Two Reasons for Secession from the Union

CW Buff

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Location
Connecticut
The point that Calhoun was making was that if the federal government could use the threat of force to make the Southern States abide by a tax policy they saw as fundamentally against their interests, that all of their interests were therefore under threat if the rest of the Union was against any of them, including slavery. The tariff complaints and problems were very real, with the conflict over the tariff making it clear that there were wider implications if the reserved rights of the States could not protect them from a majority in the Union.
The problem is you're just accepting whatever Calhoun says at face value. Even when he's being relatively honest, he's engaged in a heavy dose of obfuscation. What Southern interests besides slavery did Calhoun specifically refer to? The purpose of some vague reference to all their other interests is rather obvious. And its the same purpose that the positive good slavery theory served. Slavery, a recognized evil, would be very difficult to defend. Which is what nullification and secession 1828-1832 were actually focused on. Set a precedent with a tariff, which is easier to attack on moral grounds than slavery, and which as we know Calhoun himself had helped make as abominable as possible, and it's there if and when you need it to preserve slavery. Why was he originally a proponent of the American System? This is the guy now arguing that protectionism is unconstitutional. And why did he flip when he did? Just as abolitionism was becoming radical. And the fact is the states had not reserved the rights Calhoun supposed they had. How could the states reserve unilateral powers over a supreme national government that did not previously exist? If they thought they had constitutional arguments, they would have pursued them via the courts.

Not only is Calhoun's concern slavery, and only slavery, but slavery was not directly threatened by tariffs/taxation. The population of slaves in the US steadily progressed (Source), AND the average value of slaves more than doubled (Source), from 1828 to 1838 when tariffs were at their highest (Source).
 

CW Buff

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Location
Connecticut
Was he lying to his friend Virgil Maxcy in a private letter? You are correct, I am assuming honesty between two friends discussing current events.
Is this a rhetorical question? Did you mistake my questions as rhetorical?

But to answer yours, I certainly don't expect him to drop all pretense when attempting to generate support for his efforts, among anyone, or while communicating with anyone in any verifiable form.
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
I'm still waiting for these folks to prove economically that tariffs were a concern in 1860. I see tariffs were a concern economically in 1832, but not in 1860. They use tariff grievances from 1828-1832 and apply it to 1860. Our friends here are gifted in chicanery.


I mean no disrespect, but you should practice what you preach. In this thread:https://civilwartalk.com/threads/lee-as-a-slaveholder-reputable-primary-sources.179384/post-2340662 you gave nothing but your opinion when the OP needed relevant sources for a bibliography to write a term paper. That same OP reached out to me... Quoting relevant sources that pertain to the topic on hand is a better idea, which eliminates your sources that tariff issues from 1832 can displace tariff issues from 1860. Never mind all the rhetoric, there is zero economic evidence from 1832-1860 that shows tariffs should have been grieved in 1860.

Actually, if you knew anything about how tariffs you would come to the shocking conclusion that the tariff of 1857 actually caused an economic contraction. Furthermore, the tariff of 1857 was authored by a Virginian Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter—which he lowered rates between 20%-25%("COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES.; The Tariff Act of 1857"). Rates were slashed by 20-25% in 1857 that were kept there into 1861 but you folks believe tariffs were an issue in 1860? Wow...
.

.
Actually, tariffs were an issue in 1860 to the southern states. As part of Lincoln's Presidential campaign of 1860, the passage of new tariff legislation was an important part of his economic program. The cornerstone of the Republican Party's economic policy was the Morrill Tariff bill which was passed by the House of Rep. in 1860 and then referred to the Senate. The proposed Morrill Tariff more than doubled the the average tariff rate and was vehemently opposed by the southern states. In fact, Senator Robert Toombs of Georgia called the Morrill Tariff "the most atrocious tariff bill that was ever enacted" in a speech he gave in Nov. 1860.
 

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
I'm still waiting for these folks to prove economically that tariffs were a concern in 1860. I see tariffs were a concern economically in 1832, but not in 1860. They use tariff grievances from 1828-1832 and apply it to 1860. Our friends here are gifted in chicanery.


I mean no disrespect, but you should practice what you preach. In this thread:https://civilwartalk.com/threads/lee-as-a-slaveholder-reputable-primary-sources.179384/post-2340662 you gave nothing but your opinion when the OP needed relevant sources for a bibliography to write a term paper. That same OP reached out to me... Quoting relevant sources that pertain to the topic on hand is a better idea, which eliminates your sources that tariff issues from 1832 can displace tariff issues from 1860. Never mind all the rhetoric, there is zero economic evidence from 1832-1860 that shows tariffs should have been grieved in 1860.

Actually, if you knew anything about how tariffs you would come to the shocking conclusion that the tariff of 1857 actually caused an economic contraction. Furthermore, the tariff of 1857 was authored by a Virginian Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter—which he lowered rates between 20%-25%("COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES.; The Tariff Act of 1857"). Rates were slashed by 20-25% in 1857 that were kept there into 1861 but you folks believe tariffs were an issue in 1860? Wow...
.

.
There is a certain point where, no matter the mounts of evidence to the contrary, someone clings to their erroneous preconceived idea. As far as I am concerned, this is it. The importance of tariffs to secession is the size of a pencil point on a football field, so I am going to apply my efforts elsewhere.
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
There is a certain point where, no matter the mounts of evidence to the contrary, someone clings to their erroneous preconceived idea. As far as I am concerned, this is it. The importance of tariffs to secession is the size of a pencil point on a football field, so I am going to apply my efforts elsewhere.

Irrespective of evidence to the contrary, to the nth degree. Nevertheless, I'm tired of facepalming—so I will follow suit.
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
Is this a rhetorical question? Did you mistake my questions as rhetorical?

But to answer yours, I certainly don't expect him to drop all pretense when attempting to generate support for his efforts, among anyone, or while communicating with anyone in any verifiable form.

So he lied to his friend who shared many of his same views. That isn't at all likely.
 
Last edited:

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
Not only is Calhoun's concern slavery, and only slavery

I know full well that's untrue. I'm not surprised however, having read some of his writing, that anyone attempting to make his sole concern out to be slavery would also have to characterize him as a liar, because he had a lot to say about many other issues, so all of that has to be explained away somehow. As I've said before, the fixation on slavery has done great damage to the study of history.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I know full well that's untrue. I'm not surprised however, having read some of his writing, that anyone attempting to make his sole concern out to be slavery would also have to characterize him as a liar, because he had a lot to say about many other issues, so all of that has to be explained away somehow. As I've said before, the fixation on slavery has done great damage to the study of history.



Historians didn't create "the fixation on slavery."

They have simply reported it.
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Actually, tariffs were an issue in 1860 to the southern states. As part of Lincoln's Presidential campaign of 1860, the passage of new tariff legislation was an important part of his economic program. The cornerstone of the Republican Party's economic policy was the Morrill Tariff bill which was passed by the House of Rep. in 1860 and then referred to the Senate. The proposed Morrill Tariff more than doubled the the average tariff rate and was vehemently opposed by the southern states. In fact, Senator Robert Toombs of Georgia called the Morrill Tariff "the most atrocious tariff bill that was ever enacted" in a speech he gave in Nov. 1860.

I'm looking for economic data from 1830-1860 that proves that tariffs were an issue, which I cannot find any, and neither can you, so in turn all you do is spout out rhetoric. Refrain from rhetoric, and post economic documents that prove tariffs hindered the south from 1832-1860. Until then, your hypotheses is rejected.
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Historians didn't create "the fixation on slavery."

They have simply reported it.

This is true. Slavery was the primary issue considering it made up of 30% of southern white people's income. If the rhetoric of tariff is discussed it had to do with the slaveholders more than anyone else, considering tariffs hurt luxury items more than common goods. I don't feel like digging the data up, but the subsequent tariffs in second half of 19th century hurt only plantation owners, not the average southerner.
 
This is true. Slavery was the primary issue considering it made up of 30% of southern white people's income. If the rhetoric of tariff is discussed it had to do with the slaveholders more than anyone else, considering tariffs hurt luxury items more than common goods. I don't feel like digging the data up, but the subsequent tariffs in second half of 19th century hurt only plantation owners, not the average southerner.

According to the 36th Congress, 53% of the tariff collected during 1858-1859 came from the below listed top 10 items. I'm curious how many average Southerners felt any difference in their lives due to a tariff on silk goods, cigars, brandy, linens, and bar iron? And 29.3% of the imported cigars went South. Did the average Southerner foresake good old Virginia tobacco?

Item .......... % of tariff .. % to slave states
Brown sugar ......... 14.8% ...... 9.6%
Silk piece goods ..... 8.1% ...... 0.7%
Cotton piece goods. 8.0% ...... 7.9%
Wool piece goods .. 5.5% ...... 2.2%
Worsted woolens ... 4.7% ...... 1.4%
Cigars ................... 2.8% ...... 29.3%
Linens ................... 2.7% ...... 5.3%
Molasses ............... 2.5% ...... 11.7%
Bar Iron ................ 2.0% ...... 7.2%
Brandy ...................2.0% ...... 11.4%
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
I'm looking for economic data from 1830-1860 that proves that tariffs were an issue, which I cannot find any, and neither can you, so in turn all you do is spout out rhetoric. Refrain from rhetoric, and post economic documents that prove tariffs hindered the south from 1832-1860. Until then, your hypotheses is rejected.
Please see my post on the previous page which presents data showing the tariff was an issue (Post #250). Also below is a portion of the South Carolina Ordinance Of Nullification adopted in 1832 which discussed the inequity of the federal tariff system.
South Carolina and other southern states were upset when Congress passed the "Tariff of Abominations." The southern states considered the tariff as a means to protect Northern industry at the expense of the South and as unconstitutionally expanding the powers of the federal government. Subsequently, the South Carolina state legislature passed laws nullifying the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 and prohibited the collection of the tariffs in the state. South Carolina also threatened to withdraw from the United States if its actions on the tariff were not considered. The Ordinance of Nullification of 1832 below explains their opposition to the federal tariff system.

South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification - November 24, 1832

Whereas the Congress of the United States, by various acts, purporting to be acts laying duties and imposts on foreign imports, but in reality intended for the protection of domestic manufactures, and the giving of bounties to classes and individuals engaged in particular employments, at the expense and to the injury and oppression of other classes and individuals... hath exceeded its just powers under the Constitution....

We, therefore the people of the state of South Carolina in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain .... [That the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832] purporting to be laws for the imposting of duties and imposts on the importation of foreign commodities.... are unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof, and are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers or citizens....

And it is further Ordained, That it shall not be lawful for any of the constituted authorities, whether of this State or of the United States, to enforce payment of the duties imposed by said acts.... [and] it shall be the duty of the [South Carolina] Legislature to adopt such measures and pass such acts as may be necessary to give full effect to this Ordinance....

And we, the people of South Carolina, to the end that it may be fully understood by the Government of the United States, and the people of the co-States, that we are determined to maintain this, our Ordinance and Declaration, at every hazard, Do further Declare that we will not submit to the application of force, on the part of the Federal Government, to reduce this State to obedience; but that we will consider the passage by Congress, of any act... to coerce the State, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her commerce, or to enforce the acts hereby declared null and void, otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country, as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union: and that the people of this state will thenceforth hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to maintain or preserve their political connection with the people of the other States, and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate Government, and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent States may of right do....
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Please see my post on the previous page which presents data showing the tariff was an issue (Post #250). Also below is a portion of the South Carolina Ordinance Of Nullification adopted in 1832 which discussed the inequity of the federal tariff system.
South Carolina and other southern states were upset when Congress passed the "Tariff of Abominations." The southern states considered the tariff as a means to protect Northern industry at the expense of the South and as unconstitutionally expanding the powers of the federal government. Subsequently, the South Carolina state legislature passed laws nullifying the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 and prohibited the collection of the tariffs in the state. South Carolina also threatened to withdraw from the United States if its actions on the tariff were not considered. The Ordinance of Nullification of 1832 below explains their opposition to the federal tariff system.

South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification - November 24, 1832

Whereas the Congress of the United States, by various acts, purporting to be acts laying duties and imposts on foreign imports, but in reality intended for the protection of domestic manufactures, and the giving of bounties to classes and individuals engaged in particular employments, at the expense and to the injury and oppression of other classes and individuals... hath exceeded its just powers under the Constitution....

We, therefore the people of the state of South Carolina in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain .... [That the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832] purporting to be laws for the imposting of duties and imposts on the importation of foreign commodities.... are unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof, and are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers or citizens....

And it is further Ordained, That it shall not be lawful for any of the constituted authorities, whether of this State or of the United States, to enforce payment of the duties imposed by said acts.... [and] it shall be the duty of the [South Carolina] Legislature to adopt such measures and pass such acts as may be necessary to give full effect to this Ordinance....

And we, the people of South Carolina, to the end that it may be fully understood by the Government of the United States, and the people of the co-States, that we are determined to maintain this, our Ordinance and Declaration, at every hazard, Do further Declare that we will not submit to the application of force, on the part of the Federal Government, to reduce this State to obedience; but that we will consider the passage by Congress, of any act... to coerce the State, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her commerce, or to enforce the acts hereby declared null and void, otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country, as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union: and that the people of this state will thenceforth hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to maintain or preserve their political connection with the people of the other States, and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate Government, and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent States may of right do....

All I want is for you to do is post some graphs and charts that tariffs were an hindrance to the southern people from 1832-1860. You know, some quantitative analysis. I refer you to posts #197 and #276 for an example for what you should post. Good luck.

In case you haven't noticed, you posted an ordinance from 1832, when I am talking about 1832-1860. Please get your timelines in order. Forget the rhetoric..
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Its nearly certain that the 7 deep south cotton growing states were aggrieved by high tariffs that strengthened the various dollar denominated currencies. Cotton exports made up about 50% of US exports.
1611334675362.png

p.22 https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w4710/w4710.pdf

But since the United States was no longer and export/import economy, it cannot be proven that tariff arguments had much power outside those 7 deep south states:
1611334878578.png

p. 28

1611334706038.png
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
All I want is for you to do is post some graphs and charts that tariffs were an hindrance to the southern people from 1832-1860. You know, some quantitative analysis. I refer you to posts #197 and #276 for an example for what you should post. Good luck.

In case you haven't noticed, you posted an ordinance from 1832, when I am talking about 1832-1860. Please get your timelines in order. Forget the rhetoric
I was unable to find any graphs so instead I posted information from primary sources that demonstrated the tariff system was an issue to the southern states before the Civil War. This information is not rhetoric but from valid sources.
 
Top