Fishing Bounties

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by trice

The point of any such complaint is whether or not it is true and accurate.

Fair enough. Did the Federal government not give $500,000 a year in the form of fishing bounties to New England fishermen? Yes, it did.

Originally Posted by trice

It appears from the record (Senate already having passed a bill on this in 1860, and the bounty itself disappearing in 1866, as soon as things settled down from the Civil War) that this is, at best, a silly complaint that would have just vanished in the normal course of events.

In another thread, you stated that the enactment of future policies was irrelevant to the decision to secede or not. In that case, it was the Morrill tariff, which, as of December 1860, had passed the House, but not the Senate. Now you seem to be indicating that future repeal of this expenditure and not the then-current law means that it is not a legitimate cause of secession. You are being inconsistent.
On the whole, whether a policy could or should be considered a wrong or not should be analyzed in light or (a) was the policy enacted presently, (b) was it likely to be enacted in the near future and (c) was the wrong likely to be repealed in the future. In the matter of the Morrill tariff, the answers were, respectively, no-yes-no. In the case of fishing bounties, they were yes-yes-no. How likely was the repeal of the fishing bounty is a good question. If, as you say, it was repealed in 1866, one might ask what changes had occurred between 1860 and 1866. If memory serves, there was a war between those two dates, a war which might have wrought some reasonably profound changes in Federal spending. Absent that stimulus, one wonders just how big of a hurry the Northern (vice Republican) majority in the House would be to end the Federal fishing bounties program.

Originally Posted by trice

Obviously they disagreed. For anyone doing analysis of this, the first thing to consider is whether or not either side's statements are actually true and accurate. If you find the compalint (sic) is not supportable, the complaint should be tossed out as worthless.

I refer the honorable gentleman to my comment of a few moments ago. Was the complaint true and accurate, yes it was. Whether that perceived abuse warranted, inter alia, secession is best posed towards the people who felt that they were being abused by the payment of the taxes to support the expenditure.

Originally Posted by trice

One of the things I regularly notice in the arguments of secessionists is that they omit all reference to the benefits to the country as a whole. They are all small, local, narrow in focus. If they truly believed in this approach they were lousy Americans (sic) because they did not care about the United States, and were only looking for what was directly and specifically beneficial to them -- and they resented everything that did not fit that narrow definition.

You place the burden of proof on the payers of a benefit, and not on the payees. If someone claims a government benefit, is that claim ipso facto legitimate? Someone once said that what is good for General Motors is good for the country. But is that necessarily true? And are there any limits to how far that line of thinking will go? Obviously, the intended benefit should outweigh the national cost.
And these moral arguments don't begin to address the issue of the constitutionality of such programs. The question of whether a particular Federal program is among the enumerated Federal powers is a different one from the wisdom of enacting it.

Originally Posted by trice

A major purpose of the Fishing Bounties had been to build up the fishing fleet as a source of experienced sailors for the protection of America. Particularly in the Age of Sail, it took many years of practical experince (sic) to develop seamen, whether officers or common sailors. That development aided the US for decades. As Stephens says here in 1860, it might have become outdated by events, which is why he was for doing away with it now -- but that is no cause for secession, merely normal politics and bureaucratic inertia.

Originally Posted by trice

At the same time, another program had been started in 1845 that paid subsidies to men on US Mail steamers. Why? Because the US dominated the fast sail ship market and the British had begun to dominate the new market for steam-powered ships. So the US passed a new law for classes of mail steamers, got them built, and offered bounties for men to serve on them, requiring minimum percentages of US citizens who had to sign on as "Naval volunteers" to learn this new trade and skill. This is much cheaper than actually expanding the Navy with new ships, and develops a class of men with the required skills for time of need.

All useful goals. Since the Constitution does delegate to the Federal government the power "to provide and maintain a navy" but does not delegate the power to improve the efficiency of that navy by providing bounties to "Naval volunteers" on mail steamers, this program is on thin constitutional ice. Where do you draw the line? And who gets to decide that the expenditure imposes a burden on the tax-payers that is unwarranted by the limitations the Constitution places on just what the Federal government gets to do in this area.
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[trice]

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

Fair enough. Did the Federal government not give $500,000 a year in the form of fishing bounties to New England fishermen? Yes, it did.

John, that is not what the complaint is. The complaint is that this was somehow an unfair abuse of the Southern states and the Constitution. Please address that.

If this was as simple as whether or not the Federal government spent money -- as you have just tried to present it -- then it would also be a complaint that the government spent money on Ft. Sumter or any of the other forts in the South, or on river and harbor dredging (an issue near and dear to Southern hearts), or flood control on the Mississippi, etc., etc. The impression the secessionists give is that money spent on anything that does not specifically benefit them is improper, and anything that does benefit them is holy and good.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

In another thread, you stated that the enactment of future policies was irrelevant to the decision to secede or not. In that case, it was the Morrill tariff, which, as of December 1860, had passed the House, but not the Senate. Now you seem to be indicating that future repeal of this expenditure and not the then-current law means that it is not a legitimate cause of secession. You are being inconsistent.

No, John. I am sure you already know the distinction. Here I am merely saying that events seem to show that what Mr. Stephens said in November of 1860 was accurate. He said that the Senate had already acted on this in 1860 -- and they had. He said the House had not -- and it had not. He said it had been justifiable to and supported by Southern Presidents in the past -- and it had been. He said he would support the elimination of it himself at this point.

Looking forward, the Congress did eliminate the Fishing Bounty in 1866. This at a time, of course, when Southern influence in the Congress would have been virtually non-existent, so it would seem that if the South had remained in and pushed for a solution on this issue, they might have had it quicker. As verification of Stephens' position, this is useful. It is particularly useful when you choose to use ad hominem attacks on speakers to discredit their words.

But the secessionists were claiming something entirely different on the Morrill Tariff. They were claiming that something that had not happened and might very well not happen if they remained in the Union was a justification for secession. If you truly cannot see the difference between the two, then you should pause for a while and reconsider, IMHO.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

On the whole, whether a policy could or should be considered a wrong or not should be analyzed in light or (a) was the policy enacted presently, (b) was it likely to be enacted in the near future and (c) was the wrong likely to be repealed in the future.

John, you have a habit of shading statements to suit your purpose. This is an example. Your statement above assumes the policy you do not like is "a wrong". No such thing has been shown on "fishing bounties". From the statements we have seen from the secessionists, the only objection is that most fishermen receiving the bounty come from New England. That was probably true, but does not indicate any flaw.

For reasons of geography, it would be unlikely that Southerners would receive a large share of such bounties. In addition, Southerners generally did not have a strong focus on the sea/fishing. The bounties were not passed with a restriction that only people from the six New England states could receive them, but as a practical matter it was unlikely they would. But it is also unlikely that New England citizens received the same benefit as Southern citizens from improvements in the Mississippi River, or the building of forts at Galveston, Ship Island and Charleston, or as Louisiana citizens would from tariffs on the import of sugar, or other types of Federal spending. There are always inequities if you want to nitpick.

But if you take this to Congress and fight it out, the path for the South is clear. They already know the 1860 Senate voted to eliminate this bounty -- they need to work to do so in the House. States like Iowa have no more interest in supporting "fishing bounties" in the Atlantic than Kentucky and Tennessee do. Act like competent politicians! Negotiate a deal. Log-rolling has been around a very long time. The problem here, if they could not figure it out, was that Southern politicians were not very good at their trade. By no means does this sort of mickey-mouse complaint rise to any level that should even be mentioned as a cause of secession.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

In the matter of the Morrill tariff, the answers were, respectively, no-yes-no.

No. Even given your phraseology, it would be more accurate to say no-maybe-maybe. There is little indication the Morrill Tariff would pass as-is in 1861 if the South had stayed in and worked against it. Morrill and others had been trying to get it passed for several years. Secession with the withdrawal of the Southern Senators virtually assured it would pass.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

In the case of fishing bounties, they were yes-yes-no.

Again, even given your phraseology, it is much more accurate to say yes-maybe-maybe. It was known in 1860 that the Senate had moved to eliminate the fishing bounties. This is much the same situation as the Tariff: divided opinion, could go either way. Yet you present it as already decided.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

How likely was the repeal of the fishing bounty is a good question. If, as you say, it was repealed in 1866, one might ask what changes had occurred between 1860 and 1866. If memory serves, there was a war between those two dates, a war which might have wrought some reasonably profound changes in Federal spending. Absent that stimulus, one wonders just how big of a hurry the Northern (vice Republican) majority in the House would be to end the Federal fishing bounties program.

John, you need to stop and think that through. What reason do Midwestern Republicans have to support fishing bounties in the Atlantic? For that matter, there were 108 Republicans in the House of Representatives after the election of 1860. That represents a loss of 8 seats in the election, but it gave them 59% of the 183 Congressman because it counts only the Representatives who took their seats. If the South remains in the Congress, the Republicans do not control the House.

Once again, it looks to me as if the secessionists are saying their own failure to act as competent politicians justifies secession. Balderdash.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

I refer the honorable gentleman to my comment of a few moments ago. Was the complaint true and accurate, yes it was.

No. There was an existing law on the books. Absolutely no evidence has been presented to show that this law was unjust or unconstitutional. Once again, you are presenting your case as already proved without bothering to present it. What prompts you to say this complaint is valid under the law?

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

Whether that perceived abuse warranted, inter alia, secession is best posed towards the people who felt that they were being abused by the payment of the taxes to support the expenditure.

You mean the accused has to prove themselves innocent? That is not the Anglo-Saxon tradition of law. Just what do you base this unusual concept on?

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

You place the burden of proof on the payers of a benefit, and not on the payees.

Since when? Why?

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

If someone claims a government benefit, is that claim ipso facto legitimate? Someone once said that what is good for General Motors is good for the country.

The man was Charles Erwin Wilson. The year was 1953. He was then President of General Motors, had been nominated for Secretary of Defense by Eisenhower, and was testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He was asked if he would be able to make a decision that was adverse to General Motors in the position.

As with most quotes, this one is distorted. What he actually said was that he could, but that he had difficulty conceiving of such a situation "because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa."

It is easy enough to say that his view was tempered by his association with GM. I suppose the head of Ford would have disagreed only in replacing the words "General Motors" with "Ford".

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

But is that necessarily true? And are there any limits to how far that line of thinking will go? Obviously, the intended benefit should outweigh the national cost.

Looked at in context and viewed completely, the view might well be true. It is not equivalent to what you are trying to present. The opposite would be what the secessionists seem to be saying here: that only what benefits them is acceptable.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

And these moral arguments don't begin to address the issue of the constitutionality of such programs. The question of whether a particular Federal program is among the enumerated Federal powers is a different one from the wisdom of enacting it.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

All useful goals. Since the Constitution does delegate to the Federal government the power "to provide and maintain a navy" but does not delegate the power to improve the efficiency of that navy by providing bounties to "Naval volunteers" on mail steamers, this program is on thin constitutional ice. Where do you draw the line?

Do you truly think this is an abuse of Federal powers, and if so a heinous abuse of Federal powers? That encouraging men to serve on US Mail steamers (indeed, requiring that a certain percentage of the men aboard had to be Americans) with a small bounty to encourage sign-ups is unconstitutional and rises to the level of justifying secession? But that, as a corrolary, if the Congress had put those steamers in the US Navy and employed all of the crew as Federal employees at much greater cost everything would have been perfectly OK? Do you see no way that encouraging the formation of a group of men with valuable skills in a new technology (steamships) might be part of the power "to provide and maintain a navy" at a time when the US Navy was converting from sail to steam?

Not even the secessionists argued this, as far as I can see. It offers a benefit to the whole nation (more than one, actually, since these steamers improved US Mail service worldwide and helped close the gap with England) and the only reason it might benefit one area of another is simply that relatively few Southerners or Midwest homesteaders followed the sea as a living.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

And who gets to decide that the expenditure imposes a burden on the tax-payers that is unwarranted by the limitations the Constitution places on just what the Federal government gets to do in this area.

Actually, the Supreme Court specifically has jurisdiction on any such controversy between one or more states and the Federal government, or between different states. It says so in the Constitution. ALL the parties are bound by oath to support the Constitution and follow that restriction. None of the states has that power.

Regards,
Tim

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by trice

Do you truly think this is an abuse of Federal powers, and if so a heinous abuse of Federal powers? That encouraging men to serve on US Mail steamers (indeed, requiring that a certain percentage of the men aboard had to be Americans) with a small bounty to encourage sign-ups is unconstitutional and rises to the level of justifying secession? But that, as a corrolary, if the Congress had put those steamers in the US Navy and employed all of the crew as Federal employees at much greater cost everything would have been perfectly OK? Do you see no way that encouraging the formation of a group of men with valuable skills in a new technology (steamships) might be part of the power "to provide and maintain a navy" at a time when the US Navy was converting from sail to steam?

Not even the secessionists argued this, as far as I can see. It offers a benefit to the whole nation (more than one, actually, since these steamers improved US Mail service worldwide and helped close the gap with England) and the only reason it might benefit one area of another is simply that relatively few Southerners or Midwest homesteaders followed the sea as a living.

Actually, that was a cause of complaint.
The Tariff: A Speech of Hon. W. W. Boyce, of South Carolina, In the House of Representatives, February 4, 1859:
“The Post Office Department used to furnish revenue to the Government; saddling it on the Treasury is quite a modern invention. It began in 1846. There are five mail lines now to the Pacific; one or two at the most would be sufficient. Two million four hundred thousand dollars is paid for these Pacific mails; $400,000 would be sufficient for this purpose. Here is a good place to save $2,000,000 at one blow. Get rid of the ocean mail contracts. Let those who do sea-service take all the postage they can get; no more. I say, let the Post Office Department be self-sustaining; if it will not be, abolish it. Let letters, like merchandise, be carried by private enterprise. The service, I have no doubt, would be well and cheaply done, for private enterprise is always more efficient than Government action.”
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875 Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 35th Congress, 2nd Session Page 242 of 1692 (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/)
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[unionblue]

From a speech by Alexander H. Stephens, delivered in the secession convention of Georgia, January 1861.

"Look at another necessary branch of government, and learn from stern statistical facts how matters stand in that department. I mean the mail and post-office privileges that we now enjoy under the central government, as it has been for years past. The expense for the transportation of the mail in the Free States was, by the report of the Postmaster General for the year 1860, a little over $13,000,004, while the income was $19,000,000.

But in the Slave States, the transportation of the mail was $14,716,000, while the revenue from the same was $8,001,0026, leaving a deficit of $6,115,735, to be supplied by the North for our accommodation, and without it we must have been entirely cut off from this most essential branch of government."

It was also noted from a speech by the Hon. F. F. Perry of South Carolina, House of Representatives, December 11, 1850, that Post offices in the Northern states typically ran a profit, those in the South a loss on average of $600,000 per year on a consisten basis. The profits from the North covered this loss.

One wonders what the gentleman from South Carolina in the above post had to complain about?

Unionblue

[trice]

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

Actually, that was a cause of complaint.
The Tariff: A Speech of Hon. W. W. Boyce, of South Carolina, In the House of Representatives, February 4, 1859:
“The Post Office Department used to furnish revenue to the Government; saddling it on the Treasury is quite a modern invention. It began in 1846. There are five mail lines now to the Pacific; one or two at the most would be sufficient. Two million four hundred thousand dollars is paid for these Pacific mails; $400,000 would be sufficient for this purpose. Here is a good place to save $2,000,000 at one blow. Get rid of the ocean mail contracts. Let those who do sea-service take all the postage they can get; no more. I say, let the Post Office Department be self-sustaining; if it will not be, abolish it. Let letters, like merchandise, be carried by private enterprise. The service, I have no doubt, would be well and cheaply done, for private enterprise is always more efficient than Government action.”
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875 Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 35th Congress, 2nd Session Page 242 of 1692 (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/)
Respectfully,
John Taylor

Do you think this man is making a valid point? Do you think anyone took his idea seriously?

If this system was tried (it wasn't), then the heaviest burden would fall on people in isolated areas with low population densities like the South and West. It is fairly easy to make money where the population density is high, and most mail services would be able to do so if they only served the main areas and routes. But if you lived in, oh, lots of little towns in Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, your mail would probably cost so much you simply will not send letters, and few people will send them to you.

That is one of the reasons government services are often unprofitable -- or why they build little gotchas into private contracts to handle them for you.

Regards,
Tim