The same choice Buchanan faced when the Star of the West was fired upon.
WOW. Where to start. My hilite above. You left off reinforcements and delivered in warships. This was supposed to be a surprise but was found out by friends in Washington and alerted South Carolina.There were four Federal forts that had not been seized by secessionists. The garrison of Robert Anderson occupied Fort Sumter because it was on an island and hence more defensible. Food and rations were in short supply. POTUS 16 Lincoln told the South Carolina secessionists he would supply the fort with food and supplies. The South Carolina secessionists and fire-eaters, led by P.G.T. Beauregard, bombarded the fort--didn't just "fire on"--and obtained surrender because Anderson's command was out of food.
Pro-secessionist public opinion and war fever increased in slave states. In non-slave labor states, war fever increased because of the "insult to the flag" and the arrogance and treason of the secessionists. The war was on. The context of the public mood had changed since the Star of the West incident. "Time waits for no one ..."
Perhaps you are referring to the Tariff of 1857 passed by the U.S. Congress that reduced rates on imported items from the previous Walker Tariff. However, in early 1861 Congress passed a new protectionist tariff bill which substantially increased the rates on imported items compared to the Tariff of 1857.
Considering that Buchanan told the South Carolina delegation that; "It is not believed that any attempt will be made to expel the United States from this property by force; but if in this I should prove to be mistaken, the officer in command of the forts has received orders to act strictly on the defensive. In such a contingency, the responsibility for consequences would rightfully rest upon the heads of the assailants.”The same choice Buchanan faced when the Star of the West was fired upon.
Beauregard did what he was ordered to do.
Newspaper men were a curse on the south, inflaming passions.Past discussion: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/un...od-on-the-face-of-the-southern-people.106629/
Montgomery newspaper man J. G. Gilchrist: "Unless you sprinkle the blood in the face of the people of Alabama, they will be back in the old Union in less than ten days."
Beauregard probably did. Anyone would do the same thing he did if there was a war Flotilla approaching.
The Morrill Tariff Bill was signed into law by President James Buchanan in March 1861. The average tariff rate was increased from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. The new law increased tariff rates dramatically on items such as iron, textiles, and other manufactured goods in order to protect domestic industry from foreign competition. This tariff bill was reminiscent of the Tariff of Abominations which led to the nullification crisis in 1832.In early 1861? When, precisely and why was it passed? Did it have a name? What was "substantial" about the new tariff?
The Morrill Tariff Bill was signed into law by President James Buchanan in March 1861. The average tariff rate was increased from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. The new law increased tariff rates dramatically on items such as iron, textiles, and other manufactured goods in order to protect domestic industry from foreign competition. This tariff bill was reminiscent of the Tariff of Abominations which led to the nullification crisis in 1832.
The federal tariff had been a source of controversy between the North and South for decades before the Civil War. This issue is even contained in some of the secession documents of the southern states. Although, it was not as important as the slavery issue.Lets be sure of the timing of the first passage of the Morrill Tariff compared to the revisions of it after the firing on Ft. Sumter.
The initial passage of the Morrill Tariff Bill, as it was originally presented to Congress, was far different from the later revisions added to help finance a then ongoing civil war.
It's still not a cause or concern for Southern secession.
The federal tariff had been a source of controversy between the North and South for decades before the Civil War. This issue is even contained in some of the secession documents of the southern states. Although, it was not as important as the slavery issue.
Thanks for your comments but I never said the tariff caused the war but that it was only a source of controversy.The Morrill tariff was signed into law before Lincoln took office by a Democratic president. It was passed AFTER the slaveholding South seceded, therefore was not a cause of the war. The Morrill tariff was bottled up in committee by the South before it's passage and more than likely would not have been passed by the Senate had the Southern representatives had stayed and done their job. The issue contains none of the fervor and depth in ANY secession document that slavery does and it is slavery that dominates in those documents.
Not only is the tariff not as important as slavery as an issue for secession, it is feeble and almost non existent.
Type the word "tariff" in this forum's search feature and see how many times this theory has been debated, discussed, and disposed off in they many threads it is brought forth.
The Morrill tariff should not be used as some form of excuse as a political flavoring of the main dish of slavery which was the issue that brought on the war.
|Discussion Civil War---Real?....Or Fantasy piece?||Civil War History Discussion||4|
|The real gap between the two railroad systems.||Railroads & Steam Locomotives||100|
|S||Civil War Period Sponge Bucket Real or Fake||Cannons & Artillery||11|
|Anaconda plan, the superficial version vs the real version||The Naval War||39|
|Real or fake?||Uniforms & Relics||1|