The Morrill Tariff signaled a return to cronyism."
Referring to this chart:
| 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 |
Another six items added 25% -- silk, coffee, molasses, flax, hemp & tea -- for which I don't have numbers.
But we can notice that some of those are luxury items only purchased by wealthy people able to pay higher tariffs.
So the numbers I've seen show the original Morrill proposal signaled a return to the 1846 Walker Tariff levels.
That makes "cronyism" just your own special Democrat propaganda talk.
Kalamata: "A tariff is constitutional, Joey, if applied equally and fairly; but tariffs eventually became a political tool – pay for play."
Danny-child, that is pure nonsense baby-talk.
You have no clue what you really mean.
The truth is that all laws & tariffs are political and all of politics is, in a sense, "pay for play", meaning: if you have the votes you get to call the tune.
The fundamental principle of all protective tariffs in 1790, in 1860 and with President Trump today is: "put Americans first".
If that's just too, too much for your tiny little Democrat heart to accept, well, then... get over it, snowflake.
Kalamata: "BTW, it was Hamilton who promoted a crony-capitalist economy to favor the wealthy and politically connected.
Clay was a Hamiltonite, and deep in bed with the bankers."
And it was James Madison who proposed the Tariff of 1790, President Washington who signed it.
Under Southern Democrat rule in Washington, DC, average tariff rates went up & down -- down to 10% in 1810, up to 20% in 1820.
And that with support from not just Henry Clay, but also SC Senator Calhoun.
Later, Calhoun decided higher tariffs were not such a good idea, but in the beginning he supported them.
Kalamata: "That is misleading.
The exporters favored standardized rates.
The Whigs favored item-by-item rates to subsidize politically-connected Northern interests."
That is misleading.
All exporters (i.e., Democrats) favored higher tariffs to protect their own products but some wanted lower tariffs on stuff they imported.
Other producers (i.e., Whigs-Republicans) were willing to accept higher tariffs in order to, ahem, "put Americans first" and "make America great".
Did you get that?
Democrats, then as now, were wealthy globalists who put their own interests ahead of average Americans.
Whig-Republicans, then as now, put Americans first in order to make America great.
Kalamata: "If Trump is an orange (no pun intended,) the Whigs were apples.
The “Republican” Party of Lincoln inherited Whig economics, which Lincoln promoted throughout his entire political career, as did his hero, Henry Clay."
When it comes to putting Americans first and making America great, G. Washington, Clay, Lincoln, Trump and many others from TR to Reagan are all peas in the same pod.
Kalamata: "With Joey, it is never about facts, but about “winning.”"
Says our house Democrat, projecting his own feelings onto others.
Kalamata: "That was, effectively, a declaration of war against a foreign nation.
When Montgomery secretly moved his troops to a more fortified position (Fort Sumter,) that showed an intention to declare war, at least in the minds of the Carolinians, which was “confirmed” when a resupply ship showed up."
A little senior moment there?
"Montgomery" could refer to Davis' capital in Alabama.
"Montgomery" was also our allied British general in WWII.
But likely, here you intended to say, Union Major Robert Anderson.
Your point is somewhat valid nonetheless.
We are now in December 1860, South Carolinians only have declared secession, were already threatening Union officials, and Maj. Anderson, fearing for his troops safety, moved them from the exposed Fort Moultrie to the much safer Fort Sumter.
South Carolinians, typical Democrats, were outraged and demanded Fort Sumter's surrender, which President Buchanan refused.
Instead, Buchanan ordered Fort Sumter reinforced, leading to the Star of the West incident on January 9, 1861.
Understand, war could have started right there, January 9, at Fort Sumter -- South Carolinians were eager for it, many in the North were ready to respond (see OIFVeteran's posts on this), but Buchanan backed down, as he did elsewhere, leaving the questions of war & peace to his successor, Lincoln.
First on December 28, then again on January 13, Buchanan told South Carolina envoys he will not surrender Fort Sumter.
On January 14, same day as the Star of the West, South Carolina's legislature declares any attempt to reinforce Fort Sumter is tantamount to war.
Three times, on January 11, 13 & 16, South Carolina demanded Major Anderson surrender Fort Sumter.
Three times Anderson refused.
On February 5, President Buchanan again tells SC officials that Fort Sumter will not be surrendered.
All this time a similar drama played out at Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Florida.
On February 21, three days after his inauguration, Jefferson Davis in Montgomery received SC Governor Pickens' request for immediate action on Fort Sumter.
Davis responded immediately by ordering Confederate Gen. Beauregard to prepare for military assault on Union troops in the fort.
All this before Lincoln's inauguration on March 4.
Kalamata: "Later, after Montgomery [sic] warned Lincoln that he could not defend the fort, Lincoln’s cabinet, including Seward, voted almost unanimously against resupply, with Seward explaining that he 'would not initiate war to regain a useless and unnecessary position on the soil of the seceding states [e.g., Fort Sumter.]' "
And that seems also to have been Lincoln's view at the time, it's what lead to talk of some sort of deal, i.e., "a fort for a state", meaning Virginia.
But all of them eventually came around to supporting Lincoln's resupply missions to Forts Sumter & Pickens, despite the risks.
Kalamata: "But Lincoln ignored his cabinet and pressed ahead with a scheme of “sending bread to Anderson,” to provoke the South into firing the first shot.
Lincoln was, after all, a high-powered railroad lawyer, who had mastered the rhetoric of effective propaganda."
Propaganda is you Democrats' weapon of choice, for example, in calling a constitutionally elected & constrained President Lincoln, "tyrant".
That's propaganda, FRiend.
Anyway, by the end of March Lincoln's cabinet had all changed their minds and supported Lincoln's resupply missions.
One reason was the Gustavus Fox plan to resupply Sumter without the need for a massive invasion.
It had a good chance to work and if it failed, well, then the Union would be united behind whatever came next.
Kalamata on Lincoln: "Yes he did.
He made it crystal clear in his inaugural that he rejected the constitutional authority of the states to secede, thus craftily reframing any resistance by them into “insurrection” and “rebellion,” rather than recognizing them as sovereign states.
Lincoln was a tyrant."
Well... here are Lincoln's actual 1st Inaugural words:
- "Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it?
One party to a contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself.
The Union is much older than the Constitution.
It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.
It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778.
And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if [the] destruction of the Union, by one, or by a part only, of the States, be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, -- that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States.
Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary.
I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that will constitutionally defend and maintain itself."
The real tyranny came from those who used military force attempting to first dissolve the Union without mutual consent then invaded states which refused to secede with them.
Kalamata: "That is correct.
The South offered to pay for the forts and other properties recovered from the Union, but Lincoln rejected it."
As did President Buchanan before him.
Kalamata: "Lincoln effectively declared war in his first inaugural.
He told the seceding states to either consent to be governed by the Federal Government, or die."
Well... as for "declaring war", Confederates had claimed any number of Union actions "acts of war" or "declarations of war" from Day One.
But the only real declaration of war came from the Confederate Congress, on May 6, 1861.
Kalamata on Lincoln's resupply mission to Fort Sumter: "That was an act of war."
Child.