that contradicts the evidence I have uncovered here in my time at this board, that will remain my opinion.

Unionblue

[ole]

Neil and Cedarstripper:

Wow! I feel demolished! To clarify the unclarifiable, I was submitting only that some tariffs may have created some lasting resentment in some small parts of the country. Ergo, sectionalism may have gotten some support from some residual feeling about the tariff. Ya know, throw this twig on the fire?

There is no disagreement here, I was simply acknowledging, slightly, the arguments of the tariff afficianados.

Again, amazingly erudite posts, gentlemen. Thank you.
Ole

[cedarstripper]

Ole,

Hey - no need to feel demolished. Your point of past tariff gripes is well taken. In my opinion, they were just not genuine in 1860, and the accusations of the severe rise of the 1861 tariff act are modern and overblown.

To say that tariffs and free trade were not mentioned at all in that time though is of course disproved in Cobden's speech where he writes of an unnamed confederate addressing the House of Commons and pleading that the separation and war were caused by the North's denying free trade to the South. But Cobden also finds the argument disingenuous, accusing the agent of temerity and lack of decency and self-respect.

For an agent of the confederacy to appeal to the British government for recognition, it would have been necessary to proclaim something other than the maintenance of slavery as the cause for separation. You wouldn't go to the House of Commons and repeat Stephen's Cornerstone Speech and expect to get anywhere. And what could be more enticing for recognition from England than a promise of free trade with them?

"Of course its all about free trade. And......if you're not using your Navy, we should like to borrow it, please."

regards.

[unionblue]

Friends,

To learn more about the tariff, I have begun to research the Congressional Globe site, the areas of the 36th Congress, 1st Session, 1860, in particular.

What I have found so far after one night's observation make this very interesting. I intend to post here my observations and findings and I invite your comments on what conclusions I draw.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[cedarstripper]

Unionblue,

You'll go blind reading that old text.

[unionblue]

cedarstripper,

I and my tri-focal glasses tend to agree with you, but I think the effort will be worth my while if I can reinforce my own belief that the notion tariffs had anything to do with bringing on the Civil War is just so much 20th century nonsense, it will be worth it.

Unionblue