Lincoln's Tariff War

Mises Daily ^ | May 06, 2002 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

[dontreadthis]

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, 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.

... (snip)

"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.

[gusty]

Totally false. The CSA army was not one of the best equipped armies in the world. Read about the Prussian Army’s performance in 1866. The Prussian Army was the best equipped military in the world. The breech loading needle rifle that Prussia fielded would have dominated the battlefield over the CSA’s muzzle loaders. Our military did not field this type of rifle in large numbers until the 1870’s. Experts in the field of military affairs looked to Prussia to learn from. There was a reason that Phil Sheridan was present at Prussian HQ’s during the Franco-Prussian War. Sheridan and Bismark became good friends. Sheridan did advise the Prussians of the concept of Total War.

[Ditto]

Five weeks later, on April 12, Fort Sumter, a tariff collection point in Charleston Harbor, was bombarded by the Confederates.

As usual, Thomas DiLorenzo is telling lies to support his fantasies. Fort Sumter was never a tariff collection point and he should damn well know it.

[Ditto]

very informative, for me at least.

If you read DiLorenzo's crap, you are only being misinformed. The man is not a historian nor is he even interested in attampting to present an honest history of events. He is a radical Liberatarian and will twist, distort and outright lie about any historical event to support his radical ideological views.

[rockrr]

dilorenzo is a lost causer with an agenda. His is not what one would consider thoughtful analysis.

[Ditto]

Where did you get that figure “50% of the South’s assets were slaves”? That’s rubbish.

Here is one source. You can find the entire paper here. http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php

Table 4

	Regional Wealth in 1850 and 1860 Millions of dollars (except per capita)
	North	South	North	South
	1850	1850	1860	1860
Total Wealth	$4,474	$2,844	$9,786	$6,332
Value of Slaves		$1,286		$3,059
Non-slave Wealth	$4,474	$1,559	$9,786	$3,273
Wealth (free) per capita	$315	$483	$482	$868
Non-slave (free) Wealth per capita	$315	$174	$482	$294
Source Wright (2006), p. 60.

[central_va]

My point is that if the CSA had succeeded to secede, the foreign invasion (post war) threat would have been non existent. The CSA had more that a million men under arms. All with combat experience. The CSA would have caught its breath and upgraded its weaponry.

[gusty]

If the South had been successful they would have become a neo-colonial outpost for Great Britain and France. They would have been an agricultural state in a world ruled by the Industrial Revolution. Lets say their strategy in 1864 worked out and Lincoln lost his bid for re-election. Their economy was in a complete shambles by that point. You do know it costs money, real hard currency, to maintain a large military establishment. The Confederacy lacked the economic heft to place it among the world’s great powers in the 19th Century. There would have been no need for for a foreign invasion. The British, French, and Germans would have just bought the place piece by piece.

[central_va]

If the South had been successful they would have become a neo-colonial outpost for Great Britain and France.

You sir know nothing of southernrs, good day and get a clue.

[gusty]

I have plenty of clues, but I suggest you might try reading a little history, not from comic books, but from real books. And good day to you.

[Sherman Logan]

Foreshortening of history causes 1860 to look closer to 1890 to seem closer in time to use than it did to those living then.

Should have been "Foreshortening of history causes 1860 to seem closer to 1790 in time to use than it did to those living then."

[Sherman Logan]

I give up! I hope you can figure out what I’m trying to say, because I don’t seem to be able to type it.

[headsonpikes]

I give up! I hope you can figure out what I’m trying to say, because I don’t seem to be able to type it.

Now that's a tagline!

[Sherman Logan]

It is pretty darn relevant that the South was the aggressor in the pre-war conflict. In 1820 a compromise was reached between the regions about white territories would be open and which closed to slavery.

In 1850 the South, with the assistance of ambitious northern Democrats, succeeded in overturning this 30 year old precedent and (eventually) making all territories open to slavery, in theory if not in likely practice.

Prior to 1850, 1854 and 1857 slavery was a relatively low-priority issue in the North. Southern aggression succeeded in raising an army against them where none had existed before.

They chose poorly.

[Ditto]

Southern aggression succeeded in raising an army against them where none had existed before.

In the Deep South, the smarter guys saw the demographic trends of their slave populations and realized that expansion was the only alternative to their own 'peculiar institution' eventually choking them to death both economically and quite possibly physically.

Without expansion, they were doomed. They needed new markets for their excess 'property.'

[Sherman Logan]

All true. But the real idiocy of what they did can be seen by the fact they threw a modus vivendi with the North overboard in order to gain access to the territories for their slaves.

But of course the only area they really gained access to was the eastern 1/2 or 1/3 of Kansas, the only part of the territories north of the MO Compromise line that was even marginally usable for standard plantation agriculture. Hardly worth alienating the rest of the country over.

For slavery to really expand, it needed subtropical and tropical land. Latin America, which was potentially available for conquest, but which taking over would require the power of the whole US. Mainly because given the transportation of the time, such conquest could only be carried out by sea.

Which runs you straight into the Royal Navy, which would object to expansion of slavery. The South by itself could never stand up to UK, with whole US behind it there was some chance.

So the South’s only real policy option was to get the rest of the country behind it in conquest of Latin America.

[Para-Ord.45]

Vote breakdown:

96–15 in the northern States, 7–9 in the border States, and 1–39 in the southern States.

[dontreadthis]

radical libertarian.
I was not careful here.

[CodeToad]

“Boy, these neo-confederates. What can you even say?”

That they were right. The state of the union today proves it out.

[Ditto]

But of course the only area they really gained access to was the eastern 1/2 or 1/3 of Kansas, the only part of the territories north of the MO Compromise line that was even marginally usable for standard plantation agriculture. Hardly worth alienating the rest of the country over.

No doubt they had their eyes on Mexico and Cuba. But again, the expansion of slavery was not just predicated on expanding the plantation model. The smart guys in the South knew better.

I desire at present merely to notice the assertion of the honorable Senator that slavery would never, under any circumstances, be established in California. This, though stated as a fact, is but a mere opinion-- an opinion with which I do not accord. It was to work the gold mines on this continent that the Spaniards first brought Africans to the country.

The European races now engaged in working the mines of California sink under the burning heat and sudden changes of the climate, to which the African race are altogether better adapted. The production of rice, sugar, and cotton is no better adapted to slave labor than the digging, washing, and quarrying of the gold mines.
-- Jefferson Davis, Senate Chamber, U.S. Capitol, January 29, 1850

Source: http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=70

Slavery would have expanded into the West even without the plantation system.

[central_va]

Th reason why slavery expansion into the territories was opposed by the North was due to racism, they wanted to keep it “lily white”.