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.”
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.