Slavery; THE Cause?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
397
Location
Mobile,Al
Cedar Stripper,

First thank you Captain Obvious do you really think I was unaware that Congress affixes tarrifs.President Jackson did sign it into law though or are you not aware he could've vetoed it.

As for your question about whether a person in Iowa paid the same for an imported product as someone from South Carolina well yes duh.If you cannot grasp the concept that an import cost more because of legislation passed by the Northern states then I pity you.At that time as you probably are aware Northeastern manufactures simply could not compete with Britsh goods.British goods were much cheaper than American goods.You're a smart fellow I know you realize this.Enough said.
What part of New England are you claiming was horribly victimized by this?As a matter of record New England voted for this tarrif.As a matter of record South Carolina voted against it.That fact should squash any nonsense comparing New England's suffering with South Carolinas.New England was unhappy about parts of the tarrif they thought benefited the Western states but they obviously didn't see enough negative in the bill to vote against it.Please name one South Carolinian who voted for the tarrif of abominations.Oh wait a minute there's not one.Unless you subscribe to the belief that New Englanders are intellectually inferior to Southerners(I'd probably like to believe this but unfortunately I know better) why would they vote for a tarrif devastating their state?Could it possibly be because they thought the good outweighed the bad?Yes South Carolina cried the loudest and with good darn reason.Following is what I believe to be an objective summary of the tarrif of abominations.This source is not neo-Confederate in nature.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Tariff of Abominations)
The Tariff of 1828, also known as the Tariff of Abominations, was a protective tariff passed by the U.S. Congress in 1828.
The goal of the tariff was to protect industry in the northern United States from competing European goods by causing the prices of those goods to rise. The system of tariffs was triggered after end of the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars, when a recession in Europe led British manufacturers to offer to sell goods in America at prices American manufacturers often could not match.
The first protective tariff was passed by Congress in 1816, and was increased in 1824, and again in 1828 by the Tariff of Abominations, a name given by the bill's Southern opponents. President John Quincy Adams signed the tariff, although he realized it would be used to discredit him politically. In the 1828 election, Andrew Jackson defeated Adams.
John C. Calhoun was Jackson's vice president at the time. He was a South Carolinian, and thus strongly against the tariff. Faced with a reduced market for goods, the British reduced their imports of cotton, which hurt the South. Thus, not only did the tariff force the South to buy manufactured goods at a higher price, but they also faced a reduced income from sales of raw materials. This inspired Calhoun to attempt nullification of the tariff within South Carolina. He authored the South Carolina Exposition and Protest in response and would later participate in the Nullification Crisis in 1832.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1828"


Have a good weekend cedarstripper.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
MobileBoy said:
It is a common known fact that South Carolina feared becoming poor due to the tarrif.
Nope. It's a commonly held belief, due to misinformation spread by charlatans like Thomas DiLorenzo and Charles Adams or well-meaning but misled folks like the SCV [An organization I consider does the Lord's work when they are honoring soldiers, but unfortunately is way off when they try to teach history].

Check out Cedarstripper's Post #579 in this thread. He saved me the trouble of finding that excerpt from Taussig's history of the tariff of the United States. It shows emphatically that Calhoun himself and his cronies were the ones who actually designed the 1828 tariff and tried to make it as odious as possible to the New England states. They never dreamed it would pass, but it did pass. South Carolina didn't fear becoming poor due to the tariff. The opposition to the tariff was driven, as I showed, by the desire to protect slavery, because they believed the same power that enabled Congress to lay the tariff and to provide for the common welfare by spending on internal improvements could be used to abolish slavery.



MobileBoy said:
Calhoun wasn't always a supporter of state's rights he changed his views as I'm well aware and most literate Southerners are.
He changed his views because he saw a threat to slavery and looked to state rights as the way to preserve slavery by interposing the power of the state against the Federal government.


MobileBoy said:
Why did Andrew Jackson lower the tarrif if he didn't want to give some relief to the Southern states.
Andrew Jackson didn't have the power to lower the tariff. Cedarstripper is exactly right that Congress, not the President, sets the tariff rates.


MobileBoy said:
Let me guess the fact that the tarrif was reduced is irrelevant to you because in your mind it wasn't an issue.
You might want to give up your dream of becoming a mindreader. :smile:

The fact that the tariff was reduced is not irrelevant. As I showed when I quoted Lawrence Keitt, the extreme state rights advocates saw that they could get the Federal government to back down, and this was an important step along the way to the Civil War. The issue of the tariff was the pretext for the test of the extreme state rights position, but the Federal government acted to remedy what was being complained about. The real issue, the protection of slavery, though, remained. This was a manufactured crisis from beginning to end.


MobileBoy said:
How can you call John Calhoun the devil.I guess to you a politician representing the interest of the state he was elected from is satanic.
There you go trying to read minds again when it would be more instructive to read the actual history.

Calhoun manufactured a crisis in 1828 in order to develop his extreme state rights theory for the purpose of protecting and perpetuating the institution of slavery, keeping human beings in bondage. That's enough to make him a devil. But he spread his heresy and it eventually led to a bloody war that cost over 600,000 American lives. That places him at Lucifer's right hand.




MobileBoy said:
How many South Carolinians voted for the tarrif of abominations.Please put that up.There's no way the majority of them casted a positive vote for it.That my friend is fact that they did not.
None. That was their plan. See the excerpt from Taussig provided by Cedarstripper. The plan was to craft the bill but vote against it. As William Freehling told us, "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]

But then, none from Maine voted for it either. 11 of 13 House of Representatives members from Massachusetts voted against it. New England as a whole voted against it 23-16 in the House. Nobody from New England, especially Maine and Massachusetts, said anything about nullifying the tariff.



MobileBoy said:
So to pretend that the tarrif had no impact on South Carolina's decision to secede is really not worth discussing further.
-----------------------
Not pretending at all. It's a historical fact proven by the record. The South Carolinians were the ones who crafted the 1828 Tariff. His Satanic Majesty, John C. Calhoun, manufactured the nullification crisis from the start. If you're not willing to be educated in the real history of events, that's not my problem. But I highly recommend you read William W. Freehling's book, Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836. It is the real history behind the crisis, not the falsities from the charlatans and the deluded.




MobileBoy said:
I love how you quote saying South Carolinians were the authors of some of its worst abominations.What were they the authors of ?You leave that out.
-------------------
See the excerpt from Taussig provided by Cedarstripper. I can't help it if you haven't read the basic history of the 1828 tariff.




MobileBoy said:
That quote is totally irrelevant because South Carolina didn't support the tarrif.That is fact noone can contradict.
-----------------------
That was their plan. They wrote it, then voted against it.

Regards,
Cash
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
MobileBoy said:
As for your question about whether a person in Iowa paid the same for an imported product as someone from South Carolina well yes duh.If you cannot grasp the concept that an import cost more because of legislation passed by the Northern states then I pity you.
This remark is uncalled for. And an import that is not dutiable does not cost more because of the tariff. And it wasn't passed by the Northern states.



MobileBoy said:
At that time as you probably are aware Northeastern manufactures simply could not compete with Britsh goods.British goods were much cheaper than American goods.
Actually, that's not true. British goods were not on the whole cheaper than American goods. We have several instances of southerners saying how Northern goods were very cheap to buy.



MobileBoy said:
What part of New England are you claiming was horribly victimized by this?As a matter of record New England voted for this tarrif.
Now you are showing that you are completely unfamiliar with the history surrounding this tariff. If you're not going to bother to do the basic research you're going to make yourself look bad every time. As a matter of record, New England voted AGAINST this tariff in the House of Representatives. In the Senate it was a bare majority of 6-5 for the tariff, with one not voting. So the actual record is the OPPOSITE of what you assumed it was. See the House Journal for 22 Apr 1828 and the Senate Journal for 13 May 1828.

If you haven't read Taussig on this, if you haven't looked at the voting or the debate on this, and if you haven't read Freehling on this, then you just don't have the background.



MobileBoy said:
This source is not neo-Confederate in nature.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
---------------
It might as well be, because it's not a credible source. Or have you not bothered to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
[begin quote]
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups who are developing a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection and World Wide Web browser to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise necessary to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.


No formal peer review
We are working on ways to select and highlight reliable versions of articles. Our active community of editors uses tools such as the Special:Recentchanges and Special:Newpages feeds to monitor new and changing content. However, Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever. Even articles that have been vetted by informal peer review or featured article processes may later have been edited inappropriately, just before you view them.

None of the authors, contributors, sponsors, administrators, sysops, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages.
[end quote]

Regards,
Cash
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
566
Cash:

OK. I get it now. "His Satanic Majesty" was a sobriquet. I have a (sometime bad) tendency to take words literal. Just wished to clarify. Thanks.

Regards,
Rob Adams
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
Alabaman said:
Cash:

OK. I get it now. "His Satanic Majesty" was a sobriquet. I have a (sometime bad) tendency to take words literal. Just wished to clarify. Thanks.

Regards,
Rob Adams
------

It's my own little sobriquet for him. :smile:

Have a good weekend, Rob. Fair warning, I'll be spending tomorrow in the library doing research. [insert evil grin here]

Regards,
Cash
 

cedarstripper

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
1,275
Location
western New York
First thank you Captain Obvious do you really think I was unaware that Congress affixes tarrifs.President Jackson did sign it into law though or are you not aware he could've vetoed it.
If you want to descend into rudeness, I've got better things to do. The fact is, you wrote this: "Why did Andrew Jackson lower the tarrif if he didn't want to give some relief to the Southern states." You make no mention of the intent of Congress - only 'why did Jackson do this if he didn't want to give that," as if he were flying solo. It's sloppy - kinda like when someone claims that tariffs were put in place by northern industrialists.
If you cannot grasp the concept that an import cost more because of legislation passed by the Northern states then I pity you.
It all depends. Are you familiar with "elasticity"? But lets go with the case of a revenue tariff with no domestic substitution - how about coffee. How does the duty added to coffee inspire the deep southern states to secede, and not any other states?

I'm curious...what do you think most tariff revenues were raised on?
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
397
Location
Mobile,Al
Hey cedarstripper ,
To me that was being Captain Obvious in a big way to tell me that Congress affixes tarrifs.No I didn't mention Congress because I assumed that every member on this forum knew their role considering we're all high school graduates.Andrew Jackson is generally credited by historians as having a major part in getting the tarrif lowered.I do aplogize for being rude.I could have left the Captain Obvious reference out.

Maybe you and I are not on the same page with what we're discussing on the tarrif issue.So I'm going to try to clear that up.I don't think the Confederate states seceded over tarrifs.I do think Southerners were aware of the tarrif and how it benefited the North.I don't think the Northern politicians were evil but I think they were well aware the tarrifs benefited the North more than the South.They represented the interest of the areas where they were elected from so I don't condemn them as demons for what they did.I do recognize the fact as do most historians that this tarrif was voted through by the North to the detriment of Southerners.I feel like you try to pretend that the tarrif wasn't beneficial to the North and detrimental to the South.Like pretending New England was just as bad as South Carolina and that South Carolina only cried the loudest.Yet you didn't object when I told you that New England voted for the tarrif of abominations and not one South Carolinian did.Maybe I'm wrong and you weren't trying to persuade me to believe that somehow you have more knowledge of the tarrif issue than my college professors,99% historians who have reported on the issue, and 99% of all American college students who have ever taken American history.You are obviously an intelligent fellow but sometimes when poeple say the sky is blue it is.

Have a good one
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,452
Location
Near Kankakee
MobileBoy. In your post #587, you concluded with:

"Maybe I'm wrong and you weren't trying to persuade me to believe that somehow you have more knowledge of the tarrif issue than my college professors,99% historians who have reported on the issue, and 99% of all American college students who have ever taken American history."

You will need to back up those numbers. When one can't see the forest because the trees are in the way, others might question their perception. How many college professors did you have that discussed the tariff/WBTS argument? Which historians do you include in your 99 percent. And how many of all American History college students do you know?

It may be that tariff revenue benefitted the North more than the South, but you've submitted no evidence backing that contention. As the South held congressional power during most of the period in question, why didn't it dip its fingers into the pot?

Regards,
Ole
 
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
534
Location
San Antonio, Texas
If slavery was not THE CAUSE of the WBTS, then it was the leading candidate. It would have been followed (in my opinion) by Southern fears over the loss of political power in Washington as well as the Tariff question (asserted by Jeff Davis in his book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government).

Slavery was dying in the early 1800s until the invetion of the cotton gin, making that labor intensive crop more profitable.

I have a theory that slavery would have started to finally die out in the 1870s without the intervention of the WBTS. I think most Southerners forsaw the end of slavery but wanted to be in control of it, not having it forced on them by the point of Northern bayonets.
 
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
371
Location
upper E. Tennessee
FSPowers said:
If slavery was not THE CAUSE of the WBTS, then it was the leading candidate. It would have been followed (in my opinion) by Southern fears over the loss of political power in Washington as well as the Tariff question (asserted by Jeff Davis in his book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government).

Slavery was dying in the early 1800s until the invetion of the cotton gin, making that labor intensive crop more profitable.

I have a theory that slavery would have started to finally die out in the 1870s without the intervention of the WBTS. I think most Southerners forsaw the end of slavery but wanted to be in control of it, not havivg it forced on them by the point of Northern bayonets.


My way of thinking too. Slavery was on the way out. Northern "liberals", then, as now, sought to impose their beliefs and lifestyle on the South, and the South resented it. Odd how the political map still closely resembles the map of the divided states during the War. Just my opinion. No offense to anyone. :shrug:


John W.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
397
Location
Mobile,Al
Hey Ole,
I had three professors in undergraduate and three different professors in graduate school.They all had the same view of the tarrif as I did.Three of those professors were born in the North.I must say though that one of them really led me to appreciate and love the "iron brigade".Ole reguarding the tarrif of abominations the majority of the South didn't vote for it where I've yet to find one Northern state that didn't.Where do you get that the South held Congressional power?From this tarrif on the members of Congress of the Northern states always outnumbered the representatives of the Southern states.I haven't polled every college history student obviously , but I've never heard anyone assert that the tarrif was a blessing for the Southern states.Name one historian who believes the tarrif of abominations benefited the South.There's not one I've ever read out there and I read a lot. Sorry for sounding rude Ole but I've wasted enough of my time arguing what every knowledgable history student realizes is fact.Some things are debatable such as "What if Stonewall had lived?" but the tarrif of abominations isn't as to who voted for it and who benefited from it.That proof thing is also ridiculous.I guess all the books which mention the subject were written by mentally retarded individuals.If new evidence comes to light then question accounts of history,but there's no evidence that those historians were wrong.Ole prove to me you're not an alien who has taken over your body.You couldn't prove that but of course an alien is not living inside you.Am I wrong to respect the opinions and views of past historians from both the North and South?Call any university in America and find a professor who'll go on record and say the tarrif of abominations was voted for in the South,benefited the South, and wasn't pushed through by the North.You won't find one because history professors normally aren't total lunatics.If you find one I'll forward his information to the dean of the education department of my alma mater so he can contact his university.There's no way Ole someone would be allowed to teach such nonsense.Nor have I heard about someone teaching such nonsense have you?

Have a good one
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
397
Location
Mobile,Al
Hey guys,
I agree that slavery would have been long gone by now but I'm not sure when.I think the major problem in freeing the slaves is what do we do with them once they are free.Southerners then as now resent having issues concerning their personal life decided by the government.It's more than a little odd to look at the map before the war and to look at our political map now.I guess reconstruction didn't change our views the way it was intended too.
 
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
534
Location
San Antonio, Texas
A few years back I read Burke Davis' Gray Fox and if I read it correctly, Robert E. Lee advocated schools for the freed slaves to teach them how to function in society. I don't know how true that is.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
MobileBoy said:
reguarding the tarrif of abominations the majority of the South didn't vote for it where I've yet to find one Northern state that didn't.

Then you haven't looked. Maine had 7 representatives. All 7 voted against it. Massachusetts had 13 representatives. 11 voted against it. Rhode Island was split, with one of its two representatives voting for it and one against it.

In the Senate, Maine's two senators both voted against it. New Hampshire had one senator vote against it and the other was not present for the vote. Massachusetts was split, one voting for it and one against it. Rhode Island split again, one senator for, one against.

In total, New England as a region voted against it, with 23 of 39 representatives voting against it. Sixteen southern representatives voted for it, as opposed to 65 who voted against it. The real support for the tariff was in the Middle States and in the West. Together they favored it by 73-6, with those 6 votes against coming from New York.

Regards,
Cash
 

johan_steele

Regimental Armorer
Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
14,774
Location
South of the North 40
Mr Powers, Lee did indeed support schools for the black man.

Slavery in the South increased considerably after the Cotton Gin. It would have taken a agricultural disaster of biblical proportions to usher slavery out of the South. Just note the violent reeption any kind of abolitionist thought received...

As to the current political map not falling far from the tree of 1860. I think the modern midwestern & western states fall far closer to the Union than the CS. The south has matured a lot as has the rest of the country. THe last vestiges of slavery are dieing. Everyone seems to forget that the Union encomposed far more than just the Northeast... Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota made their mark.

Mobile Boy... I have never run across an accreditated History Professor or History Teacher who credits the Tarriff issue as being the driving force behind the CW. It's nothing more than so much chaff and wishful thinking. THis thread has gone a long way to proving that the Tariff issue is little more than wind and smoke perpetrated by the Lost Cause. I suggest you also take a good hard look at the entire thread as well as the Tarriff thread.
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,452
Location
Near Kankakee
MobileBoy:
Too many questions, not enough answers. Well, let's get started. From your earlier post:

"I had three professors in undergraduate and three different professors in graduate school.They all had the same view of the tarrif as I did."

And that view was that tariffs, 'though not primary, were a significant cause for some states to secede. Am I correct.? So your history professors and you believe that tariffs had more significance than do I, those you are tilting with, and a rather larger number of published professors and historians believe. OK. Taking a poll would be something I'd certainly not to volunteer for, so we can at least agree that at least some secessionist resentment was based partially on a 30-year-old tariff.

"Where do you get that the South held Congressional power?"

From this very forum. You will find a wealth of information in posts not yet a year old.

"From this tarrif on the members of Congress of the Northern states always outnumbered the representatives of the Southern states. [space inserted]I haven't polled every college history student obviously , but I've never heard anyone assert that the tarrif was a blessing for the Southern states."

To my recollection, no one ever said it was a blessing, just that it wasn't a significant cause of secession until the "Lost Causers" tried to delete slavery from history.

"Sorry for sounding rude Ole but I've wasted enough of my time arguing what every knowledgable history student realizes is fact.Some things are debatable such as "What if Stonewall had lived?" but the tarrif of abominations isn't as to who voted for it and who benefited from it."

Every knowledgable history student. Does this include Davis, Freehling, Nevins, Foote, Gallagher, McPherson, Foner, McWhiney -- to name a very few? Or do you include the Kennedy brothers, DiLorenzo, Rutherford -- to name fewer? Or are you saying that the 1828 tariff by itself was an abomination and 30 years later became a cause for secessionists?

'Ole, [comma inserted] prove to me you're not an alien who has taken over your body.You couldn't prove that but of course an alien is not living inside you. [space inserted]Am I wrong to respect the opinions and views of past historians from both the North and South?

OK. I get it. You're being playful, aren't you? You seem fixated on the Tariff of Abominations and the idea that it was beneficial to the south. No one I know argues that the tariff was benign for ALL the south, or that it was malignant for ALL the south or that it BENEFITTED the south in any way. It was, referring the the American Dictionary of Captain Obvious, a misguided idea and was tempered by later tariffs.

You aren't arguing, are you, that tariffs of one sort or another weren't necessary to raise the revenue required to run a Federal Government? I didn't think so. So Congress fumbled around from time to time trying to raise revenue and not offend anyone. Occasionally, a protectionist clause was inserted. As I said, fumbling.

"Some things are debatable such as "What if Stonewall had lived?" but the tarrif of abominations isn't as to who voted for it and who benefited from it.That proof thing is also ridiculous.I guess all the books which mention the subject were written by mentally retarded individuals."

Sorry. This one is out of sequence. "What ifs" are not debatable. They are amusing speculations of occasional value. Books are not written by mentally retarded individuals (whoops, should say "mentally challenged"). They can however, be written by individuals who have a personal agenda to make history appear as they wish it to appear. Some of these actually get published, and some sell.

"Call any university in America and find a professor who'll go on record and say the tarrif of abominations was voted for in the South,benefited the South, and wasn't pushed through by the North."

Slow down. I don't recall anyone saying that that tariff benefitted the South -- or that the South voted for it -- or that the Northwest and West didn't push it through.
Windmills are starting to appear in you tilting yard.

In the end, we're using up all kinds of megs arguing about different things. The base: were tariffs or, more specifically, the Tariff of Abominations, an important cause of secession? I maintain that there was some residual resentment among the older secession-promoters, but most of the hoohah began among the post bellum "lost causers."

So. There we are. Anyone up for a shot and a beer?
Ole
 

cedarstripper

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
1,275
Location
western New York
The items that tariffs were added to by the tariff act of May 19, 1828:
iron - in pigs, bars, bolts,....
iron/steel wire
axes, adzes, shovels spades, drawing knives, cutting knives, etc.
lead - in pigs, bars, pipes, sheets,....
wool - unmanufactured
manufactures of wool
carpets, floor cloths, oil cloth
hemp - unmanufactured
flax - unmanufactured
sail duck
molasses
distilled spirits
manufactures of silk
indigo
window glass
roofing slates
cotton cloths

I suspect the most infamous attribute of the "Tariff of Abominations" is the dramatic named given it from the soapbox by the dramatic Calhoun.

Some may see a duty on iron and say "Aha......New England plundering the South", yet iron consumtion was far higher outside the South, especially the deep South. So who was it that was mostly burdened by any increase in iron prices due to a tariff? Not Southerners.

They might see duties on cotton cloth or woolen manufactures and say "There's those northern industrialists keeping the South poor," yet there were far more citizens buying cotton cloth and woolen manufactures (both domestic and imported) outside the South who had no connection with New England textile mills. To boot, they choose to ignore the raw materials cost of the textile industry, remembering that duties on raw wool and a southern monopoly on cotton could only cause their costs to rise. And is it not conceded that American and British competition in the cotton textile industry could only support the raw cotton market? Maybe they wouldn't have felt left out if there had been a 1000% import duty on raw cotton - it wouldn't have made $1 of difference....there was none being imported. The South didn't have to worry about developing a strong home market for raw cotton - they had a natural monopoly.

They may see the duty on distilled spirits and conjur images of fat and happy Boston rum makers, but then deny the protectionism given sugar growers on the molasses used to make that rum. Are we to forget how absolutley filthy rich LA sugar growers were? (or SC rice growers)

They may note the burden placed on farmers and planters who are forced to pay more for a shovel or other farm implements, yet forget that the southern farmers only owned 1/3 the value of farm implements in the US. So why should we think a Georgia farmer was any more upset by this than an Iowa farmer?

I reject the idea that the 1828 tariff had anything at all to do with sectional animosity in 1860, other than provide a worn in (or worn out) excuse for South Carolinian windbags to use to divert attention from their real world problems.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
397
Location
Mobile,Al
Hey Ole,
I agree with basically everything you said.My professors held as do I that slavery was the primary cause of secession.They also held your view and mine summed up in your final paragraph.I didn't realize anyone believed I felt differently.I do think the tarrif was an issue that contributed to sectionalism as I've stated.I never ranked its importance in leading to secession in 1861.I did say without the tarrif of 1828 South Carolina doesn't secede in in 1832 because Calhoun would have had no excuse to test his nullification theory.I never put extra emphasis on the importance of the tarrif , but I did recognize it as a sore spot with "some" Southerners.I felt like not you but others were bringing up issues in an attempt to mislead me and pretend the tarrif wasn't a bad thing for the South etch...Maybe I got that wrong though.I know I never heard Cash or Cedarstripper say that the tarrif of abominations was pushed through by Northerners to the detriment of the South.No they didn't say that.They lay blame of the tarrif on South Carolinians as authors and mention how it affected poor old New England etch.. . and provide other arguments off of my main point.There is a lot of "Lost Cause" stuff out there for sure but I take it with a grain of salt.I don't believe those authors you mentioned claimed that the 1828 tarrif was not for the benefit of the North,voted in by the North,and had more benefits to the North than the South.That is my position on the issue and the position of most educators(all educators I've heard of)If someone feels what I said in the previous sentence is incorrect then they and you(if you're saying that)are wrong.Yes Ole I recognize that the tarrif generated revenue for the governmentand was necessary to some degree.I said I never considered the politicians who passed the tarrif evil.I don't look down on them at all.I never made any critical remarks whatsoever about those members of Congress who voted in favor of the tarrif.I just maintain that the tarrif hurt the South and benefited the North.again Cedarstripper nor Cash ever said that.They just as I said "danced around the issue"as I've touched on earlier.I had close to 100 various books on the Civil War and never read one where my position on the tarrif was disagreed with.By the way Katrina wiped out my library with 5 feet of water and sewage so if anyone wants to donate old books I'd put them to good use.My position and your position are basically the same Ole.I'm not sure why you thought otherwise but maybe through my rambling I wasn't clear enough.I did keep specifically mentioning my basic premise on the tarrif issue.I don't believe those historians you mentioned disgree with my position on the tarrif issue and I know 2 of them don't.But like I said I don't think you understood my position clearly through my counter-arguments to the ideas put forth by my Northern friends.

Thanks Ole for your response.
 

cedarstripper

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
1,275
Location
western New York
Mr. Powers:
If slavery was not THE CAUSE of the WBTS, then it was the leading candidate. It would have been followed (in my opinion) by Southern fears over the loss of political power in Washington as well as the Tariff question (asserted by Jeff Davis in his book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government).
Specifically, in what areas other than the maintenance or expansion of slavery do you think the South would have become a minority voice in? In spite of all the claims of cultural incompatibilities, etc., it seems to me that slavery was really the sole commonality that necessitated the solidarity of political will in the South. No other region of the US enjoyed this political bloc that the South had. When the issues of slavery and freesoilism are removed, didn't the Midwest and West still have more in common with the South than with the Northeast?

I have a theory that slavery would have started to finally die out in the 1870s without the intervention of the WBTS. I think most Southerners forsaw the end of slavery but wanted to be in control of it, not having it forced on them by the point of Northern bayonets.
I take it you do not theorize emancipation or any type of state mandated prohibition against human slavery, but instead just a gradual replacement of it, where advantageous, with wage labor. In this theory, what do you think then would have become the demise of the negro? Would he have become the non-citizen, naturally inferior resident laborer for the South, or would he have been pushed out of the South (except for wherever he was still being held in slavery)?
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
MobileBoy said:
I never heard Cash or Cedarstripper say that the tarrif of abominations was pushed through by Northerners to the detriment of the South.No they didn't say that.They lay blame of the tarrif on South Carolinians as authors and mention how it affected poor old New England etch.. . and provide other arguments off of my main point.
------------------
The South Carolinians authored the worst parts of the 1828 tariff, as shown by the excerpt posted from Taussig's authoritative history of the tariff in the United States. During the congressional debate several amendments were proposed to reduce the effects of the tariff. The South Carolinians led the way each time to defeat all these amendments aimed at softening the tariff.

Let's revisit what Taussig told us:

"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 unite 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 Adams men in general, would be unable to swallow it, and would 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.'" [F. W. Taussig, The Tariff History of the United States, pp. 88-89]

Taussig continues:

"The bill, in fact, was ingeniously framed with the intention of circumventing the Adams men, especially those from New England. The heavy duties on iron, hemp, flax and wool were bitter pills for them. The new dollar minimum took the life out of their scheme of duties on woollen goods. The molasses and sail-duck duties, and the refusal of drawbacks on rum and duck, were undisguised blows at New England. At the same time, some of these very features, especially the hemp, wool, and iron duties, served to make the bill popular in the Western and Middle States, and made opposition to it awkward for the Adams men. The whole scheme was a characteristic product of the politicians who were then becoming prominent as the leaders of the Democracy, men of a type very different from the statesmen of the preceding generation. Clay informs us that it was one of the many devices that had their origin in the fertile brain of Van Buren. Calhoun said in 1837 that the compact between the Southern members and the Jackson leaders had come about mainly through Silas Wright and Wright made no denial. The result of this curious complication of wishes and motives was seen when the tariff bill was finally taken up in the House in March. Mallary, as chairman of the committee on manufactures, introduced and explained the bill. Being an Adams man, he was of course opposed to it, and moved to amend by inserting the scheme of the Harrisburg convention. The amendment was rejected by decisive votes, 102 to 75 in committee of the whole, and 114 to 80 in the House. The majority which defeated the amendment was composed of all the Southern members, and of the Jackson members from the North, chiefly from New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky. The minority consisted almost exclusively of friends of the administration. Mallary then moved to substitute that part only of the Harrisburg convention scheme which fixed the duties on wool and woollens; that is, the original minimum scheme, with a uniform duty of forty per cent. on wool. This too was rejected, but by a narrow vote, 98 to 97. The Jackson men permitted only one change of any moment: they reduced the specific duty on raw wool from seven cents, the point fixed by the committee, to four cents, the ad valorem rate remaining at 40 per cent. The duty on molasses was retained, by the same combination that refused to accept the Harrisburg scheme. The Southern members openly said that they meant to make the tariff so bitter a pill that no New England member would be able to swallow it." [Ibid., pp. 95-97]

The South Carolinians wrote the worst parts of the bill, and they had planned to vote against it from the start. Your assertion that it was forced by "the North" fails unless you consider the West to be part of "the North." New England as a region voted against the measure.

What all this shows is that the entire crisis was manufactured, from start to finish, by His Satanic Majesty, John C. Calhoun. He provided the doctrine to be used by South Carolina against the measure, and he provided the tariff measure itself.

Regards,
Cash
 
Status
Not open for further replies.



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top