Lying about Lincoln

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | May 10, 2002 | Thomas DiLorenzo

[davidjquackenbush]

<p>

Friday, May 10, 2002

Lincoln's Tariff War

By Thomas J. DiLorenzo

[Posted May 10, 2002]

When Charles Adams published his book For Good and Evil, a world history of taxation, the most controversial chapter by far was the one on whether or not tariffs caused the American War between the States. That chapter generated so much discussion and debate that Adams's publisher urged him to turn it into an entire book, which he did, in the form of When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession.

Many of the reviewers of this second book, so confident were they that slavery was the one and only possible reason for both Abraham Lincoln’s election to the presidency and the war itself, excoriated Adams for his analysis that the tariff issue was a major cause of the war. (Adams recently told me in an email that after one presentation to a New York City audience, he felt lucky that "no one brought a rope.")

My book, The Real Lincoln, has received much the same response with regard to the tariff issue. But there is overwhelming evidence that: 1) Lincoln, a failed one-term congressman, would never have been elected had it not been for his career-long devotion to protectionism; and 2) the 1861 Morrill tariff, which Lincoln was expected to enforce, was the event that triggered Lincoln’s invasion, which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

A very important article that documents in great detail the role of protectionism in Lincoln’s ascendancy to the presidency is Columbia University historian Reinhard H. Luthin's "Abraham Lincoln and the Tariff," published in the July 1944 issue of The American Historical Review. As I document in The Real Lincoln, the sixteenth president was one of the most ardent protectionists in American politics during the first half of the nineteenth century and had established a long record of supporting protectionism and protectionist candidates in the Whig Party.

In 1860, Pennsylvania was the acknowledged key to success in the presidential election. It had the second highest number of electoral votes, and Pennsylvania Republicans let it be known that any candidate who wanted the state’s electoral votes must sign on to a high protectionist tariff to benefit the state’s steel and other manufacturing industries. As Luthin writes, the Morrill tariff bill itself "was sponsored by the Republicans in order to attract votes in Pennsylvania and New Jersey."

The most influential newspaper in Illinois at the time was the Chicago Press and Tribune under the editorship of Joseph Medill, who immediately recognized that favorite son Lincoln had just the protectionist credentials that the Pennsylvanians wanted. He editorialized that Lincoln "was an old Clay Whig, is right on the tariff and he is exactly right on all other issues. Is there any man who could suit Pennsylvania better?"

At the same time, a relative of Lincoln’s by marriage, a Dr. Edward Wallace of Pennsylvania, sounded Lincoln out on the tariff by communicating to Lincoln through his brother, William Wallace. On October 11, 1859, Lincoln wrote Dr. Edward Wallace: "My dear Sir:  [Y]our brother, Dr. William S. Wallace, showed me a letter of yours, in which you kindly mention my name, inquire for my tariff view, and suggest the propriety of my writing a letter upon the subject. I was an old Henry Clay-Tariff Whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject than any other. I have not since changed my views" (emphasis added).  Lincoln was establishing his bona fides as an ardent protectionist.

At the Republican National Convention in Chicago, the protectionist tariff was a key plank. As Luthin writes, when the protectionist tariff plank was voted in, "The Pennsylvania and New Jersey delegations were terrific in their applause over the tariff resolution, and their hilarity was contagious, finally pervading the whole vast auditorium." Lincoln received "the support of almost the entire Pennsylvania delegation" writes Luthin, "partly through the efforts of doctrinaire protectionists such as Morton McMichael . . . publisher of Philadelphia’s bible of protectionism, the North American newspaper."

Returning victorious to his home of Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln attended a Republican Party rally that included "an immense wagon" bearing a gigantic sign reading "Protection for Home Industry." Lincoln’s (and the Republican Party’s) economic guru, Pennsylvania steel industry publicist/lobbyist Henry C. Carey, declared that without a high protectionist tariff, "Mr. Lincoln’s administration will be dead before the day of inauguration."

The U.S. House of Representatives had passed the Morrill tariff in the 1859-1860 session, and the Senate passed it on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration. President James Buchanan, a Pennsylvanian who owed much of his own political success to Pennsylvania protectionists, signed it into law. The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent (according to Frank Taussig in Tariff History of the United States) to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent, Taussig writes.

So, Lincoln owed everything--his nomination and election--to Northern protectionists, especially the ones in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He was expected to be the enforcer of the Morrill tariff. Understanding all too well that the South Carolina  tariff nullifiers had foiled the last attempt to impose a draconian protectionist tariff on the nation by voting in political convention not to collect the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations," Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected.

At the time, Taussig says, the import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being spent in the North. The South was being plundered by the tax system and wanted no more of it. Then along comes Lincoln and the Republicans, tripling (!) the rate of tariff taxation (before the war was an issue). Lincoln then threw down the gauntlet in his first inaugural: "The power confided in me," he said, "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, or among the people anywhere" (emphasis added).

"We are going to make tax slaves out of you," Lincoln was effectively saying, "and if you resist, there will be an invasion." That was on March 4. Five weeks later, on April 12, Fort Sumter, a tariff collection point in Charleston Harbor, was bombarded by the Confederates. No one was hurt or killed, and Lincoln later revealed that he manipulated the Confederates into firing the first shot, which helped generate war fever in the North.

With slavery, Lincoln was conciliatory. In his first inaugural address, he said he had no intention of disturbing slavery, and he appealed to all his past speeches to any who may have doubted him. Even if he did, he said, it would be unconstitutional to do so. 

But with the tariff it was different. He was not about to back down to the South Carolina tariff nullifiers, as Andrew Jackson had done, and was willing to launch an invasion that would ultimately cost the lives of 620,000 Americans to prove his point. Lincoln’s economic guru, Henry C. Carey, was quite prescient when he wrote to Congressman Justin S. Morrill in mid-1860 that "Nothing less than a dictator is required for making a really good tariff"

[davidjquackenbush]

This article is classic DiLorenzo. The only evidence it offers that Lincoln himself thought the tariff was relevant to his election or wanted it to be is the following quotation:

"On October 11, 1859, Lincoln wrote Dr. Edward Wallace: "My dear Sir: [Y]our brother, Dr. William S. Wallace, showed me a letter of yours, in which you kindly mention my name, inquire for my tariff view, and suggest the propriety of my writing a letter upon the subject. I was an old Henry Clay-Tariff Whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject than any other. I have not since changed my views" (emphasis added). Lincoln was establishing his bona fides as an ardent protectionist."

But this paragraph is among the most intellectually dishonest claims DiLorenzo makes (no mean accomplishment). Look at the rest of the letter below. How can an honest man possibly read this letter as an effort by Lincoln to "establish his bona fides as an ardent protectionist? He says he used to think about this issue a lot, that he was a Clay Whig on the subject, and hasn't rethought the matter. He says that if America could have a moderate protectionism that wouldn't be occasion for political strife, it would be the best economic policy.

He goes on to say that he is entirely content, and advises his correspondent, to let the matter slide until opponents of the tariff, on their own, from the merits of the case, decide to advocate it. He says, literally and directly, that those sharing his views have been beaten on the question, and shall not be able to re-establish the policy, until precisely those who oppose protectionism decide to support it.

Then he closes by saying, in effect: "Because I think we should wait until anti-protectionists realize that a tariff is in the national interest, please don't comment on my views publicly. I do not wish the matter discussed."

I cannot imagine a more completely false and distorted reading of a letter, than to clip the portion DiLorenzo does and claim that it represents Lincoln seeking to establish his bona fides as an ardent protectionist. He was seeking toestablish nothing -- the information is requested from him, and he requests that his reply be kept confidential. He distinctly denies that he wishes his views made public -- so much for establishing bona fides on anything. And he is exactly the opposite of "ardent." What more moderate, un-ardent position on any issue is possible than to say "I have a view, but am content not to pursue it until my opponents, on their own, compelled by facts and reality, decide that I was right all along."

Here is the complete letter:

Dr. Edward Wallace: Clinton,
My dear Sir: Oct. 11th. 1859

I am here, just now, attending court. Yesterday, before I left Springfield, your brother, Dr. William S. Wallace, showed me a letter of yours, in which you kindly mention my name, inquire for my tariff views; and suggest the propriety of my writing a letter upon the subject. I was an old Henry Clay tariff whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject, than on any other. I have not since changed my views. I believe yet, if we could have a moderate, carefully adjusted, protective tariff, so far acquiesed in, as to not be a perpetual subject of political strife, squabbles, charges, and uncertainties, it would be better for us. Still, it is my opinion that, just now, the revival of that question, will not advance the cause itself, or the man who revives it. I have not thought much upon the subject recently; but my general impression is, that the necessity for a protective tariff will, ere long, force it's old opponents to take it up; and then it's old friends can join in, and establish it on a more firm and durable basis. We, the old whigs, have been entirely beaten out on the tariff question; and we shall not be able to re-establish the policy, until the absence of it, shall have demonstrated the necessity for it, in the minds of men heretofore opposed to it.

With this view, I should prefer, to not now, write a public letter upon the subject. I therefo[re] wish this to be considered confidential.

I shall be very glad to receive a letter from you. Yours truly

A. LINCOLN

The rest of the article argues, in effect, that since one crucial group made tariffs their central issue, therefore Lincoln "owed his election" to this issue and it is the key to understanding his First Inaugural, the purpose of the war, etc. But really, is this reasonable? Of course there were protectionist Republicans. There were also anti-slavery Republicans, pro-homesteading Republicans, anti-Southern political hegemony Republicans (many of them former Democrats who had concluded that the Democrat party was dominated by the Southern slave block), etc. The argument that because an interest group played a crucial role in one state, and in the nomination, that you can simply characterize the political project as dominated by that issue is simply fatuous. It is not conclusive of anything without further evidence that the issue really was central to Lincoln, to the national party, and to his governance once elected. There are a lot of people on the Christian right who could tell you a few stories about this dynamic as they look at the Bush Administration.

And the actual letter, as discussed above, makes it absolutely clear that Lincoln was NOT interested in pursuing this issue as a matter of policy in his political efforts.

This letter, by the way, is one of two on the subject from 1854-1860. The other one, as I recall, is equally disappointing for those who think Lincoln was eager to play Whig economic czar.

[davidjquackenbush]

Here's another one. What did the nobleman say to Gibbon?

"another article, eh, Mr. DiLorenzo? Always scribble, scribble, scribble, eh, Mr. Dilorenzo?

[WhiskeyPapa]

Lord love a sinner.

Well, DiLorenzo has had the links to some of these FR threads e-mailed to him, and this is how he responds. Thanks for posting this.

Walt

[Treebeard]

Again with Lincoln? Do you two have day jobs? Or any (non-annoying to other grownups)hobbies?

Man, that whole Middle East thing pales in interest to another thread on Lincoln!

[gumboyaya]

"plundered by the tax system" history never changes. I will be purchasing Mr. Adams book post haste, to reinforse the age old question "War of Northern Aggression".

[davidjquackenbush]

Well, sorry to annoy you. We white blood cells get that kind of thing all the time.

"You guys again -- don't you ever think about anything but infections?"

[davidjquackenbush]

Here's the other letter:

Dr. Edward Wallace: Springfield, Ills. May 12. 1860

My dear Sir, Your brother, Dr. W. S. Wallace, shows me a letter of yours, in which you in which you request him to inquire if you may use a letter of mine to you, in which something is said upon the Tariff question. [2] I do not precisely remember what I did say in that letter; but I presume I said nothing substantially different from what I shall say now.

In the days of Henry Clay I was a Henry Clay-tariff-man; and my views have undergone no material change upon that subject. I now think the Tariff question ought not to be agitated in the Chicago convention; but that all should be satisfied on that point, with a presidential candidate, whose antecedents give assurance that he would neither seek to force a tariff-law by Executive influence; nor yet to arrest a reasonable one, by a veto, or otherwise. Just such a candidate I desire shall be put in nomination. I really have no objection to these views being publicly known; but I do wish to thrust no letter before the public now, upon any subject. Save me from the appearance of obtrusion; and I do not care who sees this, or my former letter.

Yours very truly A. LINCOLN

[Treebeard]

We white blood cells get that kind of thing all the time.

That analogy goes a long way to explaining the threads. Everytime somebody squeezes Lincoln, you guys squirt out.

[Free the USA]

fyi

[davidjquackenbush]

Hey buddy, don't pus me too far.

[shuckmaster]

Everytime quack & whiskey try to smear him with fabricated cut & paste BS, Thomas DiLorenzo comes back and nails them with the truth. Highly recommended books for truthseekers

[rdf]

Which of the two letters do you caim is fabricated? Or do you say both are? And which of them says anything like DiLorenzo's representation of them?

[ravinson]

Here is the complete letter:

Thanks for digging out that letter and proving once again that DiLorenzo is a shameless fraud.

[ravinson]

At the time, Taussig says, the import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being spent in the North.

Funny how the Confederates said next to nothing about tariffs in their declarations of secession. DiLorenzo must think that they were just joking when said that their position was "thoroughly identified with slavery."

[VinnyTex]

How can an honest man possibly read this letter as an effort by Lincoln to "establish his bona fides as an ardent protectionist

What's your problem. Lincoln was a big time protectionist out of the Friedrich List school of economic thought. List became good friends with Henry Clay while living here in the 1820s and 30s. In 1841 he published the book "The National System of Political Economy" . The thesis of the book is, [A] war which promotes the transition from the purely agricultural to the mixed agricultural-manufacturing state is therefore a blessing for a nation. . . . Whereas a peace, which throws back into a purely agricultural condition a state destined to become industrialized, is a curse incomparably more harmful than a war.Sounds familiar doesn't it. List set down the framework for National Socialism.

[davidjquackenbush]

I think this 80% number stinks to high heaven. Are we being told that 80% of imported goods coming into the United States went to the South? that 80% of manufactured goods went to the South? That 80% of imported manufactured goods were ultimately purchased in the South? That one of these was true in dollar values? What? Someone posted tariff revenue numbers a month or so ago that showed an overwhelmingly greater dollar amount of tariff revenue in northern ports than southern. Please excuse me if I don't trust Dr. DiLorenzo to get it just quite right. I'd like to see a source that includes some actual data and definition of terms. Can anyone help?

[VinnyTex]

Funny how Jefferson Davis said nothing about slavery in his inaugural address. But clearly stated that an agricultural region must have the freest trade possible.

[davidjquackenbush]

My problem is these massive superficial generalizations with no supporting evidence. Lincoln wasn't "schooled" in economics at all. He supported the Whig economic policy actively in the 1830's and 1840's, and quite obviously, from all the evidence anyone has bothered to look at, found other issues much more important in the 1850's. The letters I have posted on this thread as much as say -- "I have spent the 1850's thinking that economics is not an important issue right now."

Is there some reason to think that he read List? Met him? Discussed his views with anyone? Can you find three consecutive paragraphs in Lincoln anywhere that demonstrate that he was thinking about the theory of tariffs at all?

I'll help. There's an extended section of speech notes in which he argues that tariffs make sense because importing things from far away which can be produced at the same cost locally is stupid, by the addition of the extra transport cost.

You can find it by searching here:

http://www.hti.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

using the search term " Fragments of a Tariff Discussion "

This analysis does not bother to refute Adam Smith's "comparative advantage" argument, and reveals Lincoln's profound ignorance of the theory of tariffs. I may be doing him a disservice here, but I don't see how to avoid it.

But you can't have it both ways. He was either a "student" of economic theory or he wasn't. If he was, there should be some evidence that he read books on the subject, attempted to theorize about it, etc. Instead, we have one speech fragment in which he makes an argument that might have been offered 50 years before the Wealth of Nations was written. He doesn't seem to have dipped too deeply in the waters of German theory, whatever Clay was doing.

But be that as it may, the Lincoln of the '50's shows no sign, at all, of thinking that these matters were crucial to the country. Why is this so hard to see?

Below I paste what he said in a speech to a Pittsburgh audience on his way to be inaugurated. It is the only remark he made on tariff policy, beyond the letters in this thread and a couple of utterly formulaic references to the 1860 platform in private letters, that I can find in the collected Lincoln. I just found another, from New Haven in March of 1860 -- he says this:

It is true that in the organization of the Republican party this question of Slavery was more important than any other; indeed, so much more important has it become that no other national question can even get a hearing just at present. The old question of tariff---a matter that will remain one of the chief affairs of national housekeeping to all time---the question of the management of financial affairs; the question of the disposition of the public domain---how shall it be managed for the purpose of getting it well settled, and of making there the homes of a free and happy people---these will remain open and require attention for a great while yet, and these questions will have to be attended to by whatever party has the control of the government. Yet, just now, they cannot even obtain a hearing, and I do not purpose to detain you upon these topics, or what sort of hearing they should have when opportunity shall come.

For, whether we will or not, the question of Slavery is the question, the all absorbing topic of the day.

And here is the Pittsburgh speech excerpt on tariff policy:

Fellow citizens, as this is the first opportunity [4] which I have had to address a Pennsylvania assemblage, it seems a fitting time to indulge in a few remarks upon the important question of a tariff---a subject of great magnitude, and one which is attended with many difficulties, owing to the great variety of interests which it involves. So long as direct taxation for the support of government is not resorted to, a tariff is necessary. The tariff is to the government what a meal is to the family; but, while this is admitted, it still becomes necessary to modify and change its operations according to new interests and new circumstances. So far there is little difference of opinion among politicians, but the question as to how far imposts may be adjusted for the protection of home industry, gives rise to various views and objections. I must confess that I do not understand this subject in all its multiform bearings, but I promise you that I will give it my closest attention, and endeavor to comprehend it more fully. And here I may remark that the Chicago platform contains a plank upon this subject, which I think should be regarded as law for the incoming administration. In fact, this question, as well as all other subjects embodied in that platform, should not be varied from what we gave the people to understand would be our policy when we obtained their votes. Permit me, fellow citizens, to read the tariff plank of the Chicago platform, or rather, to have it read in your hearing by one who has younger eyes than I have.

(Mr. Lincoln's private Secretary then read section twelfth of the Chicago platform, as follows:)

That, while providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imposts, sound policy requires such an adjustment of the imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interest of the whole country, and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the working men liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.

Mr. Lincoln continued---Now, fellow-citizens, I must confess that there are shades of difference in construing even this plank of the platform. But I am not now intending to discuss these differences, but merely to give you some general ideas upon this subject. I have long thought that if there be any article of necessity which can be produced at home with as little or nearly the same labor as abroad, it would be better to protect that article. Labor is the true standard of value. If a bar of iron, got out of the mines of England, and a bar of iron taken from the mines of Pennsylvania, be produced at the same cost, it follows that if the English bar be shipped from Manchester to Pittsburg, and the American bar from Pittsburg to Manchester, the cost of carriage is appreciably lost. [Laughter.] If we had no iron here, then we should encourage its shipment from foreign countries; but not when we can make it as cheaply in our own country. This brings us back to our first proposition, that if any article can be produced at home with nearly the same cost as abroad, the carriage is lost labor.

The treasury of the nation is in such a low condition at present that this subject now demands the attention of Congress, and will demand the immediate consideration of the new Administration. The tariff bill now before Congress may or may not pass at the present session. I confess I do not understand the precise provisions of this bill, and I do not know whether it can be passed by the present Congress or not. It may or may not become the law of the land---but if it does, that will be an end of the matter until a modification can be effected, should it be deemed necessary. If it does not pass (and the latest advices I have are to the effect that it is still pending) the next Congress will have to give it their earliest attention.

According to my political education, I am inclined to believe that the people in the various sections of the country should have their own views carried out through their representatives in Congress, and if the consideration of the Tariff bill should be postponed until the next session of the National Legislature, no subject should engage your representatives more closely than that of a tariff. And if I have any recommendation to make, it will be that every man who is called upon to serve the people in a representative capacity, should study this whole subject thoroughly, as I intend to do myself, looking to all the varied interests of our common country, so that when the time for action arrives adequate protection can be extended to the coal and iron of Pennsylvania, the corn of Illinois, and the ``reapers of Chicago.'' Permit me to express the hope that this important subject may receive such consideration at the hands of your representatives, that the interests of no part of the country may be overlooked, but that all sections may share in common the benefits of a just and equitable tariff. [Applause.]

[davidjquackenbush]

He carefully avoids saying what it was that constituted the departure of the previous Union from the ends for which it was established. He carefully avoids saying why a departure was necessary.

[VinnyTex]

Look, Lincoln was a lousy railroad lawyer. In the 1840s-50s, railroads were the epitome of corporate welfare. This was all part of Henry Clay's American(National)system. Which he learned from Friedrich List and his book "The National System of Political Economy." Government intervention in the economy to develop favored industry instead of allowing the market to dictate winners and losers.