Southern dominated? The parties were split almost evenly since the Constituion was ratified. Southerners weren't stupid, tariffs were the only method of raising revenue, Southerners wanted monies to be allocated for DEFENSE, not pork.
Here is a plank from the Republican Platform of 1860, calling for reform of tariffs: "12. That, while providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country ...
Economics is not a difficult subject - the Republican Party advocated HIGHER tariffs (DUH - that encourages 'industrial interests'). These industrial interests are the northern capitalists/industrialists - not the average workers.
... we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the working men liberal wages...
Note these are NOT agricultural interests - those are referenced next in the plank. These 'working men' are northern workers, employed by the 'industrial interests' ante. The only way that northern men can be guaranteed higher wages is to enact TARIFFS on their competition, ensuring that their products are the cheapest (even at higher prices). Simple economics would have market forces set the wages, not to rely on artificial protection.
... to agriculture remunerating prices ... The Republican platform relating to the South is for them to simply be compensated for their efforts, no artificial protections. In other words to compete on the world market as should have the northern industries, but Republicans/yankees we economically chicken.
... to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise.... Another reference to northern workers/industry - the Republican plank is one of REWARD (above average renumeration).
Southerners weren't stupid - the Republican platform was one that pillaged the South in favour of lining Northern pockets with Southern gold, and one of expending the bulk of tariff receipts on yankee soil.
As Judge Judy Sheindlin wrote, 'Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining'.
I find it hard to believe that tariffs were the driving issue that the post-war Lost Cause types propose. It didn't seem to concern the Dems in 1860.
The South had protested high protectionist tariffs almost from the founding. Speeches in Congress, sectionalism, a threat of secession in the 1830's, continuous agitation between the states over revenues and expenditures had occurred for decades. History, you can learn a lot from it.
If the Republican tariff policies were such a dominant issue, why did the northern Midwest, which was also largely agricultural, have strong support for the Republicans?
Yes, Southern Democrat dominated. If you look at the make up of the Congresses from the "Nullification Crisis" in 1832, through the election of 1858, you will discover that the majority of the time, the Dems held the house, and held the Senate almost continually. It is in the late 50's, culminating in the Dem meltdown of 1860, that they began to lose grip.
Southerners weren't stupid, tariffs were the only method of raising revenue, Southerners wanted monies to be allocated for DEFENSE, not pork.
Tariffs paid mostly in Northern ports.
sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country ...
Economics is not a difficult subject - the Republican Party advocated HIGHER tariffs (DUH - that encourages 'industrial interests'). These industrial interests are the northern capitalists/industrialists - not the average workers.
Interesting you didn't choose to bold the phrase "of the whole country". Instead, you go directly to claiming industry only benefited the North.
.. we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the working men liberal wages...
Note these are NOT agricultural interests - those are referenced next in the plank. These 'working men' are northern workers, employed by the 'industrial interests' ante.
To echo you, DUH. The laborers of the "agricultural interests" of the South were SLAVES. Fat chance prying any "liberal wages" out of the plantation owners for them.
... to agriculture remunerating prices ... The Republican platform relating to the South is for them to simply be compensated for their efforts, no artificial protections.
... to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise.... Another reference to northern workers/industry - the Republican plank is one of REWARD (above average renumeration).
Such is your parsed spin on the meanings. In actuality, "remunerating" and "rewarding" are synonyms. And "adequate" reward is now "above average"? Who is trying to pee on whose leg?
The South had protested high protectionist tariffs almost from the founding.
Because they were in the near monopoly position of producing a product, cotton, and didn't need the tariff protection that their Northern countrymen did for their fledgling industrial sector.
So, are you currently a "free trader", or do you think we need to place some restrictive tariffs on, say, China?