Tariffs Forced Southern States to Secede

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Southerners feared that if the incoming Lincoln regime raised the tariff on imported goods, European countries would retaliate by raises their tariffs against the South most valuable export cotton.

It doesn't mean it wasn't a grievance, the colonial secessionists their Declaration of Independence1776 didn't mention the crown's prohibiting the seizure of Indian lands in the Ohio Valley but that doesn't mean it wasn't a major colonist grievance.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
But did "European countries" actually "retaliate by raises their tariffs against the South most valuable export cotton" at any time thru the years?
Southerners were very good at using FEAR (and not evidence) in pushing their folk to illegally secede. They (the slavocracy) had been pushing propagandic fear in the south for years, to gain what they wanted. I hope we have learned to be better than that.

Kevin Dally
Sounds like they had legitimate fears if they went to all that trouble.
 

Tin cup

Captain
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Location
Texas
Sounds like they had legitimate fears if they went to all that trouble.
People of the south seemed bent on being lead by the paranoia of the slaveocracy. The Morrill Tariff was never adopted when the South's Reps in Washington were still in office. Again, no one has shown how the "tariff" would affect the average southern household, who didn't seem to import much of anything.

Kevin Dally
 

Stratagemo

Corporal
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
"Antebellum Tariff on Cotton Textiles7793Stettler, Growth, and Fluctuations, p. 212. 4See Temin, “Industrialization of New England.”5As Table 1 indicates the Tariff of 1842 had a minimum valuation of 30 cents per yard of printed cloth and 20 cents per yard of white cloth. According to U.S. import statistics, the value of printed, stained, or colored cotton manufactures from Britain vastly exceeded that of white or uncolored cotton manufactures. See, for example, U.S. House of Representatives, “Commerce,” p. 150. typical of British products during this time.3 Taussig commented only that the minimum excluded coarser cloths; it was aimed at Asian cloth while not affecting imports from Britain. This was a deliberate strategy by Francis Lowell. As explained by his colleague, Nathan Appleton, the minimum was designed to protect the fledgling industry in New England without antagonizing Southern cotton exporters to England. Cotton growers in the South exported raw cotton to Britain, and they were opposed to any tariff that would restrict the sales of their British customers to the United States. They worried about both loss of sales and further losses due to possible British retaliation. Lowell’s tariff design shows that the sectional conflict over the tariff that would loom large at mid-century was already present at the start of New England industrialization, although in 1816 he had navigated the political shoals and crafted a tariff that did not founder on the rocks of sectionalism."4

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dirwin/docs/COTTON.PDF

If I’m not mistaken, this is saying that the tariffs introduced in 1816 were done in such a way as not to offend Southern raw material exporters and these tariffs were successful in doing so.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
People of the south seemed bent on being lead by the paranoia of the slaveocracy. The Morrill Tariff was never adopted when the South's Reps in Washington were still in office. Again, no one has shown how the "tariff" would affect the average southern household, who didn't seem to import much of anything.

Kevin Dally
Yes, of course, the North always has the best interest of the South at heart. Show your patriotism by buying Yankee shoddy goods.

Supporters of the bill came mostly from Southern and agricultural states, which tended to be export dependent and tended to support the free trade position. They were also joined by a handful of New England wool manufacturers. This constituency traditionally supported protectionism in the nineteenth century. A series of political setbacks for the protectionist movement in the early 1850s, however, prompted them to forgo protection for their own goods in exchange for reduced tariffs on their raw material imports such as Canadian wool.


According to Kenneth Stampp, the bill:


“Was possible because it did not represent a victory of one section over the other; nor did it produce a clear division between parties. Its supporters included Democrats, Republicans, and Americans; representatives of northern merchants, manufacturers, and railroad interests; and spokesmen for southern farmers and planters. Opposition came largely from two economic groups: the iron manufacturers of Pennsylvania and the wool growers of New England and the West.”


Producers from other traditional protectionist constituencies such as iron, glass, and sheep farmers opposed the bill. When the Panic of 1857 struck later that year, protectionists, led by economist Henry C. Carey, blamed the downturn on the new Tariff schedule. Though economists today reject this explanation, Carey's arguments rejuvenated the protectionist movement and prompted renewed calls for a tariff increase.


The Tariff of 1857's cuts lasted only three years. In 1861, the country changed course again under the heavily protectionist Morrill Tariff.

https://carolana.com/SC/1800s/antebellum/antebellum_tariffs.html
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
The Georgia Secession Convention approved a list of nine "indispensable amendments". Perhaps the folks defending the premise that "Tariffs forced Southern States to Secede" would care to comment on the issues Georgia raised:


That inasmuch as Georgia is resolved not to abide permanently in this Union without satisfactory guarantees of future security, the following propositions are respectfully suggested for the consideration of her Southern Confederates as the substance of what she regards indispensable amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to-wit:

1. That Congress shall have no power to abolish or prohibit slavery in the territories or any place under their exclusive jurisdiction.

2. Each State shall be bound to surrender fugitive slaves, and if any fugitive slave shall be forcibly taken or enticed from the possession of any officer legally charged therewith for the purpose of rendition, the United States shall pay the owner the value of such slave, and the county in which such rescue or enticement may occur, shall be liable to the United States for the amount so paid to be recovered by suit in the Federal Courts.

3. It shall be a penal offence definable by Congress and punishable in the Federal Courts for any person to rescue or entice, or to encourage, aid or assist others to rescue or entice any fugitive slave from any officer legally charged with the custody thereof, for the purpose of rendition.

4. Whatever is recognized as property by the Constitution of the United States shall be held to be property in the Territories of the United States, and in all places over which Congress has exclusive jurisdiction, and all kinds of
property shall be entitled to like and equal protection therein by the several departments of the general government.

5. New States formed out of territory now belonging to the United States, or which may be hereafter acquired, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery as the people thereof may determine at the time of admission.

6. Congress shall have no power to prohibit or interfere with the slave trade between the States, nor to prohibit citizens of the United States passing through, or temporarily sojourning in the District of Columbia from having with them their slaves, and carrying them away, but it shall be the duty of Congress to provide by law for the punishment of all persons who may interfere with this right in the same way as is provided for in the foregoing third proposition.

7. No State shall pass any law to prohibit the citizens of any other State travelling, or temporarily sojourning therein, from carrying their slaves and returning with them; and it shall be a penal offence, definable by Congress, and punishable by the Federal Courts, for any person to entice away, or harbor, or attempt to entice away or harbor, the slave or slaves of such citizen so travelling, or temporarily sojourning.

8. The obligation to surrender fugitives from justice as provided for under the Constitution of the United States extends, and shall be held to extend as well to fugitives charged with offences connected with or committed against slavery or slave property as to any other class of offences, and for the purposes of this proposition, whatever is defined to be a criminal offence in one State shall be deemed and held a criminal offence in every other State.

9. The Supreme Court having decided that negroes are not citizens of the United States, no person of African descent shall be permitted to vote for Federal Officers, nor to hold any office or appointment under the government of the United States.

- Georgia secession convention, adopted January 18, 1861


https://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/georgia/georgia.html pgs 17-19
 

John Fenton

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Location
retired traveling
Since slavery was a legal enterprise, protected by the constitution, where did the Northern radical faction get the idea they could nullify the law and use the government to destroy the economic situation of the Southern States?
No idea what you mean ? Why would the north want to destroy the economic situation of the southern states ?

every time the Northern States had a plurality in Congress they raised the rates with the express purpose of protection of Northern industry and allocated the funds to internal improvements in the North.
Any evidence of this after 1846 ? Can you produce numbers on the supposed discrepancy ?

So, they always benefitted at the expense of the Southern States. This is a fact of history
So you should have no trouble providing numbers .

Answer for me this;
No you answer for a change and not with your opinion but some real evidence. It’s always another question and hypothetical situation .....
 

John Fenton

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Location
retired traveling
Mike Scruggs is a writer-historian and Southern nationalist who specializes in the War Between the States--what he calls the War for Southern Independence. He currently writes for the Asheville Tribune in North Carolina.
Can’t you ever produce unbiased sources ?
Scruggs says Andersonville was the fault of Lincoln and the north. Give me a break. How can you repeat anything he has to say ?
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
From the South Carolina secession convention:

I trust that the door is now forever closed to all further connection with our Northern confederates; for what guarantees can they offer us, more strictly guarded, or under higher sanctions, than the present written compact between us? And did that sacred instrument protect us from the jealousy and aggressions of the North, commenced forty years ago, which resulted in the MIssouri Compromise?​
Did the Constitution protect us from the cupidity of the Northern people, who, for thirty-five years, have imposed the burden of supporting the General Government chiefly on the industry of the South? - from the opening speech by the president pro tempore​
Off thing to say considering the majority of the tariffs were collected in the North and the majority of the consumers paying tariff increased prices were also in the North
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
Perhaps I could help with your inquiry. The use of tariffs to protect domestic industries from foreign competition had been an important issue since tariffs were first adopted in the USA. Most of the manufacturing sector of the economy existed in the northern states. Unfortunately, southern states had suffered an undue hardship since tariffs protected northern manufacturing at the expense of the southern states. The South exported agricultural commodities and imported almost all the goods it consumed, either from abroad or from Northern states. In many cases, the southern states could import manufactured goods from abroad more cheaply. Tariffs drastically raised the cost of goods in the Southern states, while most of the tariff revenue was spent in the North.
You are ignoring the protective tariffs that were beneficial to only Southern states
 

E_just_E

Captain
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Location
Center Valley, PA
The Morrill Tariff was indeed an issue and there were several outspoken opponents of it, esp. from the States that seceded. Here is it's impact:

Link

Now whether it (or any other tariff) "Forced the Southern States to Secede", is highly debatable. Nobody "forced" anyone to secede, it was done because each State thought that it will get them an advantage over remaining in the Union. Tariffs or not.
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
"Antebellum Tariff on Cotton Textiles7793Stettler, Growth, and Fluctuations, p. 212. 4See Temin, “Industrialization of New England.”5As Table 1 indicates the Tariff of 1842 had a minimum valuation of 30 cents per yard of printed cloth and 20 cents per yard of white cloth. According to U.S. import statistics, the value of printed, stained, or colored cotton manufactures from Britain vastly exceeded that of white or uncolored cotton manufactures. See, for example, U.S. House of Representatives, “Commerce,” p. 150. typical of British products during this time.3 Taussig commented only that the minimum excluded coarser cloths; it was aimed at Asian cloth while not affecting imports from Britain. This was a deliberate strategy by Francis Lowell. As explained by his colleague, Nathan Appleton, the minimum was designed to protect the fledgling industry in New England without antagonizing Southern cotton exporters to England. Cotton growers in the South exported raw cotton to Britain, and they were opposed to any tariff that would restrict the sales of their British customers to the United States. They worried about both loss of sales and further losses due to possible British retaliation. Lowell’s tariff design shows that the sectional conflict over the tariff that would loom large at mid-century was already present at the start of New England industrialization, although in 1816 he had navigated the political shoals and crafted a tariff that did not founder on the rocks of sectionalism."4

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dirwin/docs/COTTON.PDF
Which as what to do with any nation imposing retaliatory tariffs on American cotton? Even with Egyptian and Indian cotton there was a severe shortage of cotton in Europe. We have some thread's on that.
Leftyhunter
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
The Morrill Tariff was indeed an issue and there were several outspoken opponents of it, esp. from the States that seceded. Here is it's impact:

View attachment 310413

Now whether it (or any other tariff) "Forced the Southern States to Secede", is highly debatable. Nobody "forced" anyone to secede, it was done because each State thought that it will get them an advantage over remaining in the Union. Tariffs or not.


That link doesn't seem to work for me. Can you re-post?
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
"Antebellum Tariff on Cotton Textiles7793Stettler, Growth, and Fluctuations, p. 212. 4See Temin, “Industrialization of New England.”5As Table 1 indicates the Tariff of 1842 had a minimum valuation of 30 cents per yard of printed cloth and 20 cents per yard of white cloth. According to U.S. import statistics, the value of printed, stained, or colored cotton manufactures from Britain vastly exceeded that of white or uncolored cotton manufactures. See, for example, U.S. House of Representatives, “Commerce,” p. 150. typical of British products during this time.3 Taussig commented only that the minimum excluded coarser cloths; it was aimed at Asian cloth while not affecting imports from Britain. This was a deliberate strategy by Francis Lowell. As explained by his colleague, Nathan Appleton, the minimum was designed to protect the fledgling industry in New England without antagonizing Southern cotton exporters to England. Cotton growers in the South exported raw cotton to Britain, and they were opposed to any tariff that would restrict the sales of their British customers to the United States. They worried about both loss of sales and further losses due to possible British retaliation. Lowell’s tariff design shows that the sectional conflict over the tariff that would loom large at mid-century was already present at the start of New England industrialization, although in 1816 he had navigated the political shoals and crafted a tariff that did not founder on the rocks of sectionalism."4

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dirwin/docs/COTTON.PDF
Thanks for your response and the information on U. S. tariffs.
However, that does nothing to answer the question I posed: "Were retaliatory tariffs even considered by our antebellum trading partners?" Specifically: did Britain or France consider retaliatory tariffs on imports from the United States?
 
Top