Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War

[cancel2 2022]

Although they opposed permanent tariffs, political expedience in spite of sound economics prompted the Founding Fathers to pass the first U.S. tariff act . For 72 years, Northern special interest groups used these protective tariffs to exploit the South for their own benefit. Finally in 1861, the oppression of those import duties started the Civil War.

In addition to generating revenue, a tariff hurts the ability of foreigners to sell in domestic markets. An affordable or high-quality foreign good is dangerous competition for an expensive or low-quality domestic one. But when a tariff bumps up the price of the foreign good, it gives the domestic one a price advantage. The rate of the tariff varies by industry.

If the tariff is high enough, even an inefficient domestic company can compete with a vastly superior foreign company. It is the industry's consumers who ultimately pay this tax and the industry's producers who benefit in profits.

The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.

As early as the Revolutionary War, the South primarily produced cotton, rice, sugar, indigo and tobacco. The North purchased these raw materials and turned them into manufactured goods. By 1828, foreign manufactured goods faced high import taxes. Foreign raw materials, however, were free of tariffs.

Thus the domestic manufacturing industries of the North benefited twice, once as the producers enjoying the protection of high manufacturing tariffs and once as consumers with a free raw materials market. The raw materials industries of the South were left to struggle against foreign competition.

Because manufactured goods were not produced in the South, they had to either be imported or shipped down from the North. Either way, a large expense, be it shipping fees or the federal tariff, was added to the price of manufactured goods only for Southerners. Because importation was often cheaper than shipping from the North, the South paid most of the federal tariffs.

Much of the tariff revenue collected from Southern consumers was used to build railroads and canals in the North. Between 1830 and 1850, 30,000 miles of track was laid. At its best, these tracks benefited the North. Much of it had no economic effect at all. Many of the schemes to lay track were simply a way to get government subsidies. Fraud and corruption were rampant.

With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in the North, the South rightly felt exploited. With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in the North, the South rightly felt exploited. At the time, 90% of the federal government's annual revenue came from these taxes on imports.

Historians Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffer found that a few common factors increase the likelihood of secession in a region: lower wages, an economy based on raw materials and external exploitation. Although popular movies emphasize slavery as a cause of the Civil War, the war best fits a psycho-historical model of the South rebelling against Northern exploitation.

Many Americans do not understand this fact. A non-slave-owning Southern merchant angered over yet another proposed tariff act does not make a compelling scene in a movie. However, that would be closer to the original cause of the Civil War than any scene of slaves picking cotton.

Slavery was actually on the wane. Slaves visiting England were free according to the courts in 1569. France, Russia, Spain and Portugal had outlawed slavery. Slavery had been abolished everywhere in the British Empire 27 years earlier thanks to William Wilberforce. In the United States, the transport of slaves had been outlawed 53 years earlier by Thomas Jefferson in the Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves (1807) and the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in England (1807). Slavery was a dying and repugnant institution.

The rewritten history of the Civil War began with Lincoln as a brilliant political tactic to rally public opinion. The issue of slavery provided sentimental leverage, whereas oppressing the South with hurtful tariffs did not. Outrage against the greater evil of slavery served to mask the economic harm the North was doing to the South.

The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.

Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause.

The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional.

The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.

In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries like Lincoln's favorite, Pennsylvania steel.

The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.

The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.

Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.

http://www.emarotta.com/protective-t...the-civil-war/

[Darth Omar]

Slavery wasn't the primary cause of the civil war?

Them's fighting words lol.

[cancel2 2022]

Slavery wasn't the primary cause of the civil war?

Them's fighting words lol.

Lincoln did a bang up job diverting attention from the real reasons. Of course Hollywood has played a significant part as well, which confirms my suspicions that many nowadays learn their history from films and TV.

[Celticguy]

Oddly enough Lincoln was totally honest when he said he would sacrifice anything, including slavery to preserve the union.
He knew the north could not survive without the south and being a racist who spent $500k in tax dollars studying ways to remove every single black from these shores, he did not care.

[cancel2 2022]

Oddly enough Lincoln was totally honest when he said he would sacrifice anything, including slavery to preserve the union.
He knew the north could not survive without the south and being a racist who spent $500k in tax dollars studying ways to remove every single black from these shores, he did not care.

When the legend becomes fact... print the legend".

[canceled.2021.3]

Lincoln was one of the worst Presidents in our history. When we visited D.C. with our children we deliberately avoided his memorial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[BentBow]

Although they opposed permanent tariffs, political expedience in spite of sound economics prompted the Founding Fathers to pass the first U.S. tariff act . For 72 years, Northern special interest groups used these protective tariffs to exploit the South for their own benefit. Finally in 1861, the oppression of those import duties started the Civil War.

In addition to generating revenue, a tariff hurts the ability of foreigners to sell in domestic markets. An affordable or high-quality foreign good is dangerous competition for an expensive or low-quality domestic one. But when a tariff bumps up the price of the foreign good, it gives the domestic one a price advantage. The rate of the tariff varies by industry.

If the tariff is high enough, even an inefficient domestic company can compete with a vastly superior foreign company. It is the industry's consumers who ultimately pay this tax and the industry's producers who benefit in profits.

The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.

As early as the Revolutionary War, the South primarily produced cotton, rice, sugar, indigo and tobacco. The North purchased these raw materials and turned them into manufactured goods. By 1828, foreign manufactured goods faced high import taxes. Foreign raw materials, however, were free of tariffs.

Thus the domestic manufacturing industries of the North benefited twice, once as the producers enjoying the protection of high manufacturing tariffs and once as consumers with a free raw materials market. The raw materials industries of the South were left to struggle against foreign competition.

Because manufactured goods were not produced in the South, they had to either be imported or shipped down from the North. Either way, a large expense, be it shipping fees or the federal tariff, was added to the price of manufactured goods only for Southerners. Because importation was often cheaper than shipping from the North, the South paid most of the federal tariffs.

Much of the tariff revenue collected from Southern consumers was used to build railroads and canals in the North. Between 1830 and 1850, 30,000 miles of track was laid. At its best, these tracks benefited the North. Much of it had no economic effect at all. Many of the schemes to lay track were simply a way to get government subsidies. Fraud and corruption were rampant.

With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in the North, the South rightly felt exploited. With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in the North, the South rightly felt exploited. At the time, 90% of the federal government's annual revenue came from these taxes on imports.

Historians Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffer found that a few common factors increase the likelihood of secession in a region: lower wages, an economy based on raw materials and external exploitation. Although popular movies emphasize slavery as a cause of the Civil War, the war best fits a psycho-historical model of the South rebelling against Northern exploitation.

Many Americans do not understand this fact. A non-slave-owning Southern merchant angered over yet another proposed tariff act does not make a compelling scene in a movie. However, that would be closer to the original cause of the Civil War than any scene of slaves picking cotton.

Slavery was actually on the wane. Slaves visiting England were free according to the courts in 1569. France, Russia, Spain and Portugal had outlawed slavery. Slavery had been abolished everywhere in the British Empire 27 years earlier thanks to William Wilberforce. In the United States, the transport of slaves had been outlawed 53 years earlier by Thomas Jefferson in the Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves (1807) and the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in England (1807). Slavery was a dying and repugnant institution.

The rewritten history of the Civil War began with Lincoln as a brilliant political tactic to rally public opinion. The issue of slavery provided sentimental leverage, whereas oppressing the South with hurtful tariffs did not. Outrage against the greater evil of slavery served to mask the economic harm the North was doing to the South.

The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.

Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause.

The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional.

The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.

In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries like Lincoln's favorite, Pennsylvania steel.

The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.

The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.

Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.

http://www.emarotta.com/protective-t...the-civil-war/

75% of people born & raised in the south, know the Civil War was over federal government overreaching and breaking the contract.
The victim class, has been taught by revised history, it was all about some white guy owning some black guy. Then 25% are going to use todays values, on yesterday's people, in an insane attempt to hide the past that gave them a bad name.
Without a victim class, the empowered government would not have anything to screw with.

[BentBow]

Oddly enough Lincoln was totally honest when he said he would sacrifice anything, including slavery to preserve the union.
He knew the north could not survive without the south and being a racist who spent $500k in tax dollars studying ways to remove every single black from these shores, he did not care.

Was he being honest in his address, "that they may be free, but they will never be equal to the whiteman".

Kinda played out that way, with all the resentment and lasting anger, force and lost blood caused.

[Minister of Truth]

Tom can lie all he wants, but he still can't change two basic facts:

1) The south stated precisely why it seceded in it's secession documents. They are far more authoritative than any hack article talking about tariffs.

2) The war was only possible if the CSA fired the first shots, which it did. When it comes down to it, it still always takes an act of war.

[Getin the ring]

The civil war was about secession, or preventing it I should say.
The South was producing the cash crop and the North was reaping the rewards from Industrialization.

Slavery was wrong as if someone even needs to say that, duhh.
But that was the state of the Union, Anyone that thinks the "North" thought any more highly of the slaves than the "South" did has never read up on the era.
The "South" could have freed every slave over night and the "North" would have had them cleaning their houses and referring to them by Yessir and yesmam the next day.

Slavery's part in the civil war was more attached to the fact that the "North" wanted the "South" to keep producing the cash crop of the times, cotton, but now find money to pay the help from your profits.
And besides, how would the slaves now find a way to feed and house themselves and their families from the prevailing wages of cotton pickers.
the majority of slave owners took very good care of their "slaves".
And are we not all slaves in some form still today when you think about it.


Read a book, a real book.

[BentBow]

Tom can lie all he wants, but he still can't change two basic facts:

1) The south stated precisely why it seceded in it's secession documents. They are far more authoritative than any hack article talking about tariffs.

2) The war was only possible if the CSA fired the first shots, which it did. When it comes down to it, it still always takes an act of war.

Sanctions are an act of war, without any blood lost.
Same reason, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The USA was enforcing heavy sanctions on Japan.

The federal government was selectively sanctioning the southern states, when only 5% of the people and 1% of greater families, own slaves. If only 5% of people owned slaves, then what the hell, were the other 95% fighting for?
Does not make any sense, that it was over slavery, exclusively.

[BentBow]

The civil war was about secession, or preventing it I should say.
The South was producing the cash crop and the North was reaping the rewards from Industrialization.

Slavery was wrong as if someone even needs to say that, duhh.
But that was the state of the Union, Anyone that thinks the "North" thought any more highly of the slaves than the "South" did has never read up on the era.
The "South" could have freed every slave over night and the "North" would have had them cleaning their houses and referring to them by Yessir and yesmam the next day.

Slavery's part in the civil war was more attached to the fact that the "North" wanted the "South" to keep producing the cash crop of the times, cotton, but now find money to pay the help from your profits.
And besides, how would the slaves now find a way to feed and house themselves and their families from the prevailing wages of cotton pickers.
the majority of slave owners took very good care of their "slaves".
And are we not all slaves in some form still today when you think about it.


Read a book, a real book.

My livestock makes me money. I take better care of them, than I do myself.

[evince]

Sanctions are an act of war, without any blood lost.
Same reason, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The USA was enforcing heavy sanctions on Japan.

The federal government was selectively sanctioning the southern states, when only 5% of the people and 1% of greater families, own slaves. If only 5% of people owned slaves, then what the hell, were the other 95% fighting for?
Does not make any sense, that it was over slavery, exclusively.

slavery was why the war was started


No slavery no civil war


stop trying to rewrite history fool

[Celticguy]

Was he being honest in his address, "that they may be free, but they will never be equal to the whiteman".

Kinda played out that way, with all the resentment and lasting anger, force and lost blood caused.

He was a text book racist so yes.

[Celticguy]

Tom can lie all he wants, but he still can't change two basic facts:

1) The south stated precisely why it seceded in it's secession documents. They are far more authoritative than any hack article talking about tariffs.

2) The war was only possible if the CSA fired the first shots, which it did. When it comes down to it, it still always takes an act of war.

Sending troops to a foreign country is an act of war. Lincolns first one was tolerated. Not the second.