Between 1832 and the Civil War, tariff policy fluctuated between high tariffs and low tariffs. Between 1832 and 1842, there was a gradual reduction in tariffs, only to be followed by a strongly protectionist period to 1846. The Tariff Act of 1846 reduced tariffs, and tariffs were again reduced by the Tariff Act of 1857.
(U.S. Federal Government Revenues: 1790 to the Present September 25, 2006, Thomas L. Hungerford Specialist in Public Sector Economics Government and Finance Division)
So, with tariffs reduced in 1846 and again in 1857, how can it credibly be claimed that tariffs were the reason for secession? Might the preservation of slavery be the reason, just as Southerners said at the time?
This may be new ground for you, but i've trodden it many times.
"Tariffs" is just one component of the overall sh*t sandwich the South had to eat. The "Navigation act of 1817" was another. It disallowed the South from using foreign shipping and left the North with a virtual monopoly on shipping with which they charged exorbitant rates. Additionally, the tariffs were protectionist in nature, thereby compelling Southerners to buy Northern products, which also built up the North's economy at the expense of their own. Then there were subsidies for Northern industry. Ditto was kind enough to point out that the Shipping company that built "The Baltic" got 10 million dollars over a 10 year period. That money went to the North.
I have read in some of the links BroJoeK previously provided that 60% of the total profit from slavery went to the North. The North was making more money from slavery than the South!
So it's not just "tariffs." It's the entire economic and legal posture of the North towards the South, and the fact the South couldn't do anything about it because of the North's larger population allowing them to outvote the much smaller Southern representation in Congress. (Which is the only thing the "expansion of slavery" scare tactic was ever about.)
And I do not doubt the constant and often obnoxious moral preaching from the North at the South also led them to wanting out.
Might the preservation of slavery be the reason, just as Southerners said at the time?
As has been pointed out several times, all they had to do to get that was to remain in the Union.
The Walker tariff lowered tariff rates to about 25%. Note that the Confederate Constitution only allowed a tariff for revenue - not a protective tariff. A tariff for revenue allows a maximum of just 10%. So even the "compromise" tariff rate was still orders of magnitude higher than would have been in the best interest of the Southern states.
But of course the Morrill tariff promised to greatly increase tariff rates. It passed the House in 1860 and was just one or two senators short of being able to pass the Senate in 1861. With the usual tactic of allowing a special carve out or some other lucrative benefit to appease the commercial interests in the district of one or two more Senators, it would pass. Of course, there would be pressure on each senator to agree lest somebody else take the deal on offer to him and his state be shut out completely. Lincoln himself was staunchly in favor of a high protectionist tariff. As it turns out, the Morrill Tariff passed and was signed into law before Lincoln took office.
Why would preservation of slavery have been a real concern when there was no real popular support to abolish it and considerable opposition to doing so everywhere as well as no power to do so?