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.
Quite a trick. The Georgia Declaration of Secession is dated 1/29/1861. The Morill tariff passed the Senate 2/28/1861. President Buchanan then signed it into law before Lincoln's inauguration. I'd be interested in seeing exactly where you say they specifically mentioned the "The new (Morrill) tariff".
Tim, check the link Batallion provided. The Morrill Tariff passed the House in May 1860. Republicans wanted a campaign issue, and this one gave them one. It also gave secessionists one to campaign on as well, except their campaign was to convince the people of the States of the South to endorse secession. And the Morrill Tariff helped secessionists make that case.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Originally Posted by trice Quite a trick. The Georgia Declaration of Secession is dated 1/29/1861. The Morill tariff passed the Senate 2/28/1861. President Buchanan then signed it into law before Lincoln's inauguration. I'd be interested in seeing exactly where you say they specifically mentioned the "The new (Morrill) tariff".
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Tim, check the link Batallion provided. The Morrill Tariff passed the House in May 1860. Republicans wanted a campaign issue, and this one gave them one. It also gave secessionists one to campaign on as well, except their campaign was to convince the people of the States of the South to endorse secession. And the Morrill Tariff helped secessionists make that case.
Under the Constitution, a law has to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the President to become law.
Some bills, by law, must be introduced in the House of Representatives FIRST and are only sent to the Senate after passing the House. Any tariff bill would have to be done that way: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills." If the Senate makes amendments, the bill has to go back to the House.
The Morill Tariff did, indeed, pass the House and was sent to the Senate. Senator Hunter of Virginia then used procedural measures to put a vote on the Senate bill off into the next session. The Congress adjourned and did not return until after the 1860 election, in December. As a result, the Morill tariff did not come to a vote in the Senate until 1861, passing on February 28. Even then it was not a law until President Buchanan signed it.
Many, many bills are passed by one house or the other and never become law. Many have been vetoed by a President, and some are then passed over the President's veto by the Congress.
So everything I told you is true and accurate. The claim of the bill passing the House in 1860 is also true -- but is like saying you got the first of three signatures needed. It was not approved then. Presenting this issue in any other fashion is deceptive.
As to the election issue aspect, I am the one who said that is what Hunter was doing with it. The Republicans really only pushed this issue in PA and NJ. Most northern manufacturers were opposed to it, but the steel and iron industry in PA was for it -- which probably explains why Buchanan, a Pennsylvanian, signed it on the way out the door.
Tim, check the link Batallion provided. The Morrill Tariff passed the House in May 1860. Republicans wanted a campaign issue, and this one gave them one. It also gave secessionists one to campaign on as well, except their campaign was to convince the people of the States of the South to endorse secession. And the Morrill Tariff helped secessionists make that case.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
The Morill Tariff passed the Senate by a vote of 25-14 (I have seen this given as both February 20 and February 28 of 1861). At this time, I believe, 13 of the 14 Senators from seceding states had submitted their resignations and left the body. If so, and assuming the missing Senators from the first seven seceding states had remained to vote and voted as a block against it, the Morill Tariff would have failed in the Senate 27-25.
That accounts for 2 Senators from 26 states. There were more states than that, so there were several Senators not voting on the bill, abstaining, not present, etc. If the vote had been close, the parties would have been doing serious arm-twisting to get the votes in.
So everything I told you is true and accurate. The claim of the bill passing the House in 1860 is also true -- but is like saying you got the first of three signatures needed. It was not approved then. Presenting this issue in any other fashion is deceptive.
Tim, but to assert that the impending passage of the bill was not a motivation for secession is to deny the historical record. Everyone knew that the Republicans would push the passage of that bill. With 2 new Kansas Senators (once Kansas was admitted under the Topeka Constitution, as they certainly would be in the next Congress), it would be more likely to pass the Senate. With a Republican in the White House, it was sure to get a Presidential signature. In the end, it got the signature of a Northern Democrat, but if it had not gotten Buck's signature, it certainly would have gotten Lincoln's.
All this simply reinforced, in the minds of South Carolina secessionists, the propriety of leaving a Union in which both Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans would increase the tariff over their objections.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
The Morill Tariff passed the Senate by a vote of 25-14 (I have seen this given as both February 20 and February 28 of 1861). At this time, I believe, 13 of the 14 Senators from seceding states had submitted their resignations and left the body. If so, and assuming the missing Senators from the first seven seceding states had remained to vote and voted as a block against it, the Morill Tariff would have failed in the Senate 27-25.
But, Tim, that would have meant standing between the majority and it's desire for higher tariff protection. Surely you can see that the departure of the unhappy members of the Union frees up the majority to enact whatever economic policies they might desire. The unhappy former members just said, do whatever you want, just count us out of the deal. Surely that isn't such a bad thing.
Respectfully,
John taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
The Morill Tariff passed the Senate by a vote of 25-14 (I have seen this given as both February 20 and February 28 of 1861). At this time, I believe, 13 of the 14 Senators from seceding states had submitted their resignations and left the body. If so, and assuming the missing Senators from the first seven seceding states had remained to vote and voted as a block against it, the Morill Tariff would have failed in the Senate 27-25.
That accounts for 2 Senators from 26 states. There were more states than that, so there were several Senators not voting on the bill, abstaining, not present, etc. If the vote had been close, the parties would have been doing serious arm-twisting to get the votes in.
Regards,
Tim
What about the two Republican Senators from Kansas (seated April 1861)?
Quite a trick. The Georgia Declaration of Secession is dated 1/29/1861. The Morill tariff passed the Senate 2/28/1861. President Buchanan then signed it into law before Lincoln's inauguration. I'd be interested in seeing exactly where you say they specifically mentioned the "The new (Morrill) tariff".
Regards,
Tim
My mistake.
It's not in the Declaration of Secession....
...but in Toombs' speech to the Georgia Legislature 13 November 1860.
...which is very similar to the language in the Declaration (written by Toombs?)-
"...Even the fishermen of Massachusetts and New England demand and receive from the public treasury about half a million of dollars per annum as a pure bounty on their business of catching codfish. The North, at the very first Congress, demanded and received bounties under the name of protection, for every trade, craft, and calling which they pursue, and there is not an artisan in brass, or iron, or wood, or weaver, or spinner in wool or cotton, or a calicomaker, or iron-master, or a coal-owner, in all of the Northern or Middle States, who has not received what he calls the protection of his government on his industry to the extent of from fifteen to two hundred per cent from the year 1791 to this day. They will not strike a blow, or stretch a muscle, without bounties from the government. No wonder they cry aloud for the glorious Union; they have the same reason for praising it, that craftsmen of Ephesus had for shouting, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians," whom all Asia and the world worshipped. By it they got their wealth; by it they levy tribute on honest labor. It is true that this policy has been largely sustained by the South; it is true that the present tariff was sustained by an almost unanimous vote of the South; but it was a reduction - a reduction necessary from the plethora of the revenue; but the policy of the North soon made it inadequate to meet the public expenditure, by an enormous and profligate increase of the public expenditure; and at the last session of Congress they brought in and passed through the House the most atrocious tariff bill that ever was enacted, raising the present duties from twenty to two hundred and fifty per cent above the existing rates of duty. That bill now lies on the table of the Senate. It was a master stroke of abolition policy; it united cupidity to fanaticism, and thereby made a combination which has swept the country. There were thousands of protectionists in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New-York, and in New-England, who were not abolitionists. There were thousands of abolitionists who were free traders. The mongers brought them together upon a mutual surrender of their principles. The free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists. The result of this coalition was the infamous Morrill bill - the robber and the incendiary struck hands, and united in joint raid against the South.
Thus stands the account between the North and the South. Under its ordinary and most favorable action, bounties and protection to every interest and every pursuit in the North, to the extent of at least fifty millions per annum, besides the expenditure of at least sixty millions out of every seventy of the public expenditure among them, thus making the treasury a perpetual fertilizing stream to them and their industry, and a suction-pump to drain away our substance and parch up our lands...." http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/toombs.html
Tim, but to assert that the impending passage of the bill was not a motivation for secession is to deny the historical record. Everyone knew that the Republicans would push the passage of that bill. With 2 new Kansas Senators (once Kansas was admitted under the Topeka Constitution, as they certainly would be in the next Congress), it would be more likely to pass the Senate. With a Republican in the White House, it was sure to get a Presidential signature. In the end, it got the signature of a Northern Democrat, but if it had not gotten Buck's signature, it certainly would have gotten Lincoln's.
All this simply reinforced, in the minds of South Carolina secessionists, the propriety of leaving a Union in which both Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans would increase the tariff over their objections.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
And if the Democrats had not been purposefully split by the Fire-Eaters, none of that might have happened.
AFTER the election of 1860, the Republicans still held only a minority in the Senate and in the House. Passage was by no means assured, and the Tariff was not noticeably popular among most Northern manufacturing regions. It was associated particularly with PA, NJ, and the western farmers. NJ was fiercely protectionist, but also traditionally aligned with the South in Congress. Split their electoral vote 4-3 for Lincoln-Douglas.
This brings us to the "generation of dumb politicians" theory of the Causes of the Civil War from Stampp. The Southerners of 75 years later would have left Lincoln looking like a do-nothing President with an advantage like that in Congress. The secessionists leaders of 1860 took their people into a war they lost, and the Northerners didn't find a way to prevent it.
My mistake.
It's not in the Declaration of Secession....
...but in Toombs' speech to the Georgia Legislature 13 November 1860.
...which is very similar to the language in the Declaration (written by Toombs?)-
Again, neat trick. You are citing Toombs speaking in November of 1860 about a bill that won't pass the Senate until late February. Far better the GA Senators just stay in office and vote against it.
What about the two Republican Senators from Kansas (seated April 1861)?
That makes it 27-27.
That would be 54 votes out of 70. How do you think the other 16, who managed to stay conveniently silent, vote once the parties start twisting their arms?
This is all common in Congress, particularly then. People who are in swing districts frequently find a way to not vote to avoid ticking constitutents off. With the Tariff so obviously going one way, they could. On a close vote, the party big-wigs apply pressure.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
