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.
My points being, if the Morril Tariff did not raise tariff rates before the firing on Ft. Sumter, and the South had the highest incomes in the country, where is the impact of the tariff as a cause for 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
It is my contention that the tariff had NOTHING to do with the South's secession from the Union....
Sincerely,
Unionblue
My examination of the Georgia Declaration of Secession (which I believe is the longest and most detailed) shows that:
40% of the document is devoted to the issue of slavery in the territories 15% concerns slave insurrection 13% the fugitive slave law...and 12% regards a general objection to Northern rule- A sectionally based party gaining total control of the government (Executive, Senate, & House of Rep's) to advance its interests over the interests of others...in all matters....and
20% is devoted to tariffs, protectionism, and subsidies to benefit Northern interests
Dear Rose,
In the interest of clarity, I think it is good to keep in mind that there are two separate and distinct issues being discussed here regarding the South and the tariff.
Yes, Cedarstripper, I realize that, but it still was a costly issue for the South and this thread is "Tariffs". I'm not trying to help Battalion prove his point. He doesn't need me to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
I think the "pass the tax along to someone else" and the "consumers including the price increase in their wage and salary demands" arguments put forth by Brown and Hogendorn must make even an economist like DiLorenzo squirm in his seat a little.
What kind of economist is DiLorenzo? I thought your issues with him were in regard to history. And why would Brown and Hogendorn make DiLorenzo squirm? Do you know something about Brown and Hogendorn that we don't? If you do, please, share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
I think the real challenge here is to show that the cotton grower was any more burdened than most any other trade from wheat growers, to miners, to loggers, to dairy farmers.
I'm not sure anyone can prove that to the degree you would require. The Southern states claimed it in 1860 and I don't recall too many people in the North denying it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
But I'll save it for later posts. I just wanted to make a note here that points made one way or another in regards to a burden from tariffs will only muddy the waters if they are conflated with points made in regards to an alleged majority of dutiable imports bought in the South. I trust you no more enjoy going around in circles than I.
Cedarstripper
Perhaps we should change the name of the thread to read, "Tariffs, but Only in Relation to How the South Paid More Than Her Fair Share". That way no one will make the mistake of bringing up tariffs in any other context.
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
Dear Rose,
It was not my intention to limit the scope of your discussion, and reading through my post again, I don't see where any such thing was implied. My only purpose was to make note that an alleged burden from the several effects of tariffs was a different issue than the claim of the South paying their majority. It was merely an attempt at avoiding confusion.
Quote:
What kind of economist is DiLorenzo? I thought your issues with him were in regard to history. And why would Brown and Hogendorn make DiLorenzo squirm? Do you know something about Brown and Hogendorn that we don't? If you do, please, share.
First, my issues with DiLorenzo are in regard to history. His use of Brown and Hogendorf was for the purpose of supporting his version of history, was it not?
Second, DiLorenzo is a free market economist. To my way of thinking, passages such as "consumers including the price increase in their wage and salary demands" and "pass the tax along to someone else" both run foreign to the core of free market economics. In a free market, wages and prices find their natural and genuine level. I would think DiLorenzo would be uncomfortable suggesting that workers in mid-19th century America were truly "including price increases in their wage and salary demands."
Quote:
Perhaps we should change the name of the thread to read, "Tariffs, but Only in Relation to How the South Paid More Than Her Fair Share". That way no one will make the mistake of bringing up tariffs in any other context.
The tariff that they had in Dec 1860 was the 1857 tariff. Its highest rate was 30% [80%], charged to articles on schedule A (brandy, spirits) and B (dates, figs, cigars, manufactures of tobacco, canned meats). Not much protection for manufactures I can see, and not any at 50%. I guess op-ed writes have to fill their partisan pages with something alarming, and it must be hard when your Democrat readers don't have slaves to worry about losing.
1857 Tariff
Selected items from Schedule "C" (24%)-
"...
Carpets, carpeting, hearth rugs, etc...
Carriages (and parts)
Clocks (and parts)
Clothing, ready made, and wearing apparel of every description...
Coach and harness furniture of all kinds
Coal
Cutlery of all kinds
Furniture, cabinet and household
Hats
Iron, in bars, bloom, bolts, loops, pigs, slabs, etc.
Castings of iron
Vessels of cast-iron
Jewelry, real or immitation
Manufactures...of brass, copper, gold, iron, lead, pewter, silver, tin, etc.
Manufactures...of cotton, linen, silk, wool, worsted...
Manufactures...of glass...leather...marble...paper...wood...wool...
Medicinal preparations...
Muskets, rifles, and other firearms
Oil-cloth of every description
Oils
Paper
...."
__________________ "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
Selected items from Schedule "C" (24%)-
<<snip>>
...how much of this was made down South?
Lets be clear. You claimed that, of the federal tariff revenue collected, the South paid most of it. In simple terms, that means that more duties were collected on foreign imports southerners purchased than on the foreign import purchases of the remainder of the US. It does not mean they merely bought proportionately more than their population. It does not mean that they imported domestic articles from other states. It means, and it only can mean, that southerners bought more dutiable imports than the remainder of the United States. That is your burden to support.
Now, apparently you have mistaken importing domestic goods from the North with importing dutiable goods from overseas, as you equate the lack of southern production with revenue collected. That simply is not correct. And since you think the remainder of the US bought a minority of goods, I assume you think they mostly consumed their own production, while the South bought exclusively from across the pond. That also is not correct.
So......if you would, please.....show what types of imported articles that the South bought and the North didn't, and please show what quantities they would have had to have bought them in to hold an overall majority of purchase. For example, duties on sugar made up around 16% of revenue collected. Please show how the South bought most of the sugar imported into the country. (we'll forget for the time being that Lousiana produced about 25% of the sugar consumed in the US). Manufactures of wool made up about another 15% of duties. Please show how Southerners consumed most of the foreign manufacturers of wool. Bear in mind that the South held a relatively small market compared to the remainder of the US, and that the vast majority of these imports entered through northern ports where they were exposed to a relatively enormous and dense marketplace.
Quote:
.....how much of this was made down South?
Let me ask this: How much of it was made in Wisconsin? By 1860, only two southern states had larger populations. The same goes for Iowa. How about Indiana or Illinois - how much was made there? No southern state had larger populations. Point is, these states also grew products that were chiefly exported out of their states, had no appreciable manufacturing and thus relied on imports from other states and abroad (just like the South) and held permanent political minorities in Congress as compared to the Northeast, MidAtlantic, or South. What condition was it that the South suffered that these states didn't, besides hostility towards their slavery?
The question is not how much was made in the south. The question is, how much of it was consumed in the south, and how much of that consumption was imported rather than domestic.
29% of the population of the United States was in the southern states. Almost 39% of the population in those states were slaves. It simply defies logic to think that they consumed a majority of the imported goods.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
