[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird quoting:

"South Carolina Senator James Hammond had declared that the South paid about $50,000,000 and the North perhaps $20,000,000 of the $70,000,000 raised annually by duties.
In expenditure of the national revenues, Hammond thought the North got about $50,000,000 a year, and the South only $20,000,000. "
When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Succession Charles Adams"

And yet again, a globo-slaver elite from South Carolina, the 1860 butt-hurt state, still smarting from Pres. Jackson's 1832 Nullification trip to the woodshed.
Hammond was a long-time SC politician, former SC governor, who served in the US Senate from 1857 to 1860.

Turns out, according to his own confessions, that Hammond was not only an original SC globo-slaver, but he was also a globo-homo and pedophile.

Regardless, the fact remains that in 1860, US cotton exports accounted for roughly half of all US exports, while other Confederate state exports (i.e., tobacco) added perhaps another 5%.
Union state exports, including California gold and Nevada silver, accounted for the rest.

Further, Hammond's claim (repeating Calhoun & others), that this meant "the South" "paid for" $50 million of US Federal revenues (71%), is just nonsense.
The truth is that Federal tariff revenues were paid for by whomever purchased US imports and so paid those tariffs -- and those were overwhelmingly Northerners, Easterners and Westerners, not Southerners.
As I noted in post #199 above, US imports went everywhere in the US, only occasionally to the South.
Here again are US major import tariff items -- from most to least, and their (biggest destinations):

1. Woolens (for New England cloth manufacturers)
2. Brown Sugar (for Northern Big Cities)
3. Cotton (for New England cloth manufacturers)
4. Silks (for New York clothing manufacturers)
5. Iron (for Northern industrial manufacturers)
6. Coffee (everyone drank coffee)
7. Molasses (for Northern Big Cities)
8. Flax & Hemp (for ropes & canvas, i.e., on ships)
9. Tea (many also drank tea)
10. Wines (and many drank wine)

Finally, we should note that Hammond died at age 56 on November 13, 1864.
His cause of death was reported as mercury poisoning, mercury being the usual treatment for syphilis in those days.

FLT-bird quoting:

[To a Northern Congressman] "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers.
You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals.
You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us.
You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of Northern Capitalist.
You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and our institutions."
Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas"

I can't confirm this quote, however Texas Congressman Reagan was rewarded for such sophistry by being appointed the CSA's Postmaster General -- by all accounts did a good job and was eventually returned to Congress (1874) and the US Senate (1887) before passing away in eastern Texas at age 86 in 1905.

Reagan's accusations, although doubtless heartfelt, are pure nonsense, except in that they confirm the centrality of slavery to Confederates' Reasons for Secession.

FLT-bird quoting:

"What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party?
Do you propose to better the condition of the slave?
Not at all.
What then do you propose?
You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery.
Is the slave to be benefited by it?
Not at all.
What then do you propose?
It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country.
It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds.
It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement.
It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim.
You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why?
Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.”
Senator Jefferson Davis 1860

Again, I can't confirm the quote or the circumstances, but it does sound like the kind of words that made Jefferson Davis the new Confederacy's president.
It's pure nonsense, yet another Democrat Big Lie, but it certainly helped to inspire Southerners that slavery was under assault by Northerners intent on "cheating" the South with "unjust legislation" for "Northern aggrandizement" to promote New England industry at the expense of Southern industry.

None of these quotes reduce the roll of slavery as a central cause of 1860 and 1861 Declarations of Secession.

FLT-bird quoting:

"On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill."
The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists."
Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South."

We've dealt with Toombs before and can do so again.
Here are the key points:

1. The first point to notice is that this was November 19, 1860, after the November 6 election, during which opposition to the proposed Morrill Tariff was not mentioned in any of the four party platforms -- Southern Democrats, Northern Democrats, Constitutional Unionists or Republicans.
   Nor did Southern Fire Eaters threaten secession, before the election, over the Morrill Tariff.

2. Southern Democrats killed the Morrill Tariff in the 36th Congress (1860) and could have easily killed it again in the 37th Congress (1861-1863) had they not resigned due to secession.
   So, the Morrill Tariff was not a serious threat to the South in 1860 or 1861 -- nor did the vast majority of Southerners treat it as such.

   Former Mississippi Democrat Sen. Robert Walker:

   

3. Toombs' arguments here against the Morrill Tariff are just typical Democrat BS nonsense.
   In fact, all Morrill seriously needed to do was reduce the Federal debt by increasing tariff rates from the 16% of the 1857 Tariff back to the 25% of the 1846 Walker Tariff -- the Walker Tariff was named after former Mississippi Democrat Sen. Robert Walker, who proposed it, under Southern Democrat Pres. Polk and so it passed without serious Democrat opposition.

4. Regardless, notice that yet again Toombs paired the tariff with slavery as threats against Georgia.
   This is the same pattern we've seen with others, notably Rhett.

5. Finally, we should notice that Georgia's official "Reasons for Secession" document does list tariffs, but pairs them with slavery and also commends the 1846 Walker Tariff as the example setter of a good tariff.
   After the 1860 elections, Southern Democrats would still retain power in Congress to at least insure there was no significant difference between the 1846 Walker Tariff and the 1861 Morrill Tariff.

FLT-bird: "Gosh......looks like a live political issue to me both long before 1860 and right through 1860."

Of course, tariffs were always at issue in Washington -- tariffs were "politics as usual" -- but outside of South Carolina in 1832, tariffs were never the source of threats of Southern secession.

FLT-bird: "The North had a sectional party that in its party platform called for high tariffs.
The South was dominated by a political party that supported low tariffs.
Each of those parties saw little opposition in their regions."

Sure, but calls for lower tariffs -- or complaints about high tariffs -- were not mentioned in any of the 1860 party platforms.
Nor did any Southern politician ever threaten secession over the Morrill Tariff -- at least not that has ever been presented in these threads.

FLT-bird: "There had been other tariffs in the past and for all they knew could be others in the future.
The Morrill Tariff was but the latest attempt.
It was jacking tariff rates up and the grossly unequal federal government expenditures they complained of - not just one particular attempt to jack those tariff rates up one time."

Sure, but tariffs were always "politics as usual", where specific rates could go up or down with each new Congress and political alignment.
With the sole exception of one state, South Carolina, and one episode, the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations", tariffs were never weaponized to threaten secession or war against the United States.

FLT-bird: "As we've already discussed the Morrill Tariff proposed doubling tariff rates and everyone knew they would not stop there.
That was just the first bite of the apple.
Also, we need to remember that even the 16 tariff was considerably higher than the Southern States wanted as evidenced by them setting 10% as the maximum tariff rate allowable under the Confederate Constitution."

Sorry, but now you're just repeating your talking points.
The truth is the original 1860 Morrill proposal increased average rates from 16% to around 26%, and that was defeated by Southern Democrats in Congress.
So, there was no "first bite of the apple", much less a "second bit" -- all that is just nonsense.

Finally, we've covered this before -- your alleged 10% CSA tariff is a total fantasy because nobody in the CSA congress ever proposed it, and that congress never enacted such a rate.
The actual rates in March 1861 (the only rates ever effectively enforced) were about the same as the US Tariff of 1857 or 15%.

FLT-bird: "Oh, and of course only 4 states issued declarations of causes, not 7."

Yes, before the Battle of Fort Sumter, four states issued official "Reasons for Secession" documents -- SC, MS, GA & TX -- plus two individuals wrote highly influential statements -- Rhett and Stephens -- plus one state, Alabama, included a reason in its Declaration of Secession, and that reason was, of course, slavery.

FLT-bird: "Southern political leaders thought the tariffs and subsidies of Northern "infant industries" would be TEMPORARY.
They did not think they were signing up to have their and their children's pockets picked for generations. "

Here's how you can know those words are 100% nonsense -- the first US tariff was enacted in 1789:

"The Tariff Act of 1789 was the first major piece of legislation passed in the United States after the ratification of the United States Constitution.
It had two purposes: to protect manufacturing industries developing in the nation and to raise revenue for the federal government.
It was sponsored by Congressman James Madison, passed by the 1st United States Congress, and signed into law by President George Washington.
The act levied a 50¢ per ton duty on goods imported by foreign ships; American-owned vessels were charged 6¢ per ton...

Charges up to fifty percent were imposed on selected manufactured and agricultural goods, including "steel, ships, cordage, tobacco, salt, indigo [and] cloth."

In 1789, tobacco was the US number one export, and notice it is protected by the highest possible tariff, 50%.

So all of the essential features of tariffs in, for example, 1860 were also present in the very first tariff under Pres. Washington, as submitted to Congress by Congressman James Madison.

This is a good place to stop for now...

[FLT-bird]

BroJoeL: And yet again, a globo-slaver elite from South Carolina, the 1860 butt-hurt state, still smarting from Pres. Jackson's 1832 Nullification trip to the woodshed. Hammond was a long-time SC politician, former SC governor, who served in the US Senate from 1857 to 1860. Turns out, according to his own confessions, that Hammond was not only an original SC globo-slaver, but he was also a globo-homo and pedophile.

Uh huh. So all you've got are ad hominem attacks - just like one would expect from a grade schooler. Pathetic.

BroJoeL: Regardless, the fact remains that in 1860, US cotton exports accounted for roughly half of all US exports, while other Confederate state exports (i.e., tobacco) added perhaps another 5%. Union state exports, including California gold and Nevada silver, accounted for the rest.

The fact remains that the South had provided 70-75% of all exports since the ratification of the US Constitution.

BroJoeL: Further, Hammond's claim (repeating Calhoun & others), that this meant "the South" "paid for" $50 million of US Federal revenues (71%), is just nonsense.

No its not.

BroJoeL: The truth is that Federal tariff revenues were paid for by whomever purchased US imports and so paid those tariffs -- and those were overwhelmingly Northerners, Easterners and Westerners, not Southerners.

Once again, you do not have the slightest clue how tariffs work. You display your ignorance for all to see yet again. The owner of the goods pays the tariff. Not the port. Not the end customer. The owner of the goods.

BroJoeL: As I noted in post #199 above, US imports went everywhere in the US, only occasionally to the South.

As I've noted over and over again, where the goods land and the tariff is paid or who the end customers are is irrelevant. The owner of the goods pays the tariff.

BroJoeK: Here again are US major import tariff items -- from most to least, and their (biggest destinations): blah blah blah

Once again we should note that who buys the final product is irrelevant. They do not pay the tariff. The owner of the goods does. To illustrate, when President Trump slapped tariffs on a bunch of Chinese goods, did you pay the tariff when you went to Wal-Mart, Target, etc to buy goods? Of course not. Prices on those goods may have been raised to cover the cost of the tariff, but there was no tariff surcharge on your receipt....and that's because as the end consumer, you don't pay the tariff.

BroJoeK: Finally, we should note that Hammond died at age 56 on November 13, 1864. His cause of death was reported as mercury poisoning, mercury being the usual treatment for syphilis in those days.

Finally, we should note that this is irrelevant.

BroJoeK: Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas" I can't confirm this quote, however Texas Congressman Reagan was rewarded for such sophistry by being appointed the CSA's Postmaster General -- by all accounts did a good job and was eventually returned to Congress (1874) and the US Senate (1887) before passing away in eastern Texas at age 86 in 1905. Reagan's accusations, although doubtless heartfelt, are pure nonsense, except in that they confirm the centrality of slavery to Confederates' Reasons for Secession.

Irrelevant personal biography. His complaints here were both completely valid AND consistent with what many other Southern political leaders and Newspapers (and doubtless ordinary people) had been saying for many many years. They show that the economic exploitation of the Southern states by the North was at the heart of Southerners' discontent with the union.

BroJoeK: Again, I can't confirm the quote or the circumstances, but it does sound like the kind of words that made Jefferson Davis the new Confederacy's president. It's pure nonsense, yet another Democrat Big Lie, but it certainly helped to inspire Southerners that slavery was under assault by Northerners intent on "cheating" the South with "unjust legislation" for "Northern aggrandizement" to promote New England industry at the expense of Southern industry.

Its all completely true. What was going on was a power struggle between North and South. Slavery was an issue only in so far as it provided a convenient wedge issue for Northerners to use. What the two sides were really fighting over was the North wanted to use the federal government to line their own pockets at the South's expense. The South naturally opposed this. This is exactly what secession and Lincoln's war of aggression were about. The North stood to lose a lot of money if their cash cows departed.

BroJoeK: All of these quotes reduce the roll of slavery as a central cause of 1860 and 1861 Declarations of Secession and show that professed concerns about slavery were a mere pretext for Southerners real concerns which were economic.

FIFY

BroJoeK: We've dealt with Toombs before and can do so again. Here are the key points: The first point to notice is that this was November 19, 1860, after the November 6 election, during which opposition to the proposed Morrill Tariff was not mentioned in any of the four party platforms -- Southern Democrats, Northern Democrats, Constitutional Unionists or Republicans.

We've dealt with this before and we can deal with it again. The Republicans were a protectionist party entirely beholden to Northern corporate interests. As such everyone knew they favored high tariffs. The Southern Democrats were fiercely opposed to high tariffs as they had long been and as everyone knew.

BroJoeK: Nor did Southern Fire Eaters threaten secession, before the election, over the Morrill Tariff.

the tariff which was not unconstitutional?

BroJoeK: Southern Democrats killed the Morrill Tariff in the 36th Congress (1860) and could have easily killed it again in the 37th Congress (1861-1863) had they not resigned due to secession.

False. It passed the House in the Spring of 1860 and was sure to pass the Senate in 1861. All that was needed was to pick off one or at most 2 Senators.

BroJoeK: So, the Morrill Tariff was not a serious threat to the South in 1860 or 1861 -- nor did the vast majority of Southerners treat it as such.

the Morrill Tariff absolutely was a serious threat to the South in 1860-61 and Southerners knew it full well. There is a reason why the largest newspapers in the two largest port cities of the Southern states published editorials saying exactly that.....yes, even though they didn't say the words "Morrill Tariff" directly.

BroJoeK: Toombs' arguments here against the Morrill Tariff are just typical Democrat BS nonsense.

No they're not. They're exactly on point.

BroJoeK: In fact, all Morrill seriously needed to do was reduce the Federal debt by increasing tariff rates from the 16% of the 1857 Tariff back to the 25% of the 1846 Walker Tariff.

paying off government debts incurred from giving lavish subsidies to Northern Special Interests was not the reason Republicans and Northern Industrialists wanted a high tariff. They wanted a high tariff to line their own pockets by increasing margins while at the same time allowing them to gain market share in the US.

BroJoeK: Regardless, notice that yet again Toombs paired the tariff with slavery as threats against Georgia. This is the same pattern we've seen with others, notably Rhett.

Notice what Rhett and Toombs were saying. Northern corporate interests who wanted a high tariff were using slavery as a wedge issue to get their tariff passed. Specifically - as Rhett lays out - to keep Midwesterners on side given that large swathes of the Midwest were given to grain production and they too had no interest in a high protective tariff. It is not that Northern industrialists really gave a damn about slavery. It was just a convenient political tool for them to use. Notice the very first bargaining chip the Republicans offered up was express constitutional protection of slavery effectively forever. What they really wanted was the high tariffs. What the Southern states really wanted was not to be stuck with a very damaging high tariff - so they rejected the Corwin Amendment.

BroJoeK: Finally, we should notice that Georgia's official "Reasons for Secession" document does list tariffs, but pairs them with slavery and also commends the 1846 Walker Tariff as the example setter of a good tariff.

The Georgia Declaration lists the one issue that allowed them to legitimately claim the Northern states had violated the US Constitution - ie slavery. They also went on at length talking about tariffs and the grossly unequal federal expenditures favoring the North even though these were not unconstitutional.

BroJoeK: After the 1860 elections, Southern Democrats would still retain power in Congress to at least insure there was no significant difference between the 1846 Walker Tariff and the 1861 Morrill Tariff.

No they wouldn't. All that was needed for the Morrill Tariff to pass was picking off a Senator or two.

BroJoeK: Of course, tariffs were always at issue in Washington -- tariffs were "politics as usual" -- but outside of South Carolina in 1832, tariffs were never the source of threats of Southern secession.

Because the US Constitution set no limit on how high tariffs could be. Raising the tariff to the point that it greatly damaged one section of the country to the benefit of another was not unconstitutional. No matter how much Southerners hated it and thought it grossly unfair - and I've provided ample evidence they did - they could not claim high tariffs and grossly unequal federal expenditures were unconstitutional.

BroJoeK: Sure, but calls for lower tariffs -- or complaints about high tariffs -- were not mentioned in any of the 1860 party platforms.

The Republican made it clear they supported high tariffs. Lincoln made it extra special clear he supported high tariffs.

BroJoeK: Nor did any Southern politician ever threaten secession over the Morrill Tariff -- at least not that has ever been presented in these threads.

The tariff that was not unconstitutional?

BroJoeK: Sure, but tariffs were always "politics as usual", where specific rates could go up or down with each new Congress and political alignment.

by "politics as usual" you mean they had been fighting over it for a long time...that they had been engaged in a long power struggle over this issue.

BroJoeK: With the sole exception of one state, South Carolina, and one episode, the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations", tariffs were never weaponized to threaten secession or war against the United States.

Tariffs were not unconstitutional. Nobody proposed or wanted war against the United States. Lincoln started the war to prevent the North's cash cows from leaving.

BroJoeK: Sorry, but now you're just repeating your talking points.

What do you think you've been doing for years on this topic?

BroJoeK: The truth is the original 1860 Morrill proposal increased average rates from 16% to around 26%, and that was defeated by Southern Democrats in Congress.

The Truth is the Morrill tariff raised rates to approximately double their previous rate and the tariff passed the House in 1860. They were only one or at most two votes away in the Senate and were confident they could get one or two Senators with the right incentives/threats.

BroJoeK: So, there was no "first bite of the apple", much less a "second bit" -- all that is just nonsense.

LOL! Not its not. The denial is what is nonsense. They raised rates to TRIPLE what they were before AND left them in place for over FIFTY YEARS.

BroJoeK: Finally, we've covered this before -- your alleged 10% CSA tariff is a total fantasy because nobody in the CSA congress ever proposed it, and that congress never enacted such a rate.

Your denial here is the real joke. Read the Confederate Constitution. It says tariff for revenue not protective tariff. They only raised it higher than that when under dire threat of invasion and in desperate need of money to pay for their defense.

BroJoeK: The actual rates in March 1861 (the only rates ever effectively enforced) were about the same as the US Tariff of 1857 or 15%.

When you have the then largest army in the world on your doorstep threatening invasion, you will engage in extreme and desperate measures to defend yourself.

BroJoeK: Yes, before the Battle of Fort Sumter, four states issued official "Reasons for Secession" documents -- SC, MS, GA & TX -- plus two individuals wrote highly influential statements -- Rhett and Stephens -- plus one state, Alabama, included a reason in its Declaration of Secession, and that reason was, of course, slavery.

Alabama issued no declaration of causes and of course Stephens' statement was not influential. Stephens was the powerless VP who spent all his time sitting at home in Georgia he had so little power or influence with the Confederate Government.

BroJoeK: Here's how you can know those words are 100% nonsense -- the first US tariff was enacted in 1789: "The Tariff Act of 1789 was the first major piece of legislation passed in the United States after the ratification of the United States Constitution. It had two purposes: to protect manufacturing industries developing in the nation and to raise revenue for the federal government. It was sponsored by Congressman James Madison, passed by the 1st United States Congress, and signed into law by President George Washington. The act levied a 50¢ per ton duty on goods imported by foreign ships; American-owned vessels were charged 6¢ per ton... Charges up to fifty percent were imposed on selected manufactured and agricultural goods, including "steel, ships, cordage, tobacco, salt, indigo [and] cloth." In 1789, tobacco was the US number one export, and notice it is protected by the highest possible tariff, 50%.

Why would any country need to protect their big export? That was simply thrown in as a meaningless sop as everyone well knew. Southerners were indeed willing to subsidize infant industry in the newly created country. They were also willing to enact the Navigation Act similar to what Britain had in order to ensure there would be a large amount of domestic shipping and a shipbuilding industry in case of war. Its nonsense to say that because they agreed to high tariffs and subsidies for these infant industries right at the beginning, that means they were agreeing to it for the long term. Infant industries are not meant to stay infant for generations. Infants are supposed to grow up.

BroJoeK: So all of the essential features of tariffs in, for example, 1860 were also present in the very first tariff under Pres. Washington, as submitted to Congress by Congressman James Madison.

It was 70 years later. That was more than enough time for those infant industries to have grown up and weened themselves off the government tit. Also, by 1860, the North had caught up to the South in per capita wealth. The South was no longer vastly richer than the North which it had been 70 years earlier. Enough was enough.

All the above statements were further supported by President Davis in his first speech to the Confederate Congress:

"The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other. And the danger of disruption arising from this cause was enhanced by the fact that the Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control." Jefferson Davis Address to the Confederate Congress April 29, 1861

So contrary to the PC Revisionist claims that economic complaints like this were somehow only invented after the fact, Southerners had been making the same complaints for decades leading up to secession and even after secession.