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.
In reference to your post #1, what plan had Ft. Sumter in which it was to be used to stop and detain all ships and collect the USA Revenue? Please indicate a varifiable source for this. As far as I can tell, NO effort was made to collect tariffs by Lincoln until this crisis was resolved.
Its in all the good acounts of the period, "Lincoln and the first shot" R Current, Adams " When in the Course of Human Events" MCpherson BCF page 263 refers to it, as do diarys of the key men in cabinett refer to the specifics of the paln, Welles, Blair etc. Firstly its what Lincoln promises to do in the inugrial, collect the taxes, ( 2 March 1861. Under this tariff, duties began at an average of 37%, compared to 10% in the CSA) to do this is deciced on the specifics in the cabinet meetings, and then it went to the AG who advised it was lawfull to collect the tariff on ships off shore, and then lincoln gave the order to do so to the navy.
I dont know what you have on your bookshelf, but anything that dealls in detail with Sumpter ought to contain refernces to the severall meetings in Cabinett, and the last one of these is where the of shore tarrif colection is discussed and adopted, BCF page 272 list further books that conatin these, although they are looking at motives and purposes of the supply to sumpter plans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Blue
And frankly, I simply find no evidence, historical or otherwise, that it had a thing to do with the tariff. That 'dog don't hunt', it doesn't even wake up to leave the dog house. The only "It's about the economy, stupid" argument I can detect, is the economy of slavery.
Then your not familiar with Calhoun who saw that not enough states would secceded over the Triff question, and spent the rest of his life finding out what they would do over, and uniting enough on it, the answer was threats to slavery which would unite enough behind SC to make secesion viable, but the motive is a different tariff policy.
Then your unaware of content of the conventions on secesion, the tarif was certainly a strong motivation for secesion at them, tarif is mentioned in the causes of secesion docccuments and the reason for calling the secesion ordinaces in the first place, and was in some regions of states, the only motive for secesion, SC seceded over slavery, so it could adopt a Tariff more in keeping with its socio economic condition.
The wonder is not if you will have secesion, but which states will ally against others and over what, and when.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Blue
As for your view that Lincoln didn't follow the chain of command, perhaps the idea that there were still many in that chain willing to sell out their C-in-C to warn the South might have had a little to do with that. Maybe between the resignations and back door manuvers of Seward, Lincoln felt he had to take charge to make things happen. After all, if the President reaches past certain parts of the chain of command, he has that right. Look at FDR when he pick Ike to head up OverLord and the invasion of Europe. Harry Truman did not have that plaque 'The Buck Stops Here' for no reason.
Not applicable in the case at hand, the orders were not legal and not followed, because the chain of command was not lawfull. Your appying a good argument to an example that does not warrant that expalantion. See BCF page 268 for this specific instance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Blue
No, I think there is a lot of historical 'smoke' in your post, which tends to obscure the real factual fire. The fort had to be fired on by Davis, no matter if any or no action happened in the fort. He could not appear weak and he could not afford to wait as many were having second thoughts about secession and the fire they had jumped into. Talk about your pressure to 'do something' Davis had to do something to induce the border states to jump off the fence and keep his own deep south in line. So he ordered the fort fired on. And the rest is left up to debate boards like this one.
Odd how your post is fact free while noticing my facts are smoke instead. We can do better than that surely?.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Blue
And I have a few quotes of my own.
Lets see what they say, so private letters late in life, nothing from the Elliots where he expalins the right of secesion then, or even from the VA ratification and expalining the right to secceded during that as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Blue
It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol 2, with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force, and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion, and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.
He starts with a reffernce to the Old Congress ie the AOC, in that compact the use of force as a right is an implied right by compact, which it was, but not so under the Constition.
Secesion at will is in the public mind because Madison and Jeerson put it there in the first place.(It appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but . . . that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme
authority in each State -- the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution will not be a national but a federal act . . . Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. Madison)
The authority to grant Congress the constitional right to coerce compliance on any member of the state had been twice defeated in the PA debate, Madison voted to deny this right btw.
Secesion at will is Madisons biggest problem, after describbing that secesion is a atribute of being Sov it follows that it can be used at will by the Sov, Madison had spent 30 odd years expalining that to the public, but by 1836 had come to a different understanding, in his last work he adopts a different posistion, that nullification and secesion are not answers to the question.
Madison did not accept that nullifiocation over taxes was constitional, because every society requires taxes to function, the remedy was an easment of the effect of the tariffs, because while the tariff was uniform its effect was not and this had created the problem and required an easment, no one has the right to nullification over taxes, no one likes taxes but society cannot function without them is wher Madison is comming from, madison is not explaing no right of secesion or nullification only that a high tax is not suffiecent cause to excercise the right of secesion.
Another argument is to be found here, 1830, Senator Robert Y. Hayne, Carolina's champion in the famous Webster-Hayne Debate, sent Madison a copy of his speeches. Hayne obviously expected the author of the Virginia
Resolutions to endorse the doctrine of nullification. In response, Madison adopted totally different ground. He disapproved of the notion that a single state could nullify any statute which was not so oppressive as to absolve that state of all responsibility to the union. He added, "[T]he Constitution of the U.S. . . . must be its own interpreter according to its text and the facts of the case. The charter was that of one people and could not be negated but by the whole people."
He next stated that the supremacy clause governed the question; if that failed, impeachment might be tried, then amendment. Madison closed with the incongruous statement that the failure of all these remedies would entitle a state to resort to the law of self-preservation, but that that was a right the government need not respect.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
In a letter to Daniel Webster, March 15, 1833.
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."
The entire letter may be viewed here: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found.../v1ch3s14.html
Revolution was newish word back then,(words usage changes over time, and Boyers Roayal Dictionary discribes its aplication at that time) it was coined to describe the French political process of wherby those in power were repced by those who they had power over, and alos applied to the Uk Glourouse Revoultion in which constitonal sovreignty passed peacfully from Monarch to Monarch, Madison is using the same word with the same meaning, he does not mean quick shoot someone. Not all revolutions are violent.
This is where* Webster and Calhoun clash on the nature of the Constition and Webster writes to Madison for an explanation of state Sov its worth noteing that Congress passes Calhouns and not Websters reolution, namely "That in adoption of the Federal Constion, the States adopting the same acted severally as free Sovriegn and independednt states" at the end of the debate and Webster adopts a states right secesion as a resort of a state from this point in time on, due to Madison reply, Calhouns argument and texts given to Webster during them,(Webster had never seen his states ratification ordinace to enter the Union, where it reserved the right to abolish or seccede at will, and Congress vote at the conclusion of his debate.
Madison views in the 1830s were diametricly oposed to his of the 1790s, and working out why that is requires a lot or reading, University of VA has a study of Madison evolutionary thinking on this, which iirc goes something like yes nullificationa and secesion are necesiccary, because we dont know how things will play out, of we need them and lets use them, see thats shorted the problem dont really need them any longer as other means of redresse and world cicamstances dont require them, he was a bit like Webster in reverse.
Its not clear that Webster is a good person to argue on about Secesion or nullification, Webster went on record denying the President's constitutional authority to do precisely what Lincoln would do in 1861: "The President has no authority to blockade Charleston; the President has no authority to employ military force, till he shall be required to do so by civil authorities. His duty is to cause the laws to be executed. His duty is to support the civil authority."
On thge FSA
"How absurd it is to suppose that, when different parties enter into a compact for certain purposes, either can disregard any one provision, and expect, nevertheless, the other to observe the rest! ...[i]f the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect [a] part of the Constitution... and Congress provides no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain can not be broken on one side, and still bind the other side."
And he destroyed the conscriptions acts as well
Had he been around i think Abe would have found him a handfull, as indded would have been Madison, who in all probality would not sanction secesion as constitional, because of its consequeces to the nation at that time.
Jeremiah Sullivan Black, USA AG opinion dated 20 November 1860;
Whether Congress has the constitutional right to make war against one or more States, and require the Executive of the Federal Government to carry it on by means of force to be drawn from the other States, is a question for Congress itself to consider. It must be admitted that no such power is expressly given; nor are there any words in the Constitution which imply it. Among the powers enumerated in Article I, section 8, is that, "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water." This certainly means nothing more than the power to commence and carry on hostilities against the foreign enemies of the nation. Another clause in the same section gives Congress the power "to provide for calling forth the militia," and to use them within the limits of a State. But this power is so restricted by the words which immediately follow, that it can be exercised only for one of the following purposes: 1. To execute the laws of the Union, that is, to aid the Federal officers in the performance of their regular duties. 2. To suppress insurrection against the States, but this is confined by Article IV, section 4, to cases in which the State herself shall apply for assistance against her own people. 3. To repel invasion of a State by enemies who come from abroad to assail her in her own territory. All these provisions are to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve their peace, and not lunge them into civil war. Our forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated to "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution that military force would not only be useless but pernicious as a means of holding the States (Union) together.
If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would ipso facto be an expulsion of such State from the Union. And if Congress shall break up the Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the "domestic tranquility" which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?
The right of the Central Government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional vigor by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its officers cannot be denied. But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State government, or to prevent a threatened violation of the Constitution, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme. The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.
*Webster speech, and a cracker it was, that Madison refers too, but better yet is Calhounns retort that won the debate, if youve never read it i can post it or mail it to you, its very large.John C. Calhoun’s Response to Daniel Webster
Congressional Globe — 26 February 1833
So, Sir, I understood the gentleman, and am happy to find that I did not misunderstand him. What he contends for is, that it is constitutional to interrupt the administration of the Constitution itself, in the hands of those who are chosen and sworn to administer it, by the direct interference, in form of law, of the States, in virtue of their sovereign capacity. The inherent right in the people to reform their government I do not deny; and they have another right, and that is, to resist unconstitutional laws, without overturning the government. It is no doctrine of mine that unconstitutional laws bind the people. The great question is, Whose prerogative is it to decide on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws? On that the debate hinges. The proposition that, in case of a supposed violation of the Constitution by Congress, the States have a constitutional right to interfere, and annul the law of Congress, is the proposition of the gentleman. I do not admit it. If the gentleman had intended no more than to assert the right of revolution for justifiable cause, he would have said only what all agree to. But I cannot conceive that there can be a middle course, between submission to the laws, when pronounced constitutional, on the one hand, and open resistance, which is revolution or rebellion, on the other. I say, the right of a State to annul a law of Congress, cannot be maintained but on the ground of the unalienable right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon the ground of revolution. I admit that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution and in defiance of the Constitution, which may be resorted to when a revolution is to be justified. But I do not admit, that, under the Constitution and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a State government, as a member of the Union, can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstances whatever.... It is, Sir, the people's Constitution, the people's government, made for the people, made by the people and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the supreme law. But the State legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are not yet sovereign over the people. So far as the people have given power to the general government, so far as the grant is unquestionably good, and the government held of the people, and not of the State governments. We are all agents of the same supreme power, the people. The general government and the State governments derive their authority from the same source.... If there be no power to settle such questions [constitutionality of a federal tariff], independent of either of the States, is not the whole Union a rope of sand? Are we not thrown back again, precisely, upon the old Confederation? It is too plain to be argued. Four-and Twenty interpreters of constitutional law, each with a power to decide for itself, and none with authority to bind any body else, and this constitutional law the only bond of their union!... Some authority must, therefore, necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the interpretation of these grant, restrictions and prohibitions [with respect to the enumerated powers]. The Constitution has itself pointed out, ordained, and established that authority. How has it accomplished this great and essential end? By declaring, Sir, that "the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This, Sir, was the first great step. By this the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States is declared. The people so will it....But who shall decide this question of interference? To whom lies the last appeal? This, Sir, the Constitution itself decides also, by declaring "that the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States." These two provisions, Sir, cover the whole ground. They are, in truth, the key-stone of the arch! With these, it is a Constitution; without them, it is a confederation.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Its in all the good acounts of the period, "Lincoln and the first shot" R Current, Adams " When in the Course of Human Events" MCpherson BCF page 263 refers to it, as do diarys of the key men in cabinett refer to the specifics of the paln, Welles, Blair etc.
McPherson does not refer to any plan to stop and detain ships at Sumter in an attempt to collect tariffs there, but instead refers to the ambiguity of the inaugural phrases referring to "hold, occupy and possess" and " to collect duties and imposts." McPherson does see fit to note here that Sumter had become a "symbol of national sovereignty in the very cradle of secession, a symbol that the Confederate government could not tolerate if it wished its own sovereignty to be recognized by the world." And so, while he does not insinuate that tariff collection is an issue that Sumter teters on, he does insinuate the perceived legitimacy of the confederacy is at stake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanny
Firstly its what Lincoln promises to do in the inugrial, collect the taxes, ( 2 March 1861. Under this tariff, duties began at an average of 37%, compared to 10% in the CSA) to do this is deciced on the specifics in the cabinet meetings, and then it went to the AG who advised it was lawfull to collect the tariff on ships off shore, and then lincoln gave the order to do so to the navy.
What is an average tariff rate, and how is it arrived at? The schedule with the most commonly imported articles was Schedule C, which was 15% in the CSA (May 21, 1861) and 28% in the Union (up from 24% under the Tariff act of 1857). Of course some articles entered at both higher and lower rates, and the USA 1861 act had many articles assessed with a specific rate as well. However, since we are speaking of the March 4th to April 12th timeframe, I’d be interested in how you arrive at a 37% "average" tariff. The ratio of duties collected to dutiable imports for FY 1861 (6/30/1860 – 6/30/1861), which was the only time period in which the pre-war Morrill tariff was collected during, was only 18.84%. After many revenue measures to finance the war were added by subsequent acts of Congress, the FY 1862 ratio climbed to 36.19%, still short of your 37% claim. But if we are considering Lincoln’s motives for holding Sumter in April, 1861, (or Davis’ motives for reducing it) then the 1862 "war tariff" rates are not relevant.
I find the idea of using Sumter for tariff collection as completely untenable. Firstly, as an island fort situated in a hostile harbor, its problems were many, from the inability to resupply itself without peril, to the ring of gun batteries with their sights set on it. Its ineffectiveness and/or unwillingness to act aggressively towards Charleston was as proven on April 12 as its inability to survive the attacks from shore, which could have gone on indefinitely.
Secondly, Anderson had already occupied Sumter throughout most of the cotton shipping season. We can logically assume that much, if not most, of the European import traffic would have entered Charleston on the same ships which hauled away the cotton. Anderson "stopped and detained" none of it. In fact its doubtful he had any realistic ability to. His only means would have been to fire on Charleston bound shipping that steamed past his wharf, giving the confederacy and their batteries more than ample "guilt-free" cause to return fire. And when we consider that this shipping was likely to be either British, French or New England, the repercussions of attacking (or sinking) this shipping would have made the Trent Affair look like small potatoes. For the pittance of revenues that could have been collected in Charleston, the Union would have assured European recognition of the Confederacy, the political condemnation by owners of US shipping, and very probably the disdain of the American public.
Thirdly, if shipping into Charleston meant paying a US tariff on top of a confederate one, shipping would have rerouted to another port. A far more efficient way for the US to control a harbor is to blockade it outside, where the Navy and revenue cutters can easily be resupplied and reorganized as needed…..and not susceptible to being reduced in a hail of shells. This makes getting the revenue collected off to a treasury far more effective than piling it inside your island fort inside a hostile harbor.
All in all, IMO Anderson’s occupation of Sumter could only serve one purpose, the very public proclamation of a Union refusal to capitulate to the demands of the rebels. And the need to clear the harbor of Union troops was just as necessary for Davis to establish the legitimacy of the confederacy. While it can be argued that either side might benefit from the actual attack of Sumter, I think the immediate cause was simply to prevent resupply and a subsequent indefinite period of Union presence in Charleston harbor. I suspect it would have been just as satisfactory to the rebels for Anderson to have surrendered the fort at Beauregard’s demands.
If collecting tariffs were the purpose for occupying the fort though, Anderson would have been looking at the slow summer months ahead, a time when the South had little to export and therefore presumably less to import.
If you believe Sumter was to be used for tariff collection, could you please explain how the bonded warehouse system would have worked, how cargoes would have been unloaded and inspected against manifests on Sumter’s one wharf, and how duties would have been assessed and collected by Anderson’s soldiers and brass band.
I find it fantastic that you advocate the idea that the Southern people were so stupid about the tariff and its effects on their economy, that Calhoun and other 'learned' Southern leaders had to spoon feed them to revolt over a 'contrived' issue of slavery. Utterly rediculous!
This theory was once advocated by a friend of mine, but then quickly recinded as it tends to make the Southern people of the time look like complete fools, WHICH THEY WERE NOT.
It makes about as much sense as the other theory that Lincoln 'tricked' Davis into firing on Ft. Sumter, making that man look like an uncontrolable fool who couldn't tie his own shoes. The stupid defense does not work, not for the tariff and not for the firing on Sumter and I know by the volume and quality of your posts that you can do much better than this lame reasoning for the war.
This is pure balderdash and right from Charles Adams and his woefully lacking book. Adams and DiLorenzo are not anybody that I would base my arguments on as they are completely bankrupt and tend to ignore, misquote or simply ignore historical fact.
I'll wait for something a bit more substansial and see how you reply to Ceaderstripper's excellent post.
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
McPherson does not refer to any plan to stop and detain ships at Sumter in an attempt to collect tariffs there, but instead refers to the ambiguity of the inaugural phrases referring to "hold, occupy and possess" and " to collect duties and imposts." McPherson does see fit to note here that Sumter had become a "symbol of national sovereignty in the very cradle of secession, a symbol that the Confederate government could not tolerate if it wished its own sovereignty to be recognized by the world." And so, while he does not insinuate that tariff collection is an issue that Sumter teters on, he does insinuate the perceived legitimacy of the confederacy is at stake.
Yes your right he does not cite the specifics of the plan, only asks/answers the plan itself was designed to do, the reason the plan was in emryonic planning because of his innugrial addresse in which he pledges to collect the taxes, the only issue he said the government would use force to do so on, to do this either ment doing it point of entry at sea, or have 000s of miles of US and CSA teritory where it could be smuggled in almost at will regulated instead. No you are not right to ignore the nexty two lines of thes ame paragraph you just qouted, and the two which start the paragraph, taken together, they are what i refered to, as McPherson asking the question How would the duties be collected, by naval vesselsstationed ofshore, and is that coercion. BCF is a short hand what you need to know, what you need to know about the of shore Tariff paln is summed up on page 263.
Much like his refecence to the constition in respect of secession, he covers the whole subject with one line, the Constion is silent on the subject, now we all know there is more to it than that, and so there is on anything you take a look at for that matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cederstripper
What is an average tariff rate, and how is it arrived at? The schedule with the most commonly imported articles was Schedule C, which was 15% in the CSA (May 21, 1861) and 28% in the Union (up from 24% under the Tariff act of 1857). Of course some articles entered at both higher and lower rates, and the USA 1861 act had many articles assessed with a specific rate as well. However, since we are speaking of the March 4th to April 12th timeframe, I’d be interested in how you arrive at a 37% "average" tariff. The ratio of duties collected to dutiable imports for FY 1861 (6/30/1860 – 6/30/1861), which was the only time period in which the pre-war Morrill tariff was collected during, was only 18.84%. After many revenue measures to finance the war were added by subsequent acts of Congress, the FY 1862 ratio climbed to 36.19%, still short of your 37% claim. But if we are considering Lincoln’s motives for holding Sumter in April, 1861, (or Davis’ motives for reducing it) then the 1862 "war tariff" rates are not relevant.
Well as im sure you know it all depends on the detail, Walker was 20%ish from 46 to adoption of Morril when you look at the big picture, and Morrill jumps to 37% for the North and about a third for the CSA when it adopts its own, so big picture you get a low 20% for decades, which was indictaive of a steady decline in overall Tarrif value over 3 pres terms, then almost a doublelling, which is a huge bone of centention to SC. The source of 37% is Frank Taussig`s Tariff History of the United States, which iirc is online.
Sorry but Morril adoption is pre Sumpter crisses, SC descion to secceded is pre Sumpter and is directly died to the adoption of the high Traiff, they said so when it was being formulated, they said so again prior to the election, if you elect lincoln we will secede, because a pres can veto it figures largely in this and a hostile Tariff negatted by a friendly pres in ok, but a hostile Tariff and hostile Pres is another matter so no my friend, the road to secesion starts with the Tariff for SC.
The problem with using modern data crunching to look at the traiff question tends to distort the question, we are better informed than they by a long shot!, and a relience on our better data ignores that the perception of the men of the time was that they were indeed the victim of sharp pratcice and usage, and had thought so under the walker Tarrif, let alone what they thought would happen under a high Tariff that was a central part of Republicinism..
On the proposed Morril Trariff, George McDuffie of South Carolina stated in the House of Representatives, "If the union of these states shall ever be severed, and their liberties subverted, historians who record these disasters will have to ascribe them to measures of this description. I do sincerely believe that neither this government, nor any free government, can exist for a quarter of a century under such a system of legislation." Thus, McDuffie noted that "because the import tariff effectively hindered Southern commerce, the relation which the Cotton States bore to the protected manufacturing States of the North was now the same as that which the colonies had once borne to Great Britain; under the current system, they had merely changed masters". (the six cotton States — South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas — had less than one-eighth of the representation in Congress, they furnished two-thirds of the exports of the country, Van Deusen, Economic Bases of Disunion), No taxation without representation.
"The whole amount of duties collected from the year 1791, to June 30, 1845, after deducting the drawbacks on foreign merchandise exported, was $927,050,097. Of this sum the slaveholding States paid $711,200,000, and the free States only $215,850,097. Had the same amount been paid by the two sections in the constitutional ratio of their federal population, the South would have paid only $394,707,917, and the North $532,342,180. Therefore, the slaveholding States paid $316,492,083 more than their just share, and the free States as much less." Muscoe Russell Hunter Garnett, The Union, Past and Future: How It Works and How to Save It. 1850, so the problem goes back in time, the perception of the imbalance was probably much greater than modern statistical methods would indicate its effect.
And this meerly echoes SC posistion "The great object of free governments is liberty. The great test of liberty in modern times, is to be free in the imposition of taxes, and the expenditure of taxes.... For a people to be free in the imposition and payment of taxes, they must lay them through their representatives."Robert Barnwell Rhett, speech delivered at Charleston, South Carolina on 20 July 1850; quoted by Van Deusen, Economic Bases of Disunion.
John Cunningham, and others at the secesion ordinaces.
The legislation of this Union has impoverished them [the Southern States] by taxation and by a diversion of the proceeds of our labor and trade to enriching Northern Cities and States. These results are not only sufficient reasons why we would prosper better out of the union but are of themselves sufficient causes of our secession. Upon the mere score of commercial prosperity, we should insist upon disunion. Let Charleston be relieved from her present constrained vassalage in trade to the North, and be made a free port and my life on it, she will at once expand into a great and controlling city.
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism."
According to Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri, "[T]he exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.... Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government." He stated that, as a result of unfair legislation, wealth flowed from the South to the North in "one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream." This economic tug-of-war had been going on between the North and South for decades and finally the sectional party which had openly avowed hostility to the South had gained control of both Congress and the White House. It should be remembered that throughout his political career, Lincoln had always identified himself as a disciple of Henry Clay in fiscal matters, and the whole country knew that upon his nomination, he had committed himself to a high tariff policy if elected President. This state of affairs sheds valuable light on why the Gulf States reacted to Lincoln's victory as they did. The complaints of the South were sometimes couched in terms of slavery and other times in terms of finances, but it is clear that self-preservation alone drove the Southern States out of the Union. In a statement issued on 25 December 1860, the South Carolina Convention summarized the South's complaint against the North as follows:
Discontent and contention have moved in the bosom of the Confederacy for the last thirty-five years. During this time, South Carolina has twice called her people together in solemn convention, to take into consideration the aggressions and unconstitutional wrongs perpetrated by the people of the North on the people of the South. These wrongs were submitted to by the people of the South, under the hope and expectation that they would be final. But these hopes and expectations have proved to be void.
The one great evil, from which all the other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution. The Government is no longer the government of a Confederate Republic, but of a consolidated democracy. It is no longer a free government, but a despotism. The Revolution of 1776 turned upon one great principle — self-government and self-taxation — the criterion of self-government.
The Southern States now stand in the same relation towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation, that our ancestors stood toward the people of Great Britain. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors, in the British Parliament, for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States, have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue — to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the people of the Northern States, but, after the taxes are collected, three-fourths of them are expended in the North.
And from Northern viewpoint, there are two works Northern/Southern Editorials on Secession;- "That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop."
And ill close with Lincoln.
when it was suggested that the provisional Government at Montgomery be allowed to continue unmolested until the seceded States could be brought back peaceably, Lincoln replied, "And open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten per cent tariff? What then, would become of my tariff?".
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Hanny says:Well as im sure you know it all depends on the detail, Walker was 20%ish from 46 to adoption of Morril when you look at the big picture, and Morrill jumps to 37% for the North and about a third for the CSA when it adopts its own, so big picture you get a low 20% for decades, which was indictaive of a steady decline in overall Tarrif value over 3 pres terms, then almost a doublelling, which is a huge bone of centention to SC. The source of 37% is Frank Taussig`s Tariff History of the United States, which iirc is online.
When the 37% rate of the Morril tarrifwas reached, the Confederacy was not paying any of it, as they were in rebellion.
Even with the South contributing 2/3 of the Exports(untaxed) , they were not paying 2/3 of the Imports. Its not very likely that a region with less than 50% of the population would be spending that much to incur a tariff costs of over 600Million. At 20% avg. rate, that would equate about 3 billion dollars.
There is already a thread on Tariffs you should read thru.
Chuck in IL.
I find it fantastic that you advocate the idea that the Southern people were so stupid about the tariff and its effects on their economy. Neil the historical record shows that 97.5 percent of Congressmen from states that would secede within a year voted against the Morrill tarrif.In your arrogance you'd lead us to believe that you are more knowledgable than the United States Congressmen of the day who's job it was to be informed and vote on these issues as to the will of the poeple they represented.They full well new the tarrif exploited the South to the benefit of the North and their vote makes their position clear.The tarrif raised the price of imported goods forcing Southerners to buy Northern goods or pay higher prices.I find it incredibly stupid to pretend paying higher for goods would somehow be better for the poeple of the South and their economy.How exactly in your book do the Southern poeple win there?Please tell me how in God's name the morrill tarrif was better for the Southern economy.I've never read where this tarrif was mentioned as a plus for the Southern economy.If I'm misunderstanding you I express my sincere apology,but I found your opening comments pure balderdash.
__________________ "The sword is mighty, but principles laugh at swords. Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is still the truth." Regards, Ashley
And yet you seem to know what was on the very same Congressman's minds when they voted while denying me the same privilege.
The fact of the matter is, I do know more than these poor souls because they are dead and do not have access to the historical material that I do and I know for a fact that if this war was more about slavery than it was about tariffs. I would sooner believe cosmic radiation effected Southern thought processes or that there was something in the water that drove them to secession before the tariff would, no matter which way they voted on the Morrill Tariff Bill.
MobileBoy, I know you need this to work, I know how much you and others would like to find any other reason for the war than the real one. But it just doesn't work for me and Hanny needed to know right off the bat how I felt on the subject. You and I and the rest of this board has been down this well-beaten path before and you know why I don't accept it. I'm getting tired reworking information and tried to cut to the chase. Until Hanny responds that he has been insulted, how about letting him decide if I am showing my 'arrogance.'
And lastly you make some claims but I see no evidence to support them. Please show evidence that the proposed Morrill Tariff raised prices for the majority of the residents of the South. Not opinion, but historical evidence. If a person did not import goods from overseas, outside the country, he did not pay the tariff, as I have been led to understand it. I would appreciate if you could produce such.
As for your comments concerning the Morrill Tariff, I know you have seen previous threads on this subject and I am very certain I made my views known there. If you find anything new, I'll be happy to set aside my arrogance and view them.
Unionblue
PS And yes, you have missunderstood.
__________________ "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
Sorry but Morril adoption is pre Sumpter crisses, SC descion to secceded is pre Sumpter and is directly died to the adoption of the high Traiff, they said so when it was being formulated, they said so again prior to the election, if you elect lincoln we will secede, because a pres can veto it figures largely in this and a hostile Tariff negatted by a friendly pres in ok, but a hostile Tariff and hostile Pres is another matter so no my friend, the road to secesion starts with the Tariff for SC.
When the Tariff of 1857 passed, things were very rosy for the US government. When Buchanan was inaugurated in 1857, the Treasury had a $1.3 million annual surplus and $28.7 million debt. By the time Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated in 1861, the Treasury had swung to a $25.2 million deficit and the debt had ballooned to $76.4 million, the largest peacetime debt the nation had ever seen.
The Buchanan administration spent money with both hands, led by the "Buchaneers" (the Buchanan political appointees). Secretary of War John B. Floyd was a noteworthy spender, and there was an uproar about political cronyism and scandals over misuse of funds. Buchanan also pushed for the expedition against the Mormons, the hoped-for purchase of Cuba, the expansion of the postal system and the use of Navy vessels to protect vessels in the slave trade, all runing up the bills. But Federal import income had dropped because of the new Tariff, never equalling a single year of Pierce's administration:
1856: $64,200,000
1858: $41,700,000
1859: $49,500,000
With spending up and income down, Buchanan turned to deficit spending to finance everything. Following the Panic of 1857, rates were up, and foreigners looked askance at the burgeoning government debt, asking and getting even higher rates.
In this situation, Buchanan asked Congress to increate the Tariff in 1859.
This, of course, is right in the middle of the worst of the pre-war sectional controversy. Soon after this, John Brown raided Harpers Ferry. Every issue became the subject of a bitter sectional debate. A log-jam developed in Congress on Tariffs, but the Congress and the Administration continued to spend. By early 1861, as Southern states voted for secession, even Northern banks were refusing to lend money to the government.
This financial disaster, largely created by the Democrats, was what existed when Lincoln arrived in Washington. The Democrats, of course, were subject to strong Southern influences.
It was this mess which brought about a higher tariff. The Morrill Tariff had licked around in Congress for a few sessions, but some higher Tariff was coming no matter what else would happen. Without one, there was a real chance of government default on the debt. That is why the House passed it in 1860, and why the Senate passed it in February 1861, and why Buchanan signed it into law immediately.
Within that, of course, there were some particularly sectional issues. Western farmers/ranchers favored high tariffs on wool, and PA iron and steel manufacturers favored high tariffs on iron and steel. NJ, always protectionist in the northeast although otherwise aligned with the South, favored high tariffs. But New England and New York manufacturers did not favor the tariff particularly, because it did little for them.
As to South Carolina, the Morrill Tariff, and secession, you need to rethink this. In the 1860 secession convention, one delegate rose and wanted the issue of the tarriff introduced into the declaration of causes of secession they were writing. The three biggest secessionists in SC all denied it was a cause; they all said the current tarriff was as low as they had asked for, and said that the delegate himself would have voted for it if he had been in Congress at the time. Rhett, Keitt, and Meminger all said it should be left out, and it was. They were content to have slavery be the only issue SC seceded on, and nothing else.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
For UnionBlue 
Linear Mode
