Replies

Irrelevant. 1) The more research that comes out, the more it's pretty well documented that a) the tariff didn't hurt the South so much prior to Lincoln's election that it ever became and issue (except for Tariff of Abom.)

2) In the major speeches, they were overwhelmingly focused on slavery, not the tariff.

3) No, it's not "wrong." The fact is, if you import bananas and you don't make bananas, you either get them or you don't. A small tax on bananas doesn't do a lot to change consumption if there are no subsitutes. What the new evidence on the tariff is showing is that the types of imports covered by the tariffs were subject to substitution---you could buy British textiles, or make your own, or whatever. But southerners were not locked into buying the products. They CHOSE to buy them, then grouse about it.

I do NOT favor a tariff, period, and certainly not one disporportionately aimed at a particular group. But it's sophistry and a smokescreen to try to blame the tariff for disunion and secession. It was all about slavery. They knew it, and you know it.

the tariff didn't hurt the South so much prior to Lincoln's election that it ever became and issue (except for Tariff of Abom.)

The Morrill Tariff of 1862 was already in the works, everyone knew what the Republicans wanted to do on tariffs -- and Morrill was the Son of the Abomination, so to speak. The Republicans were high-tariff guys, and the Southerners knew it.

Irrelevant. 1) The more research that comes out, the more it's pretty well documented that a) the tariff didn't hurt the South so much prior to Lincoln's election that it ever became and issue (except for Tariff of Abom.)

Lol. That sure explains why Southerners protested against the high tariffs for decades! </sarcasm>

2) In the major speeches, they were overwhelmingly focused on slavery, not the tariff.

Because yankees refused to abide by their legal agreement and strove to incite civil unrest and a slave rebellion. Yankees had made their billions in the slave trade, and now found morals.

3) No, it's not "wrong." The fact is, if you import bananas and you don't make bananas, you either get them or you don't. A small tax on bananas doesn't do a lot to change consumption if there are no subsitutes.

Sigh. A small tax? Send me 48% on everything you purchase.

What the new evidence on the tariff is showing is that the types of imports covered by the tariffs were subject to substitution---you could buy British textiles, or make your own, or whatever.

England has product A for export - no tariff. Price is $1. Yankees manufacture INFERIOR product priced at 1.15, get special protection from Congress, English product now costs $1.48. Yankees raise theirs to 1.30 - ensuring higher revenues (aka PROFITS) for themselves. If Southerners purchase Yankee product NO tariff revenue is raised - manufactures keep it all. If they purchase English they pay more, and receive LESS in return for their exports.

If you don't think it makes a difference just tack on an extra 48% on everything you buy and donate the money to charity. Southerners complained because they understood simple economics.

I do NOT favor a tariff, period, and certainly not one disporportionately aimed at a particular group.

Same here.

But it's sophistry and a smokescreen to try to blame the tariff for disunion and secession. It was all about slavery. They knew it, and you know it.

That explains why Lincoln railed against the loss of the Southern states and demanded to know how the government would raise revenues.