The Tariff as a cause is defended

[williamlayton]

Revolution is always a remedy.
The South tried that.
Look at the Articles of Confederation. There is no provision for it being a nation. They declare theirowwnselves to be sovereign nations.
IMO, when we are talking about nations.
A nation changes decade by decade and generation to generation. IF, and it is an if, you wish to maintain stability and provide national security the nation must be sovereign.
Let's look at this tariff.
One of the great causes of the American revolution was caused because of GB not wanting the colonies to produce goods that were produced by/in GB and sold to the colonies. It was forbidden that we could make our own tools---had to buy from GB.
We had that revolution and we learned from it.
SC refused to stop trading goods with GB---a lot of folks were getting wealthy doing this.
Nothing wrong with getting wealthy but it was hurting the infrastrusture on the nation.
A tariff was instituted--not to protect JUST manufacturing in the NE but to protect internal growth in this nation.
SC blatantly refused to collect the tariffs.
Now, I don't care who you are, refusing to obey a law is going to bring about some consequences.
It did, it was tried and it was decided.
Blessings

[williamlayton]

This is not actually a bump---but it was good discussion---I wanted to add a thought that was more in line with the topic heading. God for bid that I stay on topic.
There is great mystery in this Tariff business. Many writers have tried to find answers that are seemingly there but can't be proven.
It is like trying to read between the lines.
The folks in DC were VERY distrustful of England--they could see intrusion in every visitor from the old Mother country.
Nothing has ever been proven but much that occurs seems to point, almost point blank, back to England.
England was going thru its own emancipation of slavery and was very concerned that any support shown the South would bring an uprising at home. Yet it is true that England still saw value in being involved, and in control, of development of any stake it could grab in the US.
England could not afford to fight France and America--no war on two fronts--because they knew of the close tied of America and France.
That does not mean America and France were in bed together however---there were tensions on that front also.
Where was France in America? In mexico and there was a great deal to be feared in this theatre.
it is a quirky and sticky wicket.
Blessings 

[Ga.windbreak]

I promised to leave this discussion board because my thoughts angered some.
I did not promise not to read.
I will post this thought and leave, again.

Not very good on keeping your word WL? Actions speak very loudly, much more so than words posted to faceless strangers.

God bless and a good day to you sir.

[williamlayton]

You are more than welcome GW---I changed my mind.
I enjoy this, it is really more a part of my life than many who just wander through.
Blessings

[BAGTIC]

The southern states seceded and what did the Union do? Nothing. Not one effort was made to force them back in. There was widespread support in the north for the right to secede. Even such hard core Yankees as Daniel Webster supported the right of secession. If the south had been willing to just go its own way everything would have worked out. The problem is a lot of hard headed secessionist were not content to let things be. They had to attack a Union fort and federal troops. It doesn't made a damned difference how many Union troops were killed or not wounded. They were attacked. What would you expect the USA to do today if an American base were attacked? Remember America went to war in 1812 becausae American merchantmen were being stopped and crewmembers impressed. A similar thing happened in the Barbary Wars when they were attacking merchant ships.

[subdjoe]

The southern states seceded and what did the Union do? Nothing. Not one effort was made to force them back in.

Then why was Lincoln ramping up to invade the states that had left the Union?  Why did he flatly refuse to pull federal troops from southern soil?

And why were there so many northern editorials saying that the southern states needed to be forced back because of the loss of trade  that the north would suffer if the South as allowed to leave?  Sorry, but your picture of the federals just having a garden party that those evil southerners fired on is revisionist garbage.

[williamlayton]

Joe
I never said anything about Sumpter or fireing the first shot---It matters not who did---It was done.
The thing most Southerners will not admit is that there were plans to enlarge the South and slave traffic.
This being the case and westward expansion necessary for both--It was enevitable that clash and conflict would come sooner or later.
It came sooner than the South expected. Of course the South misinterpreted any war, any conflict or any loss. They just assumed that they could go their seperate way--expand as they desired and never have their hand called---All because they considered anything they did to be just.
Blessings

[BAGTIC]

The southern states seceded and what did the Union do? Nothing. Not one effort was made to force them back in.

Then why was Lincoln ramping up to invade the states that had left the Union?  Why did he flatly refuse to pull federal troops from southern soil?

And why were there so many northern editorials saying that the southern states needed to be forced back because of the loss of trade  that the north would suffer if the South as allowed to leave?  Sorry, but your picture of the federals just having a garden party that those evil southerners fired on is revisionist garbage.

What federal troops did Lincoln refuse to withdraw from what southern soil?

Since when do newspaper editorials represent the official policy of the US?  Do you believe eveything you read in the National Enquirer?

[subdjoe]

The southern states seceded and what did the Union do? Nothing. Not one effort was made to force them back in.

Then why was Lincoln ramping up to invade the states that had left the Union?  Why did he flatly refuse to pull federal troops from southern soil?

And why were there so many northern editorials saying that the southern states needed to be forced back because of the loss of trade  that the north would suffer if the South as allowed to leave?  Sorry, but your picture of the federals just having a garden party that those evil southerners fired on is revisionist garbage.

What federal troops did Lincoln refuse to withdraw from what southern soil?

Since when do newspaper editorials represent the official policy of the US?  Do you believe eveything you read in the National Enquirer?

The troops in SC that he was attempting to resupply and reinforce in SC.  Those troops.  Lincolns own SecWar had urged him to take advantage of the offer of safe passage to pull them out. 

No, editorials don't constitute national policy, but they often drive it.  And if a large number of people get stirred up that too can drive policy.  I cited that as an example of a strong political opinion in the north that the revenue from the southern states were necessary for the federal government, and that is those seven states were allowed to leave and set a tariff rate of no more than 10% norther ports, northern ship lines, northern rail would suffer a loss of revenue.

So we have southern states wanting to stop being bled to support the north, and the north, for monetary considerations, preparing to invade the south to keep that infusion of money going. 

[Gary G]

Joe knows!

Also, there were federal troops in Florida (Ft Pickens). Buchanan had agreed to a truce with the governor of Florida until such troops could be withdrawn. The second week after entering office, Lincoln sent troop reinforcements to Florida. Orders were given to Capt. Adams to send boats out to receive the reinforcements. Capt. Adams, who was a man of integrity, refused to do so because that would be an act of war and a violation of the truce. He thought that Lincoln, being new to office, didn't know of the agreement. He gave Lincoln the benefit of doubt; I don't.
  http://mises.org/books/century.pdf

[williamlayton]

The first thought is, what does this have to do with tariff's?
But, onto the questions.
What is it about a change in policy that is not understandable? The first shots were in Florida.
This business, the beginning of the war is most overlooked. There were a lot of political issues going on. Most of the South had become pretty hardened by this time. Was it a showdond that they wanted?
Suprisingly that is what most of the time did want--in the South--those old firebrands.
The tariffs you discuss are somewhat misleading.
The tariffs being imposed--not on the South, but on all all imports are really very important. It is how you look at them which colors your thinking.
America was a merging nation and a Republic at that. Yes, SOME, of the tariffs were pretty harsh. They were not aimed at the South but, really, GB.
American interest were being protected/promoted---now that is what the Government is susposed to do---protect American interest.
Let's go back to the American Revolution. Who were thos who lost the most in the Revolution?
South Carolina. Why Carolina? because they were the state most alligned with GB--they were the blue bloods on the wnannabe blue bloods. The were in favor of Britain winning the war---they were English.
This position was never changed---they traveled to England and their children were schooled in England. They wanted English goods and the English cut prices to ship and sell to them. Who was the beneficiary of these benifits? The South? I say it was the English.
there were more European goods being imported thru Northern ports than the South. The South just refused to collect the tariffs. It was not that the South was supporting the government it was figting the government. the South was helping Europe (the English) establish a foothold back into America.Talk about treason.
The North was collecting all the tarifss---course the North had the vast majority of ports.
Who did the South look to for recognition?
Who was/were the ones who wanted to go back to European influence?
This is going to take a book to unravel. Read these issues for understanding---there is far more to this story than the Soth wants revealed--OF Course, most in the South only knew what they were told.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

Yes, surely there is some deep dark secret the Southern plotters don't want us to know!

Did someone leave tickets for Elvis at the door, Hitler is alive and well living in Hollywood, and Obama just happened to show his Birth certificate and kill OBL in the same week, oh how the stars alien. Don't worry the Mayans have it right, oblivion after Dec. 21, 2012

The South had lived in the seat of power for the first 50 or so years with the North chafing at the bit, so to speak. The aim of Northern politicans was to take that power away and use it to follow its dreams of Empire building. For that to happen it needed the wealth of the South as its own goods were no where near as good Quality wise as that from Europe.

The Stars aliened as California, becoming a state, broke the power hold the South had enjoyed, with its damnable 3/4th slave body count, and the 47 % tariff would give the North the funds needed to build the Railroads from east to west, subjugate the natives, and become a world power! Just as Hamiltan had in visioned. The South, knowing all this to be true and realizing that the use of slaves was a short term answer to a long term problem could not stand the loss of power and what would result as becoming a weak sister to the rest of the Nation decided to go it alone. It knew two things 1. It had no chance for another day in the sun save going alone and 2. if it stayed or there was war it would be the weak sister anyhow. It chose to go out with a bang rather than a whimper. Jeff Davis pretty much says all this in his book.

Slavery and the Tariff were nothing more that the issues used, by the North, to get the Ball rolling, if you will!

And while this is my own conclusion after years of study of the federalist papers and Hamilton's vision for this nation the fact that we have become that which he set out for us to become surely proves it to this citizen. As Bill Parcells says "you are what your record says you are!" 

[Gary G]

Joe knows!

Also, there were federal troops in Florida (Ft Pickens). Buchanan had agreed to a truce with the governor of Florida until such troops could be withdrawn. The second week after entering office, Lincoln sent troop reinforcements to Florida. Orders were given to Capt. Adams to send boats out to receive the reinforcements. Capt. Adams, who was a man of integrity, refused to do so because that would be an act of war and a violation of the truce. He thought that Lincoln, being new to office, didn't know of the agreement. He gave Lincoln the benefit of doubt; I don't.
  http://mises.org/books/century.pdf

William wrote:

The first thought is, what does this have to do with tariff's?

Everything! The real cause of the war was probably the proposed southern tariff of less than 10% in comparison of the northern tariff of 40+%. This would shift trade in favor of the south effectively ending northern dominance and exorbitant profits of the merchantilist. To show that Lincoln, the whig of merchantilism and worshiper of Henry Clay the hamiltonian, would go to the extremes of war to prevent this is important. There is much documented proof provided by John Denson, showing it was Lincoln's intention all along. He is a lawyer who does not make his statements on opinion, but with documentation. William, your statements are your opinion for which you don't show documentation. But, that is okay I suppose. The battle between the Hamiltonians and the Jeffersonians goes on. When big government finally fails us, hopefully the Jeffersonians will win.

[williamlayton]

I defy you to show proof of a 47% tariff that was put in place.
The tariff was for money to run the government.
Some Northern lawmakers wanted high tariffs to protect and make more money forthe industrailist in the North. Most of those were defeated, but the traiffs were to protect American industry. I don't see a problem with that.
If the South had been smart they would have taken the money they had and begun industries to compete with the North. They finally did that with the textile industries of the South. BTW it was English textiles that the south was buying back.
The north had 75% of import coming out of Europe---explain, if you can, how the North was asking the South to pay for supporting 75% of the budget?
Blessings 

[Gary G]

I defy you to show proof of a 47% tariff that was put in place.

In its first year of operation, the Morrill Tariff increased the effective rate collected on dutiable imports by approximately 70%. In 1860 American tariff rates were among the lowest in the world and also at historical lows by 19th century standards, the average rate for 1857 through 1860 being around 17% overall (ad valorem], or 21% on dutiable items only. The Morrill Tariff immediately raised these averages to about 26% overall or 36% on dutiable items, and further increases by 1865 left the comparable rates at 38% and 48%. copied from the Morrill tariff, wekipedia

[williamlayton]

But that was not only in the South.
Tariffs were low when America had little or no industry to compete with Europe. As America/Americans began the process of industrialization it became apparent that tariffs were needed to: 1) Support a growth needed in Government  2) To give incentive to increase this production in America.
There was a great push to build America's infrastructure, typically an arm of the Government. Canals, Railways--today roads and dams.
These were opposed at every turn by the South. There was great clamor in 1850 when the government started promoting rails'
Most in the South opposed these progressive acts. They refused to cooperate with rail standardization which prohibited growth of rails in the South---and, was one of the major failings of resupply during the war.
All movement objectives--from the mid 1830's--were East/West objectives. If it did not benefit the South it was rejected offhand.
The South became more and more paranoid as the West was developed. It saw its main industry--slavery--being choked out. They had need to expand but were stopped at every turn because of antislavery laws in the new states.
The South had two choices. They could admit defeat on slave expansion. This produced a turmoil that was not resolved until recently--and not completely now. There were a number of plans offered but the South hung on to its traditions until they realized that they were in this slavery solution all alone---the rest of the country was moving west.
At least--those are the facts as I see them. The second choice was tobegin to marketing expansion in the South. The main problem was that no one in the South wanted these changes.
It is like a big rolling river that runs into a mountain---the river is not going to stop---it just finds another way to the sea.
Blessings   

[Ga.windbreak]

Gary G, you know you are winning when the other side of the debate A. questions/derails your proven historical facts AND B states an untruthful fact

South had been smart they would have taken the money

as if any state can highjack federal taxes on its own to try and derail your facts. Well done!

[williamlayton]

GW
That is an awful weak arguement. You take a portion of a thought out of context to defend what is not defendable.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

You can't talk over me, you should know that by now!

The 47% tariff as a fact of history, undefendable? Ok willynilly.

[williamlayton]

I know of no 47% tariff.
Let's reexamine the tariffs.
If 75% of all goods imported into the states came thru Northern ports how can the South claim they supported the North?
Now---what is not good about imposing tariffs to protect and grow American industry?
Blessings

[Gary G]

I know of no 47% tariff.
Let's reexamine the tariffs.
If 75% of all goods imported into the states came thru Northern ports how can the South claim they supported the North?
Now---what is not good about imposing tariffs to protect and grow American industry?
Blessings

People who buy plows and shovels pay more for them, thus leaving less to spend on other things and weakening the overall economy. It was a transfer of wealth, as with most things the government does, from ordinary people to the industrialists. Northern industry prospered at the expense of the west and south. Protectionism protects those in collusion with the government to the detriment of everyone else. It supports big government at the expense of the overall economy.

Here is what one southern politician had to say:

And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.

[Ga.windbreak]

I know of no 47% tariff.

http://www.ashevilletribune.com/archives/censored-truths/Morrill%20Tariff.html

 In the 1850’s the South accounted for anywhere from 72 to 82% of U. S. exports. In May of 1860 the U. S. Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Bill (named for Republican Congressman and steel manufacturer, Justin S. Morrill of Vermont) raising the average tariff from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years.  Although this was remarkably reminiscent of the Tariffs of Abomination which had led in 1832 to a constitutional crisis and threats of secession and armed force, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Bill 105 to 64.  Out of 40 Southern Congressmen only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it. U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total.  While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states.  Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South.
 
In the 1860 election, Lincoln, a former Whig and great admirer of Henry Clay, campaigned for the high protective tariff provisions of the Morrill Tariff, which had also been incorporated into the Republican Party Platform.   Lincoln further endorsed the Morrill Tariff and its concepts in his first inaugural speech and signed the Act into law a few days after taking office in March of 1861.[/quote]

Let's reexamine the tariffs.
If 75% of all goods imported into the states came thru Northern ports how can the South claim they supported the North?
Now---what is not good about imposing tariffs to protect and grow American industry?
Blessings

Rather than repeat myself I'll just let the Honorable Senator Calhoun explain it to you.

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm

"Such exactions are hard to justify at any time, but especially so in a federal Union in which economic interests are regionalized in such a way that the exploitive effect is concentrated. Americans had fought a revolution for smaller grievances. Not to mention, as Calhoun pointed out in the South Carolina Exposition, to the agreement of free traders, that the tariff's 'tendency is, to make the poor poorer and the rich richer.'

"But the tariff, like abolition, was also a question of honor. The disingenuous arguments of the protectionists tended, like those of the abolitionists, to dwell upon the moral inferiority and stupidity of southerners in comparison with wise, righteous, industrious New Englanders. Calhoun did not engage in that type of polemic, but he replied to it, again in the Exposition: 'We are told, by those who pretend to understand our interest better than we do, that the excess of production and not the Tariff, is the evil which afflicts us. ... We would feel more disposed to respect the spirit in which the advice is offered, if those from whom it comes accompanied it with the weight of their example. They also, occasionally, complain of low prices; but instead of diminishing the supply, as a remedy for the evil, demand an enlargement of the market, by the exclusion of all competition.' "[1]

The commercial and industrial rise of New England in the early 19th century was not an accident. It was a deliberate scheme, in which the South at first willingly participated. All was outlined at the inception of the republic by Alexander Hamilton, and the goal was to increase the prosperity and independence of the whole nation. But the result, from the South's point of view, turned out rather differently.

As I have pointed out before, spelled out in the Federalist Papers, by Hamilton himself.

[williamlayton]

A tariff is not a tax it is a tariff on imports.
When the North found itself paying for goods at a higher price than they could produce it they started manufactureing those things. See John Deere.
There are two things the South should have done 1) manufacture them locally 2) Collect the tariffs and see which was less expensive.
Yes, as I said, some did propose higher than acceptable tariffs but that would not have mattered if there was competition.
What burened the South was that without tariffs they could get subsidzed goods less expensively from England.
Now England was in the midst of its own revolution. Slavery was abolished and Labor factions were bearing down on Child labor and slavery of another kind, people who could not fight low wages and the company store.
the same thing happens in America about 50 years later.
It is the sole job of government to protect American interest at home as well as foreign.
I don't have a problem with that.
As we see later in history in the USA, it proves to be the backbone of the Republic.
Blessings

[Brewster]

If the tariffs were so onerous as to precipitate secession, then the farm states in the Union northwest (MN, WI, MI and IA) would have also been in line with the south.   Didn't happen.  It's a lame contention.

[wncchester]

"England was in favor of a loose Confederation because it allowed them the ability to move back into the picture and be a player in this expansion. "

William if it's your conjecture that England caused the war of Secession, okay.  But it would be very hard to prove that the South felt England played any part in their actions, nor that England's government played any serious part of the conflict after war occured.

The American "Revolution" was a civil war with civilian militia playing large parts of the fighting and on both sides.  The War of Secession was a sectonal war, complete with uniformed armies.   The defeated South was delt with exactly like a conquered nation by the Northern forces for years, not as any part of a restored Union (in fact, in many respects, they still do).  It was mostly a southern migration to avoid the nearly unbearable Federal occupation forces that largely fed the rapid population expansion to the west after the war.  And I didn't need to write a college paper to learn all that.

[williamlayton]

What we do know is that many of the landed in the South felt more of a kindred relationship to England. South  Carolina in particular.
We do know that some goods from England were subsidized to the South.
It was in the interest of GB to be an allie of the South but because of the war in Europe they did not have a navy that could contest the American navy.
Most, would agree that it is cojecture but that all the signs are there.
The south was sure that England would enter on the side of the South or, at, least recognize them that they might seek financial help from English bankers.
blessings
 

[Dee]

I'm getting old no doubt. I have grown weary of stating historical facts, and giving references, only to have them twisted in some odd rebuttal that makes little if any sense. It is much like the present government, and the last 40+ years of voters, and their "lessor of two evils" strategy voting . I have lost all faith in most voting Americans, just as I had in my past profession regarding the public at large. I am seldom disappointed in people as I have grown to expect so little from them, save a scant few I have known for years, and yes, they too are predictable.
I have come to the conclusion fairly recently that I may give my opinion, and move on, as I will convince know one of anything, using facts. Facts are of no consequence in today's society, they are merely an "unhandy and bothersome" obstacle in discussion.
Just as in "this topic", I have studied it, and researched it, backwards, and forwards for years, and have stated so on these forums for several years. The same people argue in the opposite direction with NOTHING produced to shore up their argument save the desire to "STATE YOUR IN ERROR".
I think instead I will go outside and watch the weeds in my yard grow, as it has recently rained, and they most certainly will. I can do so without the slightest worry of this fact being foolishly argued, and disputed even when my Schnauzer cannot find his way to the front door because of them. They after all, are MY WEEDS, and to hell with outside opinion regarding them.

[ironfoot]

"...in America everyone knew that from 1846 to 1861 a free trade system prevailed, and that Representative Morrill carried his protectionist tariff through Congress only in 1861, after the rebellion had already broken out. Secession, therefore, did not take place because the Morrill tariff had gone through Congress, but, at most, the Morrill tariff went through Congress because secession had taken place."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_tariff

[subdjoe]

The deep south did, in effect try to "take the money" as someone suggested they do.  That set "Honest" Abe to getting his ducks in a row to invaded the deep south, starting with reinforcing the garrison on that little island in SC.

[williamlayton]

Joe
By then it was too late to start a manufactering campign in the South.
Blessings