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.
"Because the majority of that money was going to Northern improvements?"
Your proof, please.
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
"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%
Cedarstripper
You do not understand my post.
It has nothing to do with DiLorenzo, the Georgia Declaration of Causes or the Schedule Cs of 1846 or 1861.
Cash made these statements:
"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."
To which I replied with a list of goods that Southerners used in great abundance- clothes, shoes, iron -with a tariff of 24%.
__________________ 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."
Southern politicians were divided over the tariff issue.
...only if 39 to one can be considered "divided."
From this vote it is clear whose interest was at stake-
Morrill Tariff vote
House of Representatives
1860
....................................Yea...Nay
New England......................27- 0......(ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI)
Northeast..........................43- 2......(NY, NJ, PA)
Midwest............................26-12......(OH, IN, IL, IA, MI, MN, WI)
Border................................7-10......(DE, MD, KY, MO) South................................1-39......(11 to-be Confederate States)
Far West.............................0- 1.......(California, Oregon)
Total...............................104-64
__________________ 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."
It has nothing to do with DiLorenzo, the Georgia Declaration of Causes or the Schedule Cs of 1846 or 1861.
Yeah, I did understand your post. I thought it was a good opportunity to list the tariff rates from Schedule C of the other pertinent acts, as well as the inconsistencies with the Adams/DiLorenzo tale.
Quote:
Cash made these statements:
"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."
It was not my intention to answer for Cash. I did leave another post here that was meant to support my contention that the southern market did not buy dutiable imports, or their domestic substitutes in proportion to their population.
Quote:
To which I replied with a list of goods that Southerners used in great abundance- clothes, shoes, iron -with a tariff of 24%.
I agree with your use of Schedule C as the list to be looking at, as opposed to some BS "average tariff rate" that is generally pulled out of thin air. I disagree with many that a 24% tariff actually increases the price of the article by 24%, or that it allows domestic producers to increase their margin by the same amount. It all depends on demand for a particular item at a particular time.
But I still think its entirely on point to show that even southerners were "happy" with the 1846 tariff act with the Schedule C rate at 30%. It has already been thoroughly shown in these threads the reason why in 1860 a new tariff bill was being debated. So why are theories still entertained here that the "real" stone in the South's shoe at the election of Lincoln was that he would enforce this new act which essentially raised rates back to the 1846 level?
And how do hacks like DiLorenzo get away with writing things like the "before war was even thought of, Republicans had more than tripled the rate" garbage?
I agree with your use of Schedule C as the list to be looking at, as opposed to some BS "average tariff rate" that is generally pulled out of thin air. I disagree with many that a 24% tariff actually increases the price of the article by 24%, or that it allows domestic producers to increase their margin by the same amount. It all depends on demand for a particular item at a particular time.
Actually a 24% tariff will increase the end user price by on average 24%. The tariff quite literally acts to change the cost basis of an article sold to an end user. Remember that the merchants and trading houses aren't receiving supply and demand memos. There is constant pressure to determine what actual demand is, but nobody really knows. If the item is in demand, it will sell, and they will reorder, if not, eventually they will clear the market with discounts. Over the course of time they will stick with the winners and drop the losers.
Oh, sorry, I am well aware of the economic theory which predicts that consumers and producers may 'share' the payment of a tariff depending on the elasticity of demand for the product. Its nonsense, merchants simply take the item, apply their markup...the only reason why they begin to drop markups is if the supply of merchants themselves increases.
The fire-eater objection to tariff was the protection. And I'm not sure that I wouldn't have been in opposition as well. Prudent government would naturally extend protection to home industry as a measure for the common welfare, but it does look like there was some business dealing going on behind the scenes.
As a measure to deter British industry from overwhelming American industry, some protection makes sense. If, however, protection extends to more than 30 percent, something stinks.
However. I remain unconvinced that any tariff was a serious burr under anyone's saddle-blanket. It didn't reach down to Joe six-pack. He wanted flour, salt and sugar. He traded corn and wheat and an occasional pig for them. Maybe he made some shine and used that for cash money. Or he could come over and shoe your horse for a bag of potatoes. Or he could give you a bag of spuds if you'd come over and shoe his horse.
Underlying point: The tariff(s) affected no one to the point that a war was preferable. And I believe that very few cared all that much about your hired or owned laborer. Getting this year's bounty converted to salt and flour and sugar took way too much time. The price of a cigar or a silk dress or a pig of iron did not figure into the budget.
Bottom line: Tariffs, protective or not, did not get into the hinterlands.
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
The fire-eater objection to tariff was the protection. And I'm not sure that I wouldn't have been in opposition as well. Prudent government would naturally extend protection to home industry as a measure for the common welfare, but it does look like there was some business dealing going on behind the scenes.
As a measure to deter British industry from overwhelming American industry, some protection makes sense. If, however, protection extends to more than 30 percent, something stinks.
However. I remain unconvinced that any tariff was a serious burr under anyone's saddle-blanket. It didn't reach down to Joe six-pack. He wanted flour, salt and sugar. He traded corn and wheat and an occasional pig for them. Maybe he made some shine and used that for cash money. Or he could come over and shoe your horse for a bag of potatoes. Or he could give you a bag of spuds if you'd come over and shoe his horse.
Underlying point: The tariff(s) affected no one to the point that a war was preferable. And I believe that very few cared all that much about your hired or owned laborer. Getting this year's bounty converted to salt and flour and sugar took way too much time. The price of a cigar or a silk dress or a pig of iron did not figure into the budget.
Bottom line: Tariffs, protective or not, did not get into the hinterlands.
ole
Gee, maybe they got upset when they saw walls of blue coming over the hills, and knowing the inherent love this group had for the rights of Civilians, and others... decided to not have two enemies, but only the one! So they sided with the Home Team!
Sort of like the South during the Revolution? If they didn't join the Northern colonies against Britain, the British could not be trusted to define a difference in the people...
And during the Civil War, Unionists in the South also were
lumped in and treated as rebels, themselves...
No, I can see where they were aiming their muskets and saying, NOT HERE. DOWN THE ROAD, MAYBE. CARRY YOUR BAD SELVES ON OUTTA HEAH!
There would have been no wall of blue in the first place if the southern people had not acted as if they were a law unto themselves.
All the actions of the north were in response to the actions of the south. Without southern 'action' there would have been no Northern 'Reaction'.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
