You are wrong again, Walt.
"What makes emphasis on the tariff as a cause for secession particularly absurd is that the votes to pass the Morrill Tariff did not exist in Congress until *after* the secessionist Senators and Representatives resigned.
More generally, an emphasis on economic (in the narrow sense) issues as an explanation for secession is thoroughly misguided for the reasons given by Allen Nevins more than a half century ago in *The Ordeal of the Union*:
"One fact needs emphatic statement: of all the monistic explanations for the drift to war, that based upon supposed economic causes is the flimsiest. The theory was sharply rejected at the time by so astute an observer as Alexander H. Stephens. South Carolina, he wrote his brother on New Year's Day, 1861 was seceding from a tariff 'which is just what her own Senators and members of Congress made it.' As for the charges of consolidation and despotism made by some Carolinians, he thought they arose from peevishness, rather than a calm analysis of facts. 'The truth is, the South, almost in mass, has voted, I think, for every measure of general legislation that has passed both houses and become law for the last ten years.' The South, far from groaning under tyranny, had controlled the government almost from its beginning, and Stephens believed that its only real grievance lay in the Northern refusal to return fugitive slaves and to stop the antislavery agitation.
'All other complaints are founded on threatened dangers which may never come, and which I feel very sure would be averted if the South would pursue a judicious and wise course.' Stephens was right. It was true that the whole tendency of federal legislation 1842 to 1860 was toward free trade; true that the tariff in force when secession began was largely Southern- made; true that it was the lowest tariff the country had known since 1816; true that it cost a nation of thirty million people but sixty million dollars in indirect revenue; true that without secession no new tariff law, obnoxious to the Democratic Party, could have been passed before 1863--if then.
"In the official explanations which one Southern State after another published for its secession, economic grievances are either omitted entirely or given minor positions. There were few such supposed grievances which the agricultural states of Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota did not share with the South--and they never threatened to secede. Charles A. Beard finds the tap-root of the war in the resistance of the planter interest to Northern demands enlarging the old Hamilton-Webster policy. The South was adamant in standing for 'no high protective tariffs, no ship subsidies, no national banking and currency system; in short, none of the measures which business enterprise deemed essential to its progress.' But the Republican platform in 1856 was silent on the tariff; in 1860, it carried a milk-and-water statement on the subject which Western Republicans took, mild as it was, with a wry face; the incoming President was little interested in the tariff; and any harsh legislation was impossible. Ship subsidies were not an issue in the campaign of 1860. Neither were a national banking system and a national currency system. They were not mentioned in the Republican platform nor discussed by party debaters. The Pacific Railroad was advocated both by the Douglas Democrats and the Republicans; and it is noteworthy that Seward and Douglas were for building both a Northern and a Southern line. In short, the divisive economic issues are easily exaggerated. At the same time, the unifying economic factors were both numerous and powerful. North and South had economies which were largely complementary. It was no misfortune to the South that Massachusetts cotton mills wanted its staple, and that New York ironmasters like Hewitt were eager to sell rails dirt-cheap to Southern railway builders; and sober businessmen on both sides, merchants, bankers, and manufacturers, were the men most anxious to keep the peace and hold the Union together."
--Nevins, *The Ordeal of the Union* quoted on pp. 212-213 of Edwin C. Rozwenc (ed.), *The Causes of the American Civil War* (Boston: D. C. Heath 1961).
In view of these facts, and in view of the fact that Southern pamphlets on the secession issue *invariably* emphasized the alleged danger to slavery represented by Lincoln and said comparatively little about economics (anyone who doubts this is invited to read Jon L. Wakelyn, ed., *Southern Pamphlets on Secession, November 1860-April 1861* [University of North Carolina Press 1996])--why have so many people emphasized issues like the tariff? I would say there are three reasons:
(1) It was a much more respectable justification for Southerners after the war than "we seceded because we believed--rightly or wrongly--that Lincoln's election would be a menace to slavery." (For the same reason the tariff "explanation" of secession was often used by Confederate representatives in Great Britain *during* the war.)
(2) The view of the South as the victim of Northern exploitation seemed to fit what happened *after* the war, when Northern capitalism reigned supreme and the South was very poor. It seemed logical to many people that this was what the South had seceded to resist and the North had fought to bring about. What tended to be forgotten is that in 1860 the South was wealthier than most nations in the world; that in per capita income of its *white* population it was about equal to the North; that it was making considerable progress in industrialization; and that Northern capitalists and bankers, so far from being determined to crush the South, were generally the most pro-Southern element in the Northern population. It was largely secession and the ensuing war which brought about the economic results Southerners later claimed they seceded to prevent.
(3) Finally, the economic explanation of the war fit in well with vulgarized Marxism--something which influenced a considerable number of non-Marxists from the Progressive Era onward."
-- From the moderated ACW nesgroup
Walt
Sorry Walt, but your source much like you and Marx, is simply wrong. To pass that bill required a majority in the U.S. Senate. It already had the House and the incoming President's support. In 1861 the Senate was sectionally split in half. If every southerner opposed the Morrill bill (like they did in the House), and every northerner favored it (also like the House), the most they could do on a vote was force a tie. When ties occur in the Senate, the Vice President casts a tie-breaking vote. In this particular case, that vote would have been for the tariff, thereby permitting it to pass.
"One fact needs emphatic statement: of all the monistic explanations for the drift to war, that based upon supposed economic causes is the flimsiest. The theory was sharply rejected at the time by so astute an observer as Alexander H. Stephens.
It may have been rejected by Stephens, a unionist at the time, but economics were readily cited elsewhere. Secessionists Toombs and Wigfall both asserted economic reasons in their advocacy of separation from the union. The secessionist Charleston Mercury referred to the Morrill bill in derisive terms and cited it as a major grievance with the north, as did pro-secession editorials and resolutions around the confederacy. You, or your newsgroup, or Nevins, or Marx for that matter can deny it all you like, Walt, but that will not ever make the historical documents on the tariff go away.
Stephens was right. It was true that the whole tendency of federal legislation 1842 to 1860 was toward free trade; true that the tariff in force when secession began was largely Southern- made; true that it was the lowest tariff the country had known since 1816
Nevins is neglecting, perhaps intentionally, the fact that the 1860 tariff was on its way out as of May 1860. Congress was in the process of repealing it and replacing it with protectionism - a process that was on the verge of conclusion when the first states seceded and complete before The Lincoln's inauguration.
true that it cost a nation of thirty million people but sixty million dollars in indirect revenue
NOT true. No tariff costs only that which it collects in revenue. Free trade tariffs minimize additional costs beyond revenue as was the case before 1860. But the true cost of protectionist tariffs, as was the case in 1861, is felt in its impact to prices and its waste of the consumer surplus. Nevins is probably not an economist hence a plausible excuse for his error, but from an historical view, it is still an error of great significance.
true that without secession no new tariff law, obnoxious to the Democratic Party, could have been passed before 1863--if then.
NOT true. I have already explained how it could have passed in 1861 above. Nevins' assertion that the law was opposed by the Democratic Party as a whole is similarly false. Every single northern Democrat in the house save a negligable number that is countable on a single hand voted FOR the Morill bill in May 1860. A northern Democrat president, James Buchanan, also supported and signed it.
"In the official explanations which one Southern State after another published for its secession, economic grievances are either omitted entirely
That is simply NOT true. Those "explanations," which he ascribes to "one southern state after another," in fact ammount to a grand total of four out of eleven states - not even a majority of those states!
or given minor positions.
Again that is simply not true. Of those four states, Georgia's devotes paragraph upon paragraph to the tariff and economic issues as I have excerpted previously to you. A second, Texas, gives a "minor position" to it in a single listed grievance. In effect, a full half of those four declarations gave some mention to economics and a full quarter of them focused heavily on economics.
There were few such supposed grievances which the agricultural states of Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota did not share with the South
That too is simply not so. Morrill's tariff bill intentionally threw pork to the northern farm states by way of protecting their products in order to get them on board. They responded in full by unanimously voting for the thing in the House on May 10, 1860.
But the Republican platform in 1856 was silent on the tariff; in 1860, it carried a milk-and-water statement on the subject which Western Republicans took, mild as it was, with a wry face
Again, that is simply not so. The 1860 Republican Platform solidly endorsed the tariff. That tariff plank had the support of the Republican presidential nominee, Abe Lincoln. And when that tariff came up for a vote in Congress, the Republicans unanimously favored it.
the incoming President was little interested in the tariff
That is simply not so. Of his tariff advocacy, The Lincoln wrote on October 11, 1859 "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." His support for protectionism is accordingly without question. Contrary to Nevins' assertion, the Lincoln's interest in tariffs was similarly prominent. On February 15, 1861 he made this known in the plainest of terms, telling an audience "[I]f 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." Not only did he favor the tariff, Walt. He publicly pledged to make it a legislative priority.
and any harsh legislation was impossible.
That is simply not so. The Morrill bill was one of the harshest tariff acts in American history. It passed and was therefore possible.
Ship subsidies were not an issue in the campaign of 1860. Neither were a national banking system and a national currency system.
Yet they were issues in the secession crisis. Toombs addressed them thoroughly.
The Pacific Railroad was advocated both by the Douglas Democrats and the Republicans
The Douglas Democrats and Republicans were both northern parties.
In short, the divisive economic issues are easily exaggerated. At the same time, the unifying economic factors were both numerous and powerful.
The May 10, 1860 House vote on the Morrill bill was the single most sectionally divided vote that session. It had near unanimous support from the north (all save six, if I remember correctly) and near unanimous opposition from the south (all save one). This bill was the single most prominent economic measure of the 1860 session. It is therefore absurd to suggest the strength of unifying economic factors offered by Nevins.
North and South had economies which were largely complementary.
Under free trade they were fairly complementary. But when free trade ceases to exist, that mix is thrown into chaos because trade restrictions severely hurt exports - the area of the national economy dominated by the south.
and sober businessmen on both sides, merchants, bankers, and manufacturers, were the men most anxious to keep the peace and hold the Union together."
That too is simply not so. Northern businessmen sought to keep the nation together because it was necessary to do so if they were to reap the benefits of the Morrill act. The operated the protected industries that would gain from the shift of the consumer surplus into their pockets. The New York Times admitted and advocated this position on March 30, 1861. By contrast, southern businessmen opposed this position. Their business interests were in exports, which were severely hurt by the trade barriers imposed under Morrill. Free trade helped their business so they went with the confederacy, which adopted a pro-free trade tariff schedule that was similar to the pre-1860 U.S. one.
In view of these facts,
Such a claim is fraudulent. As I have just shown, these alleged facts are themselves plagued with historical errors and fraud.
1) It was a much more respectable justification for Southerners after the war than "we seceded because we believed--rightly or wrongly--that Lincoln's election would be a menace to slavery."
Though the tariff question is more respectable as a position, it is fraud to suggest that it was an invention after the war. The widespread existence of secession era grievances against the tariff evidences the dishonesty in such a claim.
(For the same reason the tariff "explanation" of secession was often used by Confederate representatives in Great Britain *during* the war.)
Actually, it was the British themselves who independently saw the war and concluded tariffs to be a dominant cause for secession. A review of any major British newspaper from the time shows this to be true.
What tended to be forgotten is that in 1860 the South was wealthier than most nations in the world
That it was, but nowhere was this "forgotten." Secession occured in part because the northern tariff sought to rob the south of this wealth by wreaking havoc on its export-heavy economy.
(3) Finally, the economic explanation of the war fit in well with vulgarized Marxism
Much to the contrary. The marxist view of the war itself had no greater advocate than Marx himself. Historically, Marx threw his support enthusiastically behind the north and argued at length AGAINST the tariff cause of the war by relying upon the exact same fraudulent claims articulated here by you, Walt. To suggest that the tariff argument was a marxist creation is to turn history on its head and assign to Marx a position opposite of the one that he himself articulated in the most explicit of terms. Put another way, it is to assert that war is peace, black is white, short is tall, circle is square, and day is night.