Discussion in 'Civil War History - Secession and Politics' started by redfish, Aug 13, 2002.
When all else fails, dump indiscriminately.
Thtas true up to 1859 and then not true.
Except that intrest bearing debt was always higher than Tariff revenue from 1859 onwards
for example tot Fed outlay in 60 63.1 million, Tot Revenue 56.1 mill, custom revenue 39.6 million, Intrest bearing debt 64.8
1861 61 66.5 mill, 41.5 mill, 39.6 mill, 90.6 mill
1862 474.8 mill, 52 mill, 49.1 mill, 365 mill
1863 714.7 112.7 mill, 69.1 mill, 708 mill
1864 865.3 mill 264.6, 102.3 mill 1360.4 mill
1865 12976.6 mill, 333.7 mill 84.3 mill, 2,219.8 mill.
Lie is a stong word, esp since you have no idea if they are delibertly attempting to decieve, , but then i except the WMD will turn up in Iraq anytime now.
It isn't surprising to see Stevens talking that way -- he was not only a politician from Pennsylvania, he was involved with several iron furnaces near Gettysburg.
The Tariff was of particular import in Pennsylvania -- where the iron business had been beaten and battered in the late 1850s by British dumping of iron products as the Panic of 1857 struck and the Crimean War ended. It was also very important in the industrial section of NJ (from about Bayonne to Paterson). Outside those two areas, the Republicans either downplayed the Morrill Tariff or talked about the raw wool tax for the most part.
If anyone wants to say that the tax on iron imports was a crucial issue in Pennsylvania in 1860, they would be right. Pennsylvania was an important battleground state in that election, and the Republicans had lost it in 1856. Campaigning there, Republicans played it up big -- and Pennsylvania's switch to Republican in 1860 was an important part of Lincoln's victory.
Elsewhere, the Tariff was not so much of an issue, but it isn't surprising to see a Pennsylvania Republican like Stevens pushing the issue wherever he went.
True, gotta sell what the audience is buying before moving onto the next audience.
Well it seems you have a pretty good handle on the revenue driven increases in the tariff from 1860 onward. Unlike the sources you've quoted.
But given that the NY Times published the correct numbers (see your own link) one wonders at your reliance on these writers that can't even get the most basic facts correct (which were obviously available, again see your own NY Times link). I think we can all notice that the pattern is for the writers you've chosen to quote (again other than the NY times) is to make all the erroneous figures erroneous in the same direction, ie higher. You sure that's just a co-incidence?
So why do you think the NY times gets the facts correct, and the other sources you seem to rely on do not? It is a simple fact that the CSA paid writers to tell lies, but whether the writers you've selected are those particular liars, we don't know for certain, we only know they are telling the same lies the CSA was paying others to write. Again co-incidence?
The tariff is a distraction from the stated cause of the American Civil War.
That issue was slavery, as stated by the seceding Southern states themselves.
Sources are what convinced people to act, with hindsight we can look at the same source and only wonder why they so acted.
Papers have always contained half truths, and exist and are directed to be bought by a target audience willing to believe the half truths.
Purdue http://personal.tcu.edu/swoodworth/Reynolds.htm summary of
And we can see they still do.
So why not just listen to what the secessionists said themselves, like Howell Cobb, first President of the Provisional Confederate Congress:
The Black Republican party had its origin in the anti-slavery feeling of the North. It assumed the form and organization of a party for the first time in the Presidential contest of 1856. The fact that it was composed of men of all previous parties, who then and still advocate principles directly antagonistic upon all other questions, except slavery, shows beyond doubt or question, that hostility to slavery, as it exists in the fifteen Southern States, was the basis of its organization and the bond of its union. Free-trade Democrats and protective-tariff Whigs; internal improvement and anti-internal improvement men; and indeed all shades of particans, united in cordial fraternity upon the isolated issue of hostility to the South, though for years they had fought each other upon all other issues. The fact is important because it illustrated the deep-rooted feeling which could thus bring together these hostile elements. It must be conceded that there was an object in view, of no ordinary interest, which could thus fraternize these incongruous elements. Besides, at the time this party was organized, there was presented no bright promise of success. All the indications of the day pointed toward their certain defeat. So deep, however, was this anti-slavery sentiment planted in their hearts, that they forgot and forgave the asperities the past, the political differences of the present, and, regardless of the almost certain defeat which the future had in store for them, cordially embraced each other in the bonds of anti-slavery hatred, preferring defeat under the banner of Abolition to success, if it had to be purchased by a recognition of the constitutional rights of the South. The party has succeeded in bringing into its organization all the abolitionists of the North, except that small band of honest fanatics who say, and say truly, that if slavery is the moral curse which the Black republicans pronounce it to be, they feel bound to dissolve their connection with it, and are therefore for a dissolution of the Union. Such I may denominate the personnel of the Black Republican party, which, by the election of Lincoln, has demonstrated its numerical majority, in every Northern State except New Jersey.
Can there be a doubt in any intelligent mind, that the object which the Black Republican party has in view is the ultimate extinction of slavery in the United States? To doubt it, is to cast the imputation of hypocracy and imbecility upon the majority of the people of every Northern State, who have stood by this party through all its trials and struggles, to its ultimate triumph in the election Lincoln.
In these declarations Mr. Lincoln has covered the entire abolition platform - hatred of slavery, disregard of judicial decisions, negro equality, and, as a matter of course, the ultimate extinction of slavery. None of these doctrines, however, are left to inference, so far as Mr. Lincoln is concerned, as we see he has avowed them in the plainest and clearest language. They are not exceeded by the boldness of Seward, the malignity of Giddings, or the infamy of Garrison. It was the knowledge of these facts which induced his nomination by the Republican party; and by the free circulation which has been given to them in the canvass, it would seem that Mr. Lincoln is indebted to their popularity for his election.
There is one dogma of this party which has been so solemnly enunciated, both by their national conventions and Mr. Lincoln that it is worth of serious consideration. I allude to the doctrine of negro equality. The stereotyped expression of the Declaration of Independence that "All men are born equal," has been perverted from its plain and truthful meaning, and made the basis of a political dogma which strikes at the very foundations of the institution of slavery. Mr. Lincoln and his party assert that this doctrine of equality applies to the negro, and necessarily there can exist no such thing as property in our equals. Upon this point both Mr. Lincoln and his party have spoken with a distinctiveness that admits of no question or equivocation. If they are right, the institution of slavery as it exists in the Southern States is in direct violation of the fundamental principles of our Government; and to say that they would not use all the powers in their hands to eradicate the evil and restore the Government to its "ancient faith," would be to write themselves down self-convicted traitors both to principle and duty.
In the election which just transpired, the Black Republicans did not hesitate to announce, defend and justify the doctrines and principles which I have attributed to them. During the progress of the canvass I obtained copies of the documents which they were circulating at the North, with a view of ascertaining the grounds upon which they were appealing to the people for their support and confidence. With the exception of a few dull speeches in favor of a protective tariff, intended for circulation in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and still fewer number of pitiful appeals for squandering the public lands, the whole canvass was conducted by the most bitter and malignant appeals to the anti-slavery sentiment of the North."
Fellow-citizens of Georgia, I have endeavored to place before you the facts of the case, in plain and unimpassioned language; and I should feel that I had done injustice to my own convictions, and been unfaithful to you, if I did not in conclusion warn you against the danger of delay and impress upon you the hopelessness of any remedy for these evils short of secession. You have to deal with a shrewd, heartless and unscrupulous enemy, who in their extremity may promise anything, but in the end will do nothing. On the 4th day of March, 1861, the Federal Government will pass into the hands of the Abolitionists. It will then cease to have the slightest claim upon either your confidence or your loyalty; and, in my honest judgment, each hour that Georgia remains thereafter a member of the Union will be an hour of degradation, to be followed by certain and speedy ruin...
- Howell Cobb, December 6, 1860
I don't think that is what the quote means. I think Stevens needed to sell the tax on iron imports, both as a Pennsylvania politician and as an iron furnace owner. He was pushing it on an audience that might not have cared much.
We can also look at certain sources, for example some of those you have provided here, and be amazed at just how completely wrong they got things.
Is that why you've posted, as you so generously put it, such "half-truths" here, you think we are a target audience willing to believe the half truths?
It would seem that for some folks, half truths are preferable to whole ones. Like this whole truth:
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
The Morrill Tariff is just another term for Henry Clay's American System. Tariffs to protect industry and raise revenue for the government to spend on internal improvements. The internal improvements to enhance the Northeast/Northwest coalition which were mainly paid for by farmers, and in particular farmers that produced exports. The end result is that the system was unsustainable, it put the money in the hands of the few and left the former industrial centers a rust heap. Industrialization destroyed the virtues of the citizenry and replaced it with degeneracy.
No, not here for that, but thanks for the insult.
However based on the number of likes you have on post that contain half truths, it seems the answer as to your willingness to acept half truths is self evident.
This is you insulting a poster who disagrees with your point of view and you get upset with a (yawn)?
And also anyone who has the audacity to agree with said poster.
From the published essay entitled, Incidental Protection: An examination of the Morrill Tariff, by Jane Flaherty at Texas A&M.
"...the Morrill Tariff did not introduce much higher incidence upon consumers. Under the Tariff of 1846, the highest average ad valorem rate of duty on free and dutiable goods reached 23.5 percent in 1854; Under the Tariff of 1857, 17.3 percent in 1858. Yet in 1861, the rate reached only 14.1 percent. Nor did the Morrill Tariff introduce protective tariff rates...As Morrill claimed, the duties imposed reflect those of the Tariff of 1846, with incidental protection on iron and wool."
"The Morrill act is often spoken of as if it were the basis of the present protective system. But this was by no means the case. The legislators who struggled to resolve the fiscal problems that arose during the Buchanan administration were not implementing a new form of 'industrial capitalism.' Rather, through the passage of the Morrill Tariff, they attempted to correct what appeared as a short-term disruption in an otherwise prosperous era. Wedded to a system of tariff financing, the options available to restore the flow of revenue into the Treasury were limited. Revising the tariff provided the most practical answer. Both Republicans and Democrats supported tariff revision, the solution urged upon Congress repeatedly by President Buchanan...The Morrill Tariff does not represent an attempt by the Republican party to establish a new economic program; instead, it represents a <u>bi-partisan</u> effort to resolve a fiscal crisis."
The following are the tables of rates for the Tariffs mentioned:
Cotton manufactures: 1846 Tariff: 25%
1857 Tariff: 19%
Morrill Tariff: 25%
Coal (Anthracite): 1846: 30%
Morrill: 18% (Ad valorem)
Iron (Scottish pig): 1846: 30%
Morrill: 28.5% (Ad valorem)
Iron (English bars): 1846: 30%
Morrill: 30% (Ad valorem)
Wine: 1846: 40%
Sugar (refined): 1846: 30%
Morrill: 26% (Ad valorem)
Tabacco (man.): 1846: 40%
Wool (raw): 1846: free
<.18/lb 1857: free
.18-24/lb 1846: 30%
Morrill: 16% (Ad valorem)
>.24/lb 1846: 30%
Note: Ad valorem is the tax assessed on the value of the goods or property, not the quantity, weight, extent, etc.
These rates are drawn from Hays Importer Guides, Hunts Merchant Magazine 44, no. 4 April 1861, The Shipping and Commercial List and New York Price Current, 47-48, January 2, 1861 - July 30, 1862.
Morrill's presentation of the/his bill is in the Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 1st Session, April 23rd, 1860, pp. 1830-1836.
To quote Ms. Flaherty from her essay; "The Senate vote on the above bill was 25-14 on February 20, 1861. The withdrawal of the Southern senators gave the Republicans a majority in the chamber. Eight Northeastern Democrats supported the measure, as well as six Border State Opposition Unionist party members. Four Republicans voted nay. Eleven Republicans who voted in favor of the Morrill Tariff also voted for the Tariff of 1857. President Buchanan who had urged passage of the Morrill Tariff in his final Annual Message, signed the bill on March 2, 1861. Thus, higher tariff rates that protected manufacturing did not constitute the sole reason Republicans favored the Morrill Tariff. As with the Tariff of 1857, the government's fiscal needs, in this case raising rather than lowering government income, inspired the call for tariff revision."
A bit of collaberation on the above essay can be found at the following web site, The Tariff History of the United States, Part I, by F.W. Taussig:
The following is an excert from the section titled Part II. Tariff Legislation, 1861-1909. Chapter 1. The War Tariff.
Starting near the last third of page 98:
"The crisis of 1857 (Everyone on the board is clear on the Panic of '57?) had caused a falling off in the revenue from duties. This was made the occasion for a reaction from the liberal policy of 1846 and 1857. In 1861 the Morrill tariff act began a change toward a higher range of duties and a stronger application of protection. The Morrill act is often spoken of as if it were the basis of the present protective system but this is by no means the case (sounds like Ms. Flaherty copied her essay from this paper, doesn't it?). The tariff act of 1861 was passed by the House of Representatives in the session of 1859-60, the session preceding the election of Abraham Lincoln. It was passed, undoubtedly, with the intention of attracting to the Republican party, at the approaching Presidential election, votes in Pennsylvania and other States that had protectionist leanings. In the Senate the tariff bill was not taken up in the same session in which it was passed in the House. Its consideration was postponed, and it was not until the next session--that of 1860-61--that it received the assent of the Senate and became law. It is clear that the Morrill tariff was carried in the House before any serious expectation of war was entertained; and it was accepted by the Senate in the session of 1861 without material change. It therefore forms no part of the financial legislation of the war, which gave rise in time to a series of measures that entirely superseded the Morrill tariff. Indeed, Mr. Morrill and the other supporters of the act of 1861 declared their intention was simply to restore the rates of 1846 (Which you can check from the tables above in this post, by the way). The important change which they proposed to make from the provisions of the tariff of 1846 was to substitute specific for <u>ad-valorem</u> duties...The most important direct changes made by the act of 1861 were in the increased duties on iron and on wool, by which it was hoped to attach to the Republican party Pennsylvania and some of the Western States. Most of the manufacturing States at this time still stood aloof from the movement toward higher rates."
"Hardly had the Morril tariff act been passed when Fort Sumter was fired on. The Civil War began. The need of additional revenue for carrying on the great struggle was immediately felt; and as early as the extra session of the summer of 1861, additional custom duties were imposed (Not with the Morril Tariff of 1861 as many wish it were, but with subsequent, additional revenue legislation AFTER the war had started)."
If anyone who wants to, you can read the rest of the paper which goes on to detail these additional war-time measures for the government to finance the war. But the Morrill Tariff is not the smoking gun some wish it to be. The facts speak for themselves.
The NY Times Washington Correspondent did express an opinion in the 3/30/1861 issue:
It is believed by intelligent men that no great difficulty will grow out of the discrepancy between the Tariff of the Union and that adopted by the rebels at Montgomery, even supposing the latter to be allowed, unobstructed, to put their revenue laws into force. It is said that goods which have not paid duties to this Government may be seized and confiscated anywhere, and as well on the line which separates the "Confederate States" from the loyal States, as on their coasts. But it would still seem to require regular Custom-houses at every point where a railroad or navigable stream crosses this dividing line, since every train and every steamer will be freighted with the foreign goods which will have entered the Southern ports at low rates of duty.
The fact is well known that the Cotton States have cheifly consumed Northern manufactures, and only a small portion of European goods. Their negro clothing, including shoes, hats and blankets, all come from the North, and will continue to come from there until Southern enterprise shall be stimulated by protection to produce the articles at home. The same is true of most of the cheap cloths worn by the people. It is not probable that the English or French will ever seriously compete with the Yankees in these coarse manufactures, and the result of the secession movement, if it is permitted to proceed unmolested, will be to raise the prices of these necessaries at the expense of the consumer, and with very little detriment to the producers. It will be a long time before the Southern manufacturer will be able to compete with the Northerner, unless the duties shall be raised to high protective rates. This of course cannot be thought of, as one of the leading inducements to secession was the enjoyment of free trade.
It may be doubted if a tax of fifteen to twenty-five per cent, upon the necessaries of life will enhance the beauties of secession to the planters, and I shall be surprised if twelve months experience fails to open their eyes to the folly of secession.
A good deal of unfounded and unreasonable misgiving as to the patriotism and fidelity of the Army has grown out of the resignation of officers. It is very desirable to Secessionists to keep up and increase this distrust, and to this end the expedient is resorted to of constantly repeating the names of those who have resigned, by which their number is made to appear formidable. But I am assured from an authentic source, that of the 460 officers of the Army, only 41 have resigned or been dismissed, and these probably include all, or nearly all, who are disaffected to the Government.
Even if Stevens said this, what matters in the flashpoint of secession is the justification the seceding states themselves gave for their actions -- and they didn't cite tariffs as a motivating factor.
And Georgia even stated that the tariff issue had been settled.
Southern states? There were numerious factions in the South that wanted and benefitted from tariffs.
Separate names with a comma.