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.
The tariff was applied to goods and materials most southerners didn't use.
The tariff only affects certain goods, most of which southerners didn't use.
Regards,
Cash
Tariff of 1857
Schedule C - 24%
[just a few of a long list of items-]
"Clothing, ready made, and wearing apparel of every description, of whatever material composed, made up or manufactured wholly or in part by the tailor, seamstress, or manufacturer....
Iron, in bars, bloom, bolts, loops, pigs, rods, slabs, or other form, not otherwise provided for. Castings of iron. Old or scrap iron. Vessels of cast-iron....
Manufacturers and articles of leather [shoes]....
Manufacturers of wool, or of which wool shall be the component material or chief value, not otherwise provided for...."
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
For a while there, I had figured Battalion was beginning to make sense. Then we get the above.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Essentially Battalion's thesis is that Federal support for the war is tied into ensuring collection of the tariffs and that secession is largely motivated by a desire to avoid the payment of tariffs that were not in their interest.
Now, while I do not subscribe to that theory, tariffs are, at the very least, a sectional irritant beween North and South.
Basically, the counter-arguments to Battalion's arguments is a complete refutation that tariffs were ever important to the Southerners. At that point, I feel that we go to far, because clearly from the Nullification Crisis until 1860 we consistently see Southern politicians lobby for lower tariffs, and when the Confederacy forms, it imposes duties that are indeed lower than the US Government.
Clearly South Carolina, during the Nullification Crisis, balked at higher duties. Why would they do so if their resident's per capita import consumption was negligible?
The one nice thing about discussing the Civil War is that the Southern politicians made no secret about their positions. They are clearly pro-slavery and favor low tariffs.
To respond that the Southerners weren't truly consuming imports implies that somehow the Southern politicians of the day were deluded into believing that somehow they were....this position just doesn't follow the events and frankly the economic data from the period is so sketchy: if you don't have a good GDP number for 1860, how are you going to determine per capita import consumption?
There is always discontent with taxes, in every gov't in history.The historical record is quite clear, when push came to shove, the rest of the South refused to join SC in challenging the Constitution over Tariffs.
Thirty years later, the Deep South agreed to split the Democratic Party and later, to secede, IF they did not receive a ironclad guarantee for the expansion of slavery into the territories. Tariff's proved insufficient to unify the south, but slavery did.
P.S. The North was just as agraian as the south and tariffs was probably just as unpopular as any other taxes, but there was no ground-swell to secede over it......Why?
.
Two very interesting, thoughty posts in a row. Thanks, gentlemen!
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Clearly South Carolina, during the Nullification Crisis, balked at higher duties. Why would they do so if their resident's per capita import consumption was negligible?
I have yet to find anything about the Tariff Act of 1828 that was particularly injurious to southern states, or specifically to South Carolina. Higher duties on hemp, raw wool, molasses, and the rescinding of the drawback on molasses used for exported rum all meant higher costs for northern industries. I think the Nulification Crisis was Calhoun politics. Why didn't the rest of the South fall in behind Calhoun?
Quote:
To respond that the Southerners weren't truly consuming imports implies that somehow the Southern politicians of the day were deluded into believing that somehow they were....this position just doesn't follow the events and frankly the economic data from the period is so sketchy: if you don't have a good GDP number for 1860, how are you going to determine per capita import consumption?
Some figures from the 1860 Census for your consideration:
.................................................. .North................South
Acres of improved land in farms.......105.9 million..........56.8 million
Cash value in farms......................$4,784.7 million.....$1,850.7 million
Farm implements/machinery..........$162.4 million..........$82.9 million
Value of personal property............$4,001.7 million.......$4,111.4 million*
Raw materials in manufacturing......$940.3 million........$86.5 million
Home-made manufactures.............$11.3 million.........$14.4 million
Population growth 1850 - 1860........6.06 million............1.1 million
*This figure includes the value of slaves - over $3 billion worth.
I find nothing in the above figures that indicates the South provided a comparable market for consumption of goods. They certainly didn't in machinery, iron, rail, or rope. When the value of personal property is adjusted for slaves, on average, they didn't do that well there either.
I included the first two figures on farms to again point out that the common practice of making the struggle between the "industrial" North vs the "agrarian" South is misleading.
I don't know where one would want to speculate on who bought how many manufactures of wool, cotton, and silk, but consider the population growth of the North and West during the decade of the 1850s. This growth alone (6.62 million) was more than the free population (5.58 million) of the entire South.
Cedarstripper
Last edited by cedarstripper; 02-04-2008 at 11:08 PM.
tariffs are, at the very least, a sectional irritant beween North and South.
I agree. And they were nothing more than an irritant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
Basically, the counter-arguments to Battalion's arguments is a complete refutation that tariffs were ever important to the Southerners.
I disagree. The counterargument is that tariffs weren't important enough for them to secede and go to war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
At that point, I feel that we go to far, because clearly from the Nullification Crisis until 1860 we consistently see Southern politicians lobby for lower tariffs, and when the Confederacy forms, it imposes duties that are indeed lower than the US Government.
Clearly South Carolina, during the Nullification Crisis, balked at higher duties. Why would they do so if their resident's per capita import consumption was negligible?
The Nullification Crisis involved South Carolina only. No other southern state supported them. Every other southern state was against disunion. It was after that incident that His Satanic Majesty, John C. Calhoun, began his evil mission of spreading the doctrine of disunion.
By the way, Calhoun brought about the Nullification Crisis himself. He was behind the so-called "Tariff of Abominations" in the first place, and he was using it to give slaveholding states a weapon they could use if at some future time the Federal Government actually passed laws hurting slavery.
"On January 31st, the committee [this is the House Committee on Manufactures, which is the committee that originated all tariff bills] presented a report and a draft of a tariff bill, which showed that they had determined on a new plan, and an ingenious one. What that plan was, Calhoun explained very frankly nine years later, in a speech reviewing the events of 1828 and defending the course taken by himself and his Southern fellow-members. A high-tariff bill was to be laid before the House. It was to contain not only a high general range of duties, but duties especially high on those raw materials on which New England wanted the duties to be low. It was to satisfy the protective demands of the Western and Middle States, and at the same time to be obnoxious to the New England members. The Jackson men of all shades, the protectionists from the North and the free-traders from the South, were to united in preventing any amendments; that bill, and no other, was to be voted on.
"When the final vote came, the Southern men were to turn around and vote against their own measure. The New England men, and the [John Quincy] Adams men in general, would be unable to swallow it, and would also vote against it. Combined, they would prevent its passage, even though the Jackson men from the North voted for it. The result expected was that no tariff bill at all would be passed during the session, which was the object of the Southern wing of the opposition. On the other hand, the obloquy of defeating it would be cast on the Adams party, which was the object of the Jacksonians of the North. The tariff bill would be defeated, and yet the Jackson men would be able to parade as the true 'friends of domestic industry.'
"The bill by which this ingenious solution of the difficulties of the opposition was to be reached, was reported to the House on January 31st by the committee on manufactures. To the surprise of its authors, it was eventually passed by both House and Senate, and became, with a few unessential changes, the tariff act of 1828." [F. W. Taussig, _The Tariff History of the United States,_ pp. 88-89]
So the so-called "Tariff of Abominations" was actually cowritten by His Satanic Majesty, John C. Calhoun, and his southern henchmen. A majority of New Englanders did vote against it, but not enough to prevent its passage, and the rest of the Adams party men were able to vote for it because their constituents supported it.
"The tariff of 1828 was the law of the land, and South Carolinians were the authors of its worst abominations." [William W. Freehling, _Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836,_ p. 137]
Calhoun himself discounted the tariff as the real cause of the Nullification Crisis:
"I consider the Tariff, but as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick [sic] institutions of the Southern States, and the consequent direction which that and her soil and climate have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriation in opposite relation to the majority of the Union; against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states, they must in the end be forced to rebel, or submit to have . . . their domestick [sic] institutions exhausted by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves & children reduced to wretchedness." [John C. Calhoun to Virgil Maxcy, 11 Sep 1830]
The Nullification Controversy was more about protecting slavery than anything else:
"The same doctrines 'of the general welfare' which enable the general government to tax our industry for the benefit of the industries of other sections of this Union, and to appropriate the common treasure to make roads and canals for them, would authorize the federal government to erect the peaceful standard of servile revolt, by establishing colonization offices in our State, to give the bounties for emancipation here, and transportation to Liberia afterwards. The last question follows our giving up the battle on the other two, as inevitably as light flows from the sun." [James Hamilton to John Taylor, 14 Sep 1830]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
To respond that the Southerners weren't truly consuming imports implies that somehow the Southern politicians of the day were deluded into believing that somehow they were.
No. You assume the southern politicians of the time all accepted that nonsense. They didn't. Southern politicians were divided over the tariff issue. The southern Democrats were free traders who opposed higher tariffs, not because they claimed they paid more of the tariff but because they disagreed with protectionism in general as national economic policy. Southern Whigs, on the other hand, like their Northern brethren, favored higher tariffs. See Freehling's _The Road to Disunion, Vols. 1 and 2._
The claims of disparate impact were merely propaganda and nothing more--and they knew it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
...this position just doesn't follow the events and frankly the economic data from the period is so sketchy: if you don't have a good GDP number for 1860, how are you going to determine per capita import consumption?
Why didn't the rest of the South fall in behind Calhoun?
"As late as 1846, southerners generally associated disunion with treason. Whatever attraction it may have had as an abstraction, they shrank from secession with patriotic revulsion." [David M. Potter, _The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861,_ p. 123]
William Lowndes Yancey of Alabama, in 1848, attempted to lead a walkout of southern delegates to the Democratic convention. He left with only one follower.
Even as late as 1850, "a majority of southerners, continuing to hope for safety for slavery within the Union, regarded the idea of disunion as disloyal, if not actually treasonable, and they deprecated the tactics of the fire-eaters. They usually took care to disclaim disunionist intentions, as they did at the opening of the Nashville Convention." [David M. Potter, _The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861,_ p. 105]
There is always discontent with taxes, in every gov't in history.The historical record is quite clear, when push came to shove, the rest of the South refused to join SC in challenging the Constitution over Tariffs.
Thirty years later, the Deep South agreed to split the Democratic Party and later, to secede, IF they did not receive a ironclad guarantee for the expansion of slavery into the territories. Tariff's proved insufficient to unify the south, but slavery did.
P.S. The North was just as agraian as the south and tariffs was probably just as unpopular as any other taxes, but there was no ground-swell to secede over it......Why?
.
Because the majority of that money was going for Northern improvements?
"Then the Republican Party gains power and, before anyone expects a war, more than triples the average rate...." Rewriting Economic History, Thomas DiLorenzo Tariff of 1861
Schedule C - 28%
"After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people." Georgia Declaration of Causes Tariff of 1846 ("free trade tariff")
Schedule C - 30%
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
