Posted on 03/20/2013 9:57:49 AM PDT by mnehring
Zo has strong words for neo-confederate libertarians, especially those who infiltrated the CPAC conference. He reminds viewers why some libertarians have no place in the conservative movement, and why Republicans should embrace the vision of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.
(Video at link)
(Excerpt) Read more at pjtv.com ...
You know that. Straw man argument.
Your comments on rate variations are irrelevant.
What was important was the Confederate tariff rate vs. the Union rate in 1861.
I see three things in your conclusions. One, you did not read further than your quote, or you would have seen Webster’s influence in passage. Two, you apparently are not familiar with political manipulations. And three, this had nothing to do with the eventual outcome of the struggle concerning tariffs.
Your canard and straw man argument attempt failed.
You said: "By the end of the war, it was no longer possible to even try to justify secession in defense of slavery, so another “reason” had to be found."
Northern historians, politicians, and apologists could not justify the degree of carnage resulting from Lincoln's initiation of hostilities for the protection of the Union financial system.
For a century and a half they have had to resort to using the issue of slavery to rationalize the destruction of human life and failure of the Republican party and Congress to hold Lincoln responsible for his despotic actions."
So the South was justified, in your opinion, in seceding over tariff rates?
Several weeks before Lincoln’s inauguration, the New York Times had published editorials of how the commerce of the North would be lost to New Orleans and to the rest of the South because of the low Southern tariff. Some Northerners admitted that their reasons for calling for war were not the result of differences in principles of constitutional law, but because their profits would be lost if the South was successful in becoming independent.
In his inauguration speech, Lincoln had said:
“The power confided in me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion – no using of force against, or among the people anywhere.... You can have no conflict, without being yourselves the aggressors.”
This was Lincoln’s ultimatum to the South: pay tribute to the North or failure to do so will be interpreted as a declaration of war, by the South, against the North.
3/30/1861 New York Times editorial:
“The predicament in which both the government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over…If the manufacturer at Manchester (England) can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at a less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage….
“If the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel.
“ The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons, to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior?
“They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers.
“ Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty free. The process is perfectly simple. The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North…. We now see clearly whither we are tending, and the policy we must adopt.
“With us, it is no longer an abstract question - one of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated power of the State or Federal Government, but of material existence ... We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched.”
Nice histrionics. The country wasn't "blown up" in 1861, at least, not until Lincoln got involved. The South could have separated peacefully had Lincoln allowed it.
The South seceded from the Union as folks like Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, two of the authors of the Federalist Papers, agreed that they could do under the Constitution. Remember "the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness"? The people of the individual states were the ones who could reassume governance; the whole people of the United States couldn't "reassume" something they never had.
The remaining Union after secession had about as many people as the entire Union had in 1850, and it was able to mount a huge war effort for four years. So much for being blown up.
Good point though about the pubbies and Obamacare. Seriously.
Roberts certainly punted on 2nd down. I still hold out hope that something can be done to stop it entirely or gut significant parts of it. Otherwise, an old coot like me will probably have to go overseas for private treatment if and when I have major health issues in the future.
Four of the first seven Deep South states to secede issued Declarations of Reasons for secession.
All explained that protecting their institution of slavery was the reason for secession.
None mentioned tariffs.
A key paragraph:
"For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government.
Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself.
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.
He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."
A key paragraph:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation.
There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
A key paragraph:
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.
This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war."
PeaRidge: "Your comments on rate variations are irrelevant.
What was important was the Confederate tariff rate vs. the Union rate in 1861."
The seven Deep South states seceded before the new Morrill Rates took effect in 1861, so their rates at time of secession were still the old 15%.
The new Morrill tariff returned rates to their levels of, say, 1825 and 1845 -- about 23% -- which did not cause secession then, and could even have been defeated in the House if the South and/or Democrats had been united in opposition.
But the Upper South and Border States were of mixed minds on Morrill, split their votes (or abstained), and so Morrill passed one house in 1860.
Yes, the Confederacy did reduce tariffs back to the old 15% rate, but then immediately embargoed exports of cotton thus eliminating its biggest single source of income.
So, FRiend, answer this question: with no income from exports, what difference did it make how much tariff Confederates couldn't afford to pay for imports?
In an 1861 editorial, the New York Times complained about loss of revenue because the tariffs were no longer being collected in the Southern states. The article bemoaned the fact that new loans for the government were needed, but could not be guaranteed because the seceded states could not be forced to collect the “National” tariff.
The Morrill Tariff was THE ISSUE.
There were a few early on who had seen the possibility of a tariff war and its significance. In January of 1861 in a speech to New York merchants, Henry Raymond, who founded the New York Times, had said:
“there is no class of men in this country who have so large a stake in sustaining the government, whose prosperity depends so completely upon its being upheld…who have so much to lose…as the merchants of this city.”
That being said in January, by late March, the general merchants grasped the significance of Raymond’s remarks and were prepared to support strong action against the South and its tariff. Over one hundred leading commercial importers in New York, as well as a similar group in Boston, informed the US collectors of customs they would not pay duties on imported goods unless those same duties were also collected at Southern ports.
This threat was likely the proximate cause of the beginning of the war. The Lincoln Cabinet abandoned its initial inclination to turn over Ft. Sumter to the Confederates, and to support Lincoln's plan to invade Pensacola and Charleston.
Just at the time that Lincoln advised his cabinet that he was going to reinforce Ft. Sumter, a committee of these New York merchants visited Lincoln. A Washington newspaper learned that at the meeting the merchants had placed great emphasis on the tariff issue and that it was destroying trade and legitimate business. The newspaper said that “it is a singular fact that the merchants who, two months ago were fiercely shouting ‘no coercion’ now are for anything rather than inaction.”
That’s all fine and dandy, though you quote one group of opinions as if they constituted official government policy and/or indisputable fact.
My question for you, which so far you have chosen not to answer, is whether you believe southern states were justified in seceding over tariff rates. I really would like to hear your answer.
One little side note I find interesting. The majority of those I’ve had similar conversations with who think denial of free trade was appalling northern oppression of the south in 1860, believe that today we should implement harsh restrictions on trade to protect American jobs.
Which of course was the rationale in 1860 for the protective tariff. Since there were more voting workers than voting employers.
Commercial papers with ties to the South overplayed the effects and importance of the tariff because of their own interests. So did British politicians and newspapers. Even in good faith a free-trade paper would inevitably overstate the case. Passing a protective tariff with the country on the verge of civil war was not a smart thing to do when there were disagreements about tariff rates, and that's something journalists would point out, especially if they opposed the new rates.
But how can anyone ignore or dismiss all of the agitation over slavery throughout the 1860s? What you're doing is cherry-picking. Tossing together quotes about the tariff without looking at the period context of a country already bitterly divided over slavery. You can find quotes in today's paper about some new measure being "divisive." It's a way to influence Congress not do adopt the new policy. It doesn't mean the country wasn't already divided over other issues.
You can read Henry Raymond's 1861 pamphlet, Disunion and Slavery online. There's a lot in there about the slavery controversy as the cause of disunion, but not much about tariffs. In one of the few references to the subject in the pamphlet, Raymond writes, "New York has a hundred-fold more to gain by releasing her citizens from payment of Federal duties on imports than any Southern state," -- another indication that one could be against the new tariff without wanting to tear the country apart.
Colwell's pamphlet rebuts Kettell's thesis that somehow the North was cheating the South and that Southern cotton production was exploited by Northerners. He shows how those cotton states in the Deep South bought goods and services from Northerners and received fair value for their money. Colwell wasn't concerned to rebut every point of Kettell's pamphlet. They had different focuses, but Colwell's pamphlet and Samuel Powell's Notes on 'Southern Wealth and Northern Profits' do a good job of calling Kettell's arguments and credibility into question.
That the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, say, was highly productive agriculturally doesn't change the fact that the Deep South wasn't the country's breadbasket. Kettell doesn't admit that Northern agriculture was highly productive outside New England. He has something of a screw loose in his pamphlet and the quotes you cited. In his book it's always the South that's getting robbed. It's always the South than enables the North to make money or feed itself. That the developing West sent much flour East has to be because the South ships food North.
Nobody said that New England was able to produce all its own food in 1860. But it is the case that farming wasn't as marginal or subservient to industry as it later became or as Southern propagandists claimed. The food that New England did get from elsewhere didn't come from the Deep South, and as I've noted New York and Pennsylvania still had strong agricultural sectors in 1860 (something you didn't respond to).
Lincoln's inaugural refers to the way the federal government's authority was felt by Americans in 1860. There was the mail. There was government property -- post offices, court houses, custom houses, and forts. There were excise and import taxes. So long as these were maintained the federal government and the citizenry could believe that the union was intact. If they weren't maintained the country was well and truly broken, most likely forever. To use Lincoln's words to make him some kind of tariff-obsessed monster is to twist and distort.
This is what you do. You dump a lot of quotes here that were already posted on other threads in months and years gone by. Other people responding in good faith have to do actual research and some hard thinking if they want to answer you. Then you ignore what they post and put out yet more predigested, already posted quotes. It's not a game I want to play or one that other people should have to play or that you should feel very proud about getting them to play.
Um .. x, I didn't post that. Please be more careful.
If you aren’t able to refute a post, say so. It would be more honest.
As I pointed out in my post, the South seceded to protect slavery. I’ve posted many times before that I thought slavery was the main cause of the war for the South. On the other hand, I think the prospect of the loss of revenue was why Lincoln provoked the war. If you can’t respond to that without calling what I posted junk, you have lost the argument without even trying.
That was the other guy (assuming you’re not actually the same guy). Sorry about the mix-up.
Honestly, I'm sick and tired of the same stuff that has been discussed to death posted over and over again.
And honestly, who does "refute" anything here? Even if that happens, the person refuted doesn't admit it, so it's like it never happened.
If you can’t respond to that without calling what I posted junk, you have lost the argument without even trying.
Like I said, I have trouble telling you guys apart. What I wrote was a result of being hit by a lot of different posts with a lot of different quotes that I thought were from the same person who was only going to make a "minor" correction.
I stand by my point, though. You are cherry-picking quotes that relate to the tariff rather than casting your nets wider. Your quotes from Northern business-oriented newspapers about how the South would react to the tariff are a poor substitute for the actual reactions of secessionists.
And who did start the war, anyway? Who "provoked" whom to what and how? If you don't recognize the great emotional appeal of nation and flag and honor in the 19th century or the persuasiveness of the constitutional arguments against secession of course you're going to look for something like the tariff to explain Lincoln's course of action, but not everyone is going to dismiss that much history.
Hey, Pea. x thinks I’m you and vice versa. See posts 330-333. Now I can be in two states at the same time.
The South seceded from the Union as folks like Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, two of the authors of the Federalist Papers, agreed that they could do under the Constitution.
Actually, no they didn't. They did it the way they figured they could do it and defied the union to stop them.
Remember "the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness"?
Sure I do, but the belief in the god-given right to rebellion carried with it a price. It was never meant as carte blanche to do whatever you feel like at any time or for any reason (or no reason at all). And it also carried with it the immutable law of consequence. If the fire-eaters were serious about peaceful separation they could have attempted it instead of the belligerent unilateral rebellion they tried.
Who knows - it might have worked out better for them as well>
[You]: Actually, no they didn't. They did it the way they figured they could do it and defied the union to stop them.
The Southern states generally elected representatives to secession conventions much as states did in ratifying the US Constitution. Several of the Southern states went further than that in submitting the question of secession directly to the voters of their states. That was only done by one state in the ratification of the US Constitution. In that instance ratification of the Constitution failed by a ten to one margin. The Constitution was later ratified in that state by a small convention.
Where in the Constitution was the Federal government, or for that matter, non-seceding states given the power to stop a state from withdrawing from the Union?
Apparently you know better what the Constitution means than those two ratifiers of the Constitution and authors of the Federalist Papers I cited above. How wonderful that we have you to explain it to us.
The papers whose articles I cited were commenting on the effect or likely effect of the two different tariffs on Northern commerce and what the importers were likely to do (and did), not how the South would react to the tariff.
I suggest you work on your reading comprehension. You've already attributed stuff to me that I didn't say, criticized me for supposedly ignoring or dismissing slavery as an issue (which I don't do), call material in my posts garbage and junk, and now you are mischaracterizing the articles I quoted.
And who did start the war, anyway? Who "provoked" whom to what and how?
I was intending to refer you by links to a couple of earlier posts of mine to answer your questions, but I see that the thread they were in was deleted because of some later flame war that erupted in it. I will repost them if you concur, but I suspect you would not agree with them and might be tempted to call them "junk" or "garbage" since they are long and cite a number of things and actions that you perhaps don't have time or inclination to deal with. Your call.
For whatever my opinion might be worth, rusty is a good guy, dare I say it, a prince among thieves?
Which is not to say he's right about everything, just that he usually does a workman like job of presenting data and arguments, with a bare minimum of personal attacks.
But while I still have a minute or two...
Please go back to rusty's post with all those New York Herald quotes.
Now remember the NY Herald was an anti-Republican, Democrat supporting, Dred-Scott excusing, Chris Matthews level "tingle up my leg" Slave-Power loving, Dough-Faced Northern partisan political organ.
So, are you surprised to see where they criticized the Republicans' new Morrill Tariff?
One of the claims is that lower CSA tariffs would attract trade to the South, reducing imports to the USA. Imports would enter through New Orleans instead of New York.
This is no doubt true for the volume of trade previously imported through NY that was then absorbed by the South. But the CSA had a population of 9M, vs. 22M for the Union, with only about 5.5M actual customers, since the buying power of slaves is pretty slight. So at most the potential southern market for imports was perhaps 1/3 that of the North.
Would some part of imports previously absorbed by northern states be imported through the South? Well, no, since the newly independent CSA would presumably place its own tariff on imports, let us say 10%. Then goods imported from CSA to USA would pay the US tariff, unless you are contending that USA would not tax CSA goods. Thus an importer to St. Louis could pay one tariff or two.
Let us assume the claim that 70% of income was lost due to secession is accurate. (We'll ignore the fairly obvious fact that it may also have had something to do with business being nervous about what was going to happen next.) US federal expenditures in 1860 totaled $60M.
70% of $60M is $42M. The final estimated cost of the war for the Union was over $6B. So the claim is that to protect or regain $42M in annual revenue, the Union waged a war, most of it paid for by other forms of newly introduced taxation, that cost more than $6B? The revenue involved turned out to be about 0.7% of a war supposedly started simply over money.
If money were the actual issue, would it not have made a great deal more fiscal sense to replace that $42M with funds raised some other way, as of course was actually done to pay for the war?
In actual fact, of course, it is Confederate apologists who make the claim that the war was all about money, that the South seceded because tariff rates were oppressive. That didn't work out too well for them either, did it?
Cost of the war to the South, upwards of $2B, not to mention the physical destruction or the loss of $3B to $4B in accumulated capital when the slaves were freed.
Would it not have been a fiscally much more prudent course to just pay the damn tariff?
BTW, I'm still waiting for somebody to respond to my question about whether secession (with its recognized risk of war) was justified by a tariff rate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.