Replies

>>Kalamata (post #484, 2nd partial): "Most citizens, North and South, were jealous of their pocket books, and for their respective states, not the Union. But, just in case, please cite references for your claim."
>>Joey wrote: "Sure, the word "tariff" does not appear in any of the early "Reasons for Secession" documents, while "slavery" appears many times in each."

Joey loves playing word games. This is a large segment from the Georgia Declaration, containing no mention of "tariff," nor of "plunder," but leaves the reader with no doubt that it referring to "tariffs" and crony-capitalistic "plunder":

"The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day.
"Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.
"The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence.
"These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country. But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all."
["Georgia Secession Declaration." Avalon Project, Jan 29, 1861]

I posted this earlier, but it may help clarify some of the Georgia objections. We are observing from far outside the box. Details crucial to the competing parties, may seem irrevelant to us. The key to interpretation is (as always,) "follow the money":

"As president [James Polk, who defeated the protectionist Henry Clay,] delivered on his promise in 1846 when, under the guidance of Treasury Secretary Robert J. Walker, Congress adopted a comprehensive overhaul of the tariff system featuring a moderate downward revision of rates and, importantly, the standardization of tariff categories on a tiered ad valorem schedule.
"This final feature was intended to improve the transparency of the tariff system by consolidating the somewhat convoluted list of tariff items, itself the product of many decades of lobbying and the carving out of highly specialized categories as political favors for specific companies and industries. By converting the tariff from a system that relied primarily on itemized specific duties or individually assigned ad valorem rates to a formal tiered schedule of ad valorem categories in which tariffs were assessed as a percentage of the import 's declared dollar value, Walker further limited the ability of special interests of all stripes to disguise tariff favoritism in units of volume and measurement—different tariff rates assessed by tons of iron, gallons of alcohol, yards of cord and so forth.
"The Walker reforms helped to stabilize many years of fluctuating tariff politics by instituting a moderately free trade Tariff-for-revenue system that lasted, subject to a further uniform reduction of rates in 1857, until the eve of the Civil War…
"Between December 1858 and March 1860, Morrill was inundated with letters from manufacturers and industrialists requesting favorable protective tariff rates against their foreign competitors. Many of these petitions were copied verbatim into the text of the tariff bill. The Morrill schedule also replaced the ad valorem schedule system of Walker with the reintroduction of item-by-item rates. The new schedule utilized an ad hoc mixture of individual ad valorem rates and specific duties, assessed by import units rather than volume, making its administration less transparent. While it is difficult to measure the full effect of the revisions given this change of assessment, Morrill 's equivalent rates pushed most items well above the 1846 schedule and, in several instances, to near-parity with the Black Tariff levels of 1842."
[Phillip W. Magness, "Tariffs and the American Civil War." Essential Civil War Curriculum, 2017, pp.6,8]

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata: "Joey loves playing word games.
This is a large segment from the Georgia Declaration, containing no mention of "tariff," nor of "plunder," but leaves the reader with no doubt that it referring to "tariffs" and crony-capitalistic "plunder":"

Word games are what you Democrats do, Danny-child, they're the core essence of what it means to be a Shifty-Nadler Democrat, and it's just what you're doing here -- substituting your own hyperboles, "plunder", "crony-capitalism" and "tariff" for the actual language of Confederate "Reasons for Secession" documents.

Kalamata quoting Georgia's "Reasons for Secession": "The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all."

Not true -- in fact every Southern producer had as much protective tariff as anyone else, including especially cotton, tobacco & sugar.
So what this claim amounts to is: while Southerners wanted to keep tariffs on their own products, they didn't like paying tariffs on the products of other regions, poor babies.

Kalamata quoting Georgia's "Reasons for Secession": "In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests."

In the first years of the Republic Congress and the Presidency were controlled by Southern Democrats who introduced and approved all tariffs protecting all American producers, agricultural and manufacturing.
Especially after the War of 1812 exposed our manufacturing as weak & vulnerable, efforts were made to increase America's self-sufficiency.
It had nothing to do with North vs. South, but rather with survival as a nation.

Kalamata quoting Georgia's "Reasons for Secession": "Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury."

Even if we assume this complaint is valid, it is still just a political issue easily resolved whenever Southerners were willing to give up some of their own subsidies in return.
The fact that, over decades they didn't, suggests the issue was not very important to them.
And by the way, least we forget: ALL OF THIS SWAMP-CREATURE CRONY-CAPITALISM WAS UNDER DEMOCRAT RULE IN WASHINGTON, DC.

Kalamata quoting Georgia's "Reasons for Secession": "The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade.
Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day."

And yet the facts show that while 92% of US freight was carried in US owned ships in 1826, by 1860 that number was down to 65% and falling rapidly.
So clearly, whatever "protection" Congress granted, did not do the job.

"The panic of 1857 precipitated the crash.
In 1858 ship building, which had been maintained for the preceding years at an average of 400,000 tons a year dropped to 244,000 and in 1859 to 156,000.
At that time the combined imports and exports carried in American bottoms was steadily declining, only 65.2 percent being carried in 1861 as against 92.5 percent in 1826.
Another factor in the decline of American ship building was a fundamental economic change in progress throughout the United States.
Capital was finding new and more profitable fields for investment..."

Kalamata quoting Georgia's "Reasons for Secession": "Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. "

Again, for DiogenesLamp and Kalamata: we are still talking about Democrat swamp-people, Democrat crony-capitalists and Democrat plunderers.
None of this has anything to do with Republicans.
And again, the key point is: Southern Democrats were totally happy with Washington, DC, so long as they ruled it, but once out of power, as is natural for Democrats, they went berserk with fear and loathing for the new Republican administration -- so 1860 was just like 2016!

Kalamata quoting Georgia's "Reasons for Secession": "The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest.
They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence."

All of which began with the first Tariff of 1790, proposed by James Madison, signed by George Washington and had continued under Southern Democrat administrations ever since.
It was not a great concern in 1859, but suddenly in 1860 it is??

Kalamata quoting Georgia's "Reasons for Secession": " After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed.
It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people.
The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy.
There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.""

Notice Democrats here singing praises for the 1846 Walker Tariff.
Well, the original Morrill Tariff proposed was simply a return to the levels of 1846, but now suddenly it's cause for secession??

Kalamata quoting Magness: "While it is difficult to measure the full effect of the revisions given this change of assessment, Morrill 's equivalent rates pushed most items well above the 1846 schedule and, in several instances, to near-parity with the Black Tariff levels of 1842."
[Phillip W. Magness, "Tariffs and the American Civil War." Essential Civil War Curriculum, 2017, pp.6,8]"

First, I've not seen numbers to support this claim, but more important, Morrill went through several iterations, including during the Civil War, each one at higher levels than before.
Numbers I have seen for the original Morrill proposal show them as roughly equivalent to the 1846 Walker Tariff.

Commodity	1846 Tariff	1857 Tariff	Morrill
Woolens	30	24	37
Brown Sugar	30	24	26
Cotton	25	19	25
Iron mfg	30	24	29
Wines	40	30	40
Average:	31	24	31