Tariffs is money split from Secession and Civil War: Not just about money

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

8thFlorida

Sergeant
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
900
You should read a history book about this time period.

The Morrill Tariff Act didn't pass until AFTER South Carolina and the other cotton states seceded.
You should read a history book about this time period.

The Morrill Tariff Act didn't pass until AFTER South Carolina and the other cotton states seceded.
The Tariff Act of 1828.
 

StephenColbert27

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
1,376
Location
Lost, Somewhere in London
The Tariff Act of 1828.
Except that the only direct reference to Tariffs within the Southern Justifications for Secession was this one, Georgia's:
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. 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. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
Source.
 

rpkennedy

Major
Member of the Year
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
9,970
Location
Carlisle, PA
The Tariff Act of 1828.
If they were going to secede over that tariff act, why didn't they do so then? Could it be because no one would join them or that Andrew Jackson promised to hang every man who tried?

That tariff had no relevance in 1860 as several tariffs had been passed in the decades between 1828 and 1860.

Ryan
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

8thFlorida

Sergeant
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
900
Evidence, Evidence, Evidence. It would behoove you to present some, instead of making remarks like these.
Except that the only direct reference to Tariffs within the Southern Justifications for Secession was this one, Georgia's:
Except that the only direct reference to Tariffs within the Southern Justifications for Secession was this one, Georgia's:

Source.
Let's see. 1860 minus 1828 is 32 years.

So according to you, it took 32 years for them to secede because of the Tariff of 1828?

You ARE making this stuff up as you go along, aren't you? Are you a Yankee plant trying to make southerners look bad?
It's just history. That's how it built up my friend until the South couldn't handle the abuse anymore. It is well documented history that you are choosing to ignore.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Hunter

First Sergeant
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
1,037
The Tariff Act of 1828.
This is a common misconception. The Tariff of 1828 was reduced in 1832 and gradually reduced even more as a result of another law adopted in 1833. The tariff duties were increased in 1842 but decreased in 1846 and in 1857. As a consequence, the tariff was at its lowest since 1816 and was, therefore, not an issue that drove secession in 1860 or 1861.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
0
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
This is a common misconception. The Tariff of 1828 was reduced in 1832 and gradually reduced even more as a result of another law adopted in 1833. The tariff duties were increased in 1842 but decreased in 1846 and in 1857. As a consequence, the tariff was at its lowest since 1816 and was, therefore, not an issue that drove secession in 1860 or 1861.
Tariffs have been discussed extensively on CWT for example the following which show that the Southern States that seceded paid minuscule amounts of the tariffs.
This:

"In 1859 Southern ports paid 75% of those tarrifs"

is completely wrong. It is however a great example of the lost cause BS machine at work. Post #206 in this thread shows a neat graphic display of actual tariff collections for Fiscal Year 1859.

If you utilize the data from the US treasury available here you find the actual breakdown of tariff collections.

1854/55: Free states 91% / Slave states 9%, USA 94% / CSA 6%
1855/56: Free states 92% / Slave states 8%, USA 94% / CSA 6%
1856/57: Free states 89% / Slave states 11%, USA 92% / CSA 8%
1857/58: Free states 89% / Slave states 11%, USA 93% / CSA 7%
1858/59: Free states 91% / Slave states 9%, USA 94% / CSA 6%
Total 1854/59: Free states 90% / Slave states 10%, USA 93% / CSA 7%

Please use this information as you see fit when evaluating the veracity of whomever it was that said "In 1859 Southern ports paid 75% of those tarrifs"
Earlier today, Eric Calistri put up a link to an Excel spreadsheet, distributed by the Economic History Association (EH.net), that detailed gross revenues, expenses and net revenues for ports of entry around the United States in the late 1850s. To help visualize that, I've taken the gross revenue data for selected ports for FY 1859, and shown how those various ports stack up (ahem!) against one another:
8512092444_af4cb74fb3_o.png

Recall that Professor Williams said that “Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859.″ Sure doesn’t look like it to me. Tariff revenues at New Orleans are similar to those at Philadelphia, but no other Southern port comes anywhere close.
link for that eh.com reference.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

brass napoleon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Member of the Year
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
14,956
Location
Ohio
The Tariff Act of 1828.
8thFlorida, if I may suggest, don't believe everything you read from modern sources, even if it sounds right to you. Instead look at what people who were there at the time were saying. In post #206, @StephenColbert27 posted a great resource - Georgia's declaration of causes of secession, where Georgia explained their reason for seceding and explicitly disavowed tariffs ("the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.")

In fact, you might want to look at all of the Declarations of Causes of the four states that issued them:

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

You'll see that NONE of them list tariffs as a reason for secession, and all were emphatic that slavery was. It was in fact debated in the South Carolina secession convention as a philosophical point, but ultimately they decided that it would be a distraction to even mention it in their declaration:

But the Tariff is not the question which brought the people up to their present attitude. We are to give a summary of our causes to the world, but mainly to the other Southern States, whose co-action we wish, and we must not make a fight on the Tariff question.

The Whig party, thoughout all the States, have been protective Tariff men, and they cling to that old issue with all the passion incident to the pride of human opinions. Are we to go off now, when other Southern States are bringing their people up to the true mark? Are we to go off on debateable and doctrinal points? Are we to go back to the consideration of this question, of this great controversy; go back to that party's politics, around which so many passions cluster? Names are much -- associations and passions cluster around names.

I can give no better illustration than to relate an anecdote given me by a member from Louisiana. He said, after the election of Lincoln, he went to an old Whig party friend and said to him: We have been beaten -- our honor requires a dissolution of the Union. Let us see if we cannot agree together, and offered him a resolution to this effect --Resolved, That the honor of Louisiana requires her to disrupt every tie that binds her to the Federal Government. [Laughter.]

It is name, and when we come to more practicability we must consult names. Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it.


- Lawrence Keitt, South Carolina secession convention, December 22, 1860

Source: http://history.furman.edu/benson/docs/scdebate2.htm
There's a reason for that. In 1860, the total tariff collected in all U.S. ports was less than $2 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. When you consider that the tariff was the only tax revenue that the federal government collected (no income tax, no property tax), there's no way it can be considered being "taxed and tarriffed to death". Those Americans that didn't import anything paid absolutely no revenue to the federal government at all. The leaders of the South fully understood that. They weren't about to divert attention away from the 4 BILLION dollar slavery elephant by drawing attention to the 60 MILLION dollar tariff mouse.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
0
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

atlantis

First Sergeant
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
1,291
Good reply!
Reference is how opinions are judged when there are 2 conflicting ones. 2 folks post 2 conflicting things about Lee. How do we decide which is better?? By the quality of supporting evidence.
They way to decide which is better is which one supports your personal bias-I am joking.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top