Overstated. The southern Democrats controlled tariff policy for three decades going back to the 1820's. (Moreover, the south wasn't against Tariffs if it protected THEIR interests.)During that time the Northern states were investing into manufacturing infrastructure. Low tariffs hurt their interests...the south didn't pay a dime of the Morrill tariff which was passed in 1860. The North used the Tariff revenue to fund the war effort. Almost 80% of the southern population were subsistence farmers...the Tariff would have had little or no effect on them...it would affect the rich and the politically well connected...(gee no surprise there.) Most historians gave up on this after 1950. (Beard, was the leading exponent of this thesis in the 1920's.)The reason? There did not appear to be a substantial amount of evidence that this bothered the south to the degree you are suggesting...in other words, the politicians were focusing on other factors. Richard Hofstater and other main stream historians began to focus on the social and cultural issues.Not that many letters by soldiers were all that political, but of the 100's I've read by Confederate soldiers I have yet to see one that mentioned Tariffs as a motivation for fighting the North.
"The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion - no using force against it, or among the people anywhere.......There needs to be no bloodshed or violence and there shall be none unless it is forced upon the National authority." There it is, Lincoln's own words in 1861. If there's another way to interpret that, please let me know.
Marcus said: ".the Tariff would have had little or no effect on them...it would affect the rich and the politically well connected...(gee no surprise there.)"
Then as now, the tariffs hurt mostly those who are not not politically corrected. The tariffs cause price increases and other problems all around that a subsistence farmer can afford less than anyone.
Will: There is no need for me to interpret Lincoln's words as they speak adequately on their own accord. However clear Lincoln's words may seem to us, to quote the same words in isolation bereft of any framework or context appears to my sensibilities, unreasonable and unjust. In my humble estimation these words spoken by Lincoln asserted the right of the Federal Government to enforce economic policy passed by a legitimate and democratically elected Congress. This legislation overrides any analogy to "taxation without representation." That Southern representatives of their own volition resigned their positions of elected duty prior to enactment of the Morill Tariff does not alter this truth. In theory, "Nullification" and "States Rights" are invalidated in large degree by the democratic process. Democratic government could not function if states were to wield Nullification as a weapon in response to unpopular legislation. This cynical exercise ignores the abject hypocrisy of accepting only laws which favors your interests while dismissing those who would dissent. I ask you what if modern government behaved in such a fashion? Consider the South tried to manipulate the election of 1860 by not including Lincoln on the ballot. Would we in today's world even attempt such abuse? I am trying to appreciate those who would suggest any government over-reach at any time is unacceptable. To those critics I submit to you: who in their right mind would want to face the issues Lincoln faced? NO president before or since has faced a crisis quite like this. Armchair quarterbacking is great...we all can do it as long as we don't sit in a position of ultimate judgment. It is wonderful that we can judge with impunity armed with 150 years of hindsight the actions of others. Is it logical to judge 19th century thinking through the "wisdom" of 21st century eyes?? Besides, who gets to decide when the line is crossed? A central planner from the Heritage Foundation or maybe from the Mises Institute? ( Sorry...that was snarky but you get my drift...)
dmarks: OK I accept your assertion or the at least the right to express it. In the reality of economics of the 1860's I find your modern doctrinaire assessments a bit out of place. It's not that I disrespect you we just have a difference of opinion.
Context? Go check out the speech and if you can find me anything anywhere in that slavery friendly little ditty which tempers what seems to me to be an openly hostile threat of violence, I will be more than happy to reconsider.............And one of the bones of contention between the North and the South was the fact that a handful of northern states were NULLIFYING the Fugitive Slave Act. Were they using it as a "weapon", too?............And I'm sorry but when you have a situation in which a region with 30% of the population is paying 80% of the taxes and seeing virtually bubkas in services on the other end, that is abuse (not to mention, cronyism).
And why should Lincoln get a pass? Andrew Johnson doesn't get one. James Buchanan doesn't get one. Millard Fillmore doesn't get one. Andrew Jackson doesn't get one. I just don't get it.
Marcus: Just pointing out that the always-destructive policy of tariffs has many ripple effects to impose hardship and ruin livlihoods than one might expect.
Marcus, don't worry about it. It's just politics. As for the tariff, I think that the Morrill Tariff would have bumped the rate up to a higher level than it was just prior to the Black Tariff of 1842 (spearheaded by the Whigs) though I obviously could be wrong.
9 comments:
Overstated. The southern Democrats controlled tariff policy for three decades going back to the 1820's. (Moreover, the south wasn't against Tariffs if it protected THEIR interests.)During that time the Northern states were investing into manufacturing infrastructure. Low tariffs hurt their interests...the south didn't pay a dime of the Morrill tariff which was passed in 1860. The North used the Tariff revenue to fund the war effort. Almost 80% of the southern population were subsistence farmers...the Tariff would have had little or no effect on them...it would affect the rich and the politically well connected...(gee no surprise there.) Most historians gave up on this after 1950. (Beard, was the leading exponent of this thesis in the 1920's.)The reason? There did not appear to be a substantial amount of evidence that this bothered the south to the degree you are suggesting...in other words, the politicians were focusing on other factors. Richard Hofstater and other main stream historians began to focus on the social and cultural issues.Not that many letters by soldiers were all that political, but of the 100's I've read by Confederate soldiers I have yet to see one that mentioned Tariffs as a motivation for fighting the North.
"The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion - no using force against it, or among the people anywhere.......There needs to be no bloodshed or violence and there shall be none unless it is forced upon the National authority." There it is, Lincoln's own words in 1861. If there's another way to interpret that, please let me know.
Marcus said: ".the Tariff would have had little or no effect on them...it would affect the rich and the politically well connected...(gee no surprise there.)"
Then as now, the tariffs hurt mostly those who are not not politically corrected. The tariffs cause price increases and other problems all around that a subsistence farmer can afford less than anyone.
Will:
There is no need for me to interpret Lincoln's words as they speak adequately on their own accord. However clear Lincoln's words may seem to us, to quote the same words in isolation bereft of any framework or context appears to my sensibilities, unreasonable and unjust. In my humble estimation these words spoken by Lincoln asserted the right of the Federal Government to enforce economic policy passed by a legitimate and democratically elected Congress. This legislation overrides any analogy to "taxation without representation." That Southern representatives of their own volition resigned their positions of elected duty prior to enactment of the Morill Tariff does not alter this truth. In theory, "Nullification" and "States Rights" are invalidated in large degree by the democratic process. Democratic government could not function if states were to wield Nullification as a weapon in response to unpopular legislation. This cynical exercise ignores the abject hypocrisy of accepting only laws which favors your interests while dismissing those who would dissent. I ask you what if modern government behaved in such a fashion? Consider the South tried to manipulate the election of 1860 by not including Lincoln on the ballot. Would we in today's world even attempt such abuse? I am trying to appreciate those who would suggest any government over-reach at any time is unacceptable. To those critics I submit to you: who in their right mind would want to face the issues Lincoln faced? NO president before or since has faced a crisis quite like this. Armchair quarterbacking is great...we all can do it as long as we don't sit in a position of ultimate judgment. It is wonderful that we can judge with impunity armed with 150 years of hindsight the actions of others. Is it logical to judge 19th century thinking through the "wisdom" of 21st century eyes?? Besides, who gets to decide when the line is crossed? A central planner from the Heritage Foundation or maybe from the Mises Institute? ( Sorry...that was snarky but you get my drift...)
dmarks: OK I accept your assertion or the at least the right to express it. In the reality of economics of the 1860's I find your modern doctrinaire assessments a bit out of place. It's not that I disrespect you we just have a difference of opinion.
Context? Go check out the speech and if you can find me anything anywhere in that slavery friendly little ditty which tempers what seems to me to be an openly hostile threat of violence, I will be more than happy to reconsider.............And one of the bones of contention between the North and the South was the fact that a handful of northern states were NULLIFYING the Fugitive Slave Act. Were they using it as a "weapon", too?............And I'm sorry but when you have a situation in which a region with 30% of the population is paying 80% of the taxes and seeing virtually bubkas in services on the other end, that is abuse (not to mention, cronyism).
And why should Lincoln get a pass? Andrew Johnson doesn't get one. James Buchanan doesn't get one. Millard Fillmore doesn't get one. Andrew Jackson doesn't get one. I just don't get it.
Marcus: Just pointing out that the always-destructive policy of tariffs has many ripple effects to impose hardship and ruin livlihoods than one might expect.
Marcus, don't worry about it. It's just politics. As for the tariff, I think that the Morrill Tariff would have bumped the rate up to a higher level than it was just prior to the Black Tariff of 1842 (spearheaded by the Whigs) though I obviously could be wrong.
Post a Comment