Legend of a 'noble South' rises again

Sun Movie Critic ^ | February 16, 2003 | Chris Kaltenbach

[ggekko]

"If the tariff was such a bone of contention the why was one of the first acts of the confederate congress the passing of a tariff?"

Tariffs were the only sanctioned way for a Government to raise revenue at that time; there was no income tax (although Lincoln established the first income tax in the North during the Civil War). In point of historical fact, there was a strong philosophical and legal argument made against "direct taxation" (income tax). Given the strong repugnance the Southern leaders felt against unconstitutional encroachments from the North, they would have never resorted to a direct tax, no matter how dire the need. The Confederacy needed money to fight the war and they were still trading with Europe, hence the imposition of a tariff.

In reality, however, the entire Confederate constitution can be seen as a pointed repudiation of Northern mercantilism with particular attention paid to the lack of uniformity of the Union's taxation theme which had a disproportianate effect on the more Agrarian Southern economies. Article I, Secion 8, Clause 1 of the Confederate Constitution reads as follows:

"Congress shall have the power to lay and collect
taxes, imposts, and excises for revenue necessary
to pay the debts, provide for the common defense,
and carry on the Government of the Confederate
States; but no bounties shall be granted from
the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on
importations be laid to promote or foster any
branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and
excises shall be uniform throughout the
Confderate States."

This clause directly addresses the pattern of non-uniform taxation wherein one state would pay a disproportionate tax which was then used finance an internal subsidy for another state. The pattern that was then in force was for many coastal Southern states to pay a disporportiantely high Federal tax on imports from Europe the proceeds from which were used to finance roads and railroads in Nothern states.

During the several years leading up to the start of the Civil War a trade liberalization movement was sweeping Europe. England had repealed the Corn Laws and moved to a low tariff regime; for competitve reasons the French soon followed. Because of the high volume of bilateral trade with Europe several Souther states proposed moving toward a radically lower tariff regime themselves. This movement in the South was viewd by mercantilist interests on the North with near panic. Not only would shipping costs from Southern ports start to undercut the Northern ports but European manufactured goods would be on an equal footing with Northern manufacturers. In secessionist scenario, Northern ports would find themselves in direct competition with low-tariff Southern ports.

What is intuitively obvious to most casual reader of Southern writings of politicians and other leaders prior to the Civil War was the unfairness that these leaders perceived concerning the existing Federal tax regime. The so called "Tariff of Abomination" passed in 1828 nearly impelled South Carolina to secede at that time. This act was later scaled back in 1833 because of its perceived unfairness.

The slavery issue and the tariff issue were both important factors leading to the Civil War. Many Lincoln scholars have ingored the tariff issue because they are Lincoln "fans". A more accurate understanding of Southern motives and actions must take into account the "tariff issue".

[Ohioan]

I think that your post #100 will pretty conclusively prove my point in #99. You really cannot see the forest.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Non-Sequitur]

Given the strong repugnance the Southern leaders felt against unconstitutional encroachments from the North, they would have never resorted to a direct tax, no matter how dire the need.

Yeah, that 'strong repugnance' lasted until April 24, 1863 when the confederate congress added their own income tax. Here, see for yourself.

Because of the high volume of bilateral trade with Europe several Souther states proposed moving toward a radically lower tariff regime themselves.

States cannot set tariffs on imports or exports without consent of congress (Article I, Section 10) so where was that a threat?

In secessionist scenario, Northern ports would find themselves in direct competition with low-tariff Southern ports.

How? Prior to the war a Northern importer paid the tariff at New York or Boston. Had the south seceded, then an import destined for the same Northern importer would have paid a tariff at the southern port, and then another tariff at the Northern port. All you are doing is adding tariff and transportation costs.

What is intuitively obvious to most casual reader of Southern writings of politicians and other leaders prior to the Civil War was the unfairness that these leaders perceived concerning the existing Federal tax regime.

That's not what Alexander Stephens was saying before the rebellion in December 1860:

"In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina...Yes, and Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at."

[WhiskeyPapa]

Lincoln was, I believe, most concerned with preserving the Union; slavery was a secondary issue.

It goes without saying that without preservation of the Union, no inroads into the institution of slavery could be made.

Lincoln was absolutely unwilling to see slavery expanded into the national territories. That was his bedrock position. It was unsatisfactory to the slave states, and the war came.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

But what was the splitting issue in the "union?" It was none other than slavery...."

I belive the tariff issue was of greater importance than the slavery.

Then why don't efforts to stop the fighting during the war -ever- mention slavery? Throughout 1862 President Lincoln pushed compensated emancipation and relocation schemes. Tariffs are not mentioned.

The prewar dialog was 90% slavery, 10% (or less) tariffs.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

The Morill tariff bill was passed in 1860 and was signed into law by Lincoln shortly after his election.

Buchanan signed the Morrill Tariff, not Lincoln.

Shortly after his election, Lincoln was the president elect.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Slavery played a great role in the war, but so did other factors such as high taxes on the south compared to the north...

There were no federal taxes in 1860. None.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Are you a knacker who occupies some high moral perch?

I think it's people who quote the record that torque you off.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Why 137 years after slavery ended in America; why, at a time when absolutely no one is advocating its restoration, are people so totally hung up on "slavery" that they feel a need to attack other people's pride in their own history.

People have no right to pride in their history when it involved fighting in the last ditch to keep other men in chains, because, as president Lincoln said --they were upset because the government did not help them sufficiently in getting their bread from the sweat of other men's faces.

Nazi concentration camp guards have a similar basis to honor -their- history.

Walt

[Ohioan]

The arrogance of your last post--setting yourself up to judge whether others can take pride in their history--says far more about you, than it does about any ideological position. No response to your post is needed other than to call attention to it.

Since those who honor their Southern heritage, make up a significant part of the rooted American population--including not only those still living in the South, but many Westerners, as well as others who have settled in the North, you are bent upon alienating--for no reason but your own looney-tunes fanaticism--the most significant single segment of the American Conservative base. Without that segment, there is absolutely no chance for Conservatives achieving any of our objectives.

Again, to rational people, your post is a projection of your own pathology. It says nothing of value on any issue.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Treebeard]

I was thinking the same thing. He really is insane and becoming more deserving of pity than any attempts at rational discourse with him. His stupidity is actually so concentrated as to possess an osmotic gradient, ie. intelligence flows OUT of the rest of the universe in a (vain) attempt to dilute it. That of course, presupposes Walt's brain is surrounded by a somewhat permeable membrane, and I think his last post negates that theory.

[SCDogPapa]

He deserves to be,,,ignored.

[Lauratealeaf]

I had ancestors who fought for the North and for the South. Two of them didn't survive the war. One died in a Yankee prison camp and the other died right after the war ended of malaria while part of the occupation troops in Little Rock. We know where my Yankee ancestor is buried but don't know where 2nd LT John R. Bowling is resting. The attacks and burnings of so many courthouses in the south had the effect of ethnic cleansing. Talk to any southerner who works on their ancestry. It is very hard to discover information on southern ancestors and much easier to find documentation on Yankee ancestors.

[ggekko]

"Throughout 1862 President Lincoln pushed compensated emancipation and relocation schemes. Tariffs are not mentioned...."

It is a question of motivation and interpretation of Lincoln's actions and rhetoric. Most of the debate in the 1860 election revolved around the question of whether to extend slavery to some of the Western states. Lincoln's other statements of the topic of slavery to that point would lead any unbiased observer to conclude that ending slavery in the Southern slave states was not an issue of moral urgency with Lincoln. What was of concern to him was the new territories remain unemcubered so that Lincoln's version of mercantilism "internal improvements" ("the American system") could be implemented in these areas. In 1860, "internal improvements" meant "railroads"; Lincoln was also an ardent proponent of a National Bank and favored high, protectionist tariffs.

In 1860 Slave states faced a very threatening situation with respect to their immediate economic viability. Southern leaders, including Jefferson Davis, were convinced that there was nothing to stop the Lincoln administration from conducting a de facto campaign against slavery. The encouragement of servile insurrections and the non-enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act would be very destabilizing from an economic point of view. From a political point of view, then, it is understandable that
most of the rhetoric leading up to the 1860 election would revolve the issue of slavery.

The slavery issue was the most urgent issue, but it acted as a proxy for the broader issue: The Hamilton-Clay-Lincoln system of mercatilism versus the Jefferson-Jackson-Davis system of decentralized Agrarianism. Slavery was the proximate cause of separation but, IMHO it was not the ultimate cause. The use of the slave states as economic milk cows to fund grand infrastruture development schemes in the North, with the inqeuities that this scheme entailed, was the ultimate cause of separation.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Southern leaders, including Jefferson Davis, were convinced that there was nothing to stop the Lincoln administration from conducting a de facto campaign against slavery.

They were also concerned with the northern states passing personal liberty laws and the northern citizens opposing the slave catchers.

Threats to slavery were what motivated them to execute their rebellion against the lawful government.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

The arrogance of your last post--setting yourself up to judge whether others can take pride in their history--says far more about you, than it does about any ideological position. No response to your post is needed other than to call attention to it.

Holding other humans as slaves is wrong. Do you agree, yes or no?

"The doctrine of self-government is right -- absolutely and eternally right -- but it has no just application, as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such application depends upon whether a negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, why in that case, he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if the negro is a man, is it not to that extent a total destruction of self-government, to say that he too shall not govern himself? When the white man governs himself that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government -- that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that "all men are created equal;" and there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another."

-- A. Lincoln

I guess by implication you are defending the right of Nazi concentration camp guards to honor their history too.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

The common rebel soldier was fighting for white supremacy.

The common Confederate soldier fought because their country was invaded by a dictator.

Quote the record.

"... a North Carolina mountaineer wrote to governor Zebulon Vance a letter that expressed the non-slave holder's view perfectly Believing that some able-bodied men ought to stay at home to preserve order, this man set forth his feelings: "We have but little interest in the value of slaves, but there is one matter in this connection about which we have a very deep interest. We are opposed to Negro equality. To prevent this we are willing to spare the last man, down to the point where women and children begin to suffer for food and clothing; when these begin to suffer and die, rather than see them equalized with an inferior race we will die with them. Everything, even life itself, stands pledged to to the cause; but that our greatest strength may be employed to the best advantage and the struggle prolonged let us not sacrifice at once the object for which we are fighting."

-- "The Coming Fury" p. 202-203 by Bruce Catton.

"Though I protest against the false and degrading standard to which Northern orators and statesmen have reduced the measure of patriotism, which is to be expected from a free and enlightened people, and in the name of the non-slaveholders of the South, fling back the insolent charge that they are only bound to their country by the consideration of its "loaves and fishes," and would be found derelict in honor and principle, and public virtue, in proportion as they were needy in circumstances, I think it but easy to show that the interest of the poorest non-slaveholder among us is to make common cause with, and die in the last trenches, in defence of the slave property of his more favored neighbor.

"The non-slaveholders of the South may be classed as either such as desire and are incapable of purchasing slaves, or such as have the means to purchase and do not, because of the absence of the motive-preferring to hire or employ cheaper white labor. A class conscientiously objecting to the ownership of slave property does not exist at the South: for all such scruples have long since been silenced by the profound and unanswerable arguments to which Yankee controversy has driven our statesmen, popular orators, and clergy. Upon the sure testimony of God's Holy Book, and upon the principles of universal polity, they have defended and justified the institution! The exceptions, which embrace recent importations in Virginia, and in some of the Southern cities, from the free States of the North, and some of the crazy, socialistic Germans in Texas, are too unimportant to affect the truth of the proposition."

--J.E.B. DeBow, 1860

DeBow was the taker of the 1850 census.

The record of the day doesn't support your ideas.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

...the white supremacist positions of one Abraham Lincoln - who at best, wanted America to be a land for whites only.

John A Andrew

Executive Mansion,

Washington, February 18. 1864.

Yours of the 12th was received yesterday. If I were to judge from the letter, without any external knowledge, I should suppose that all the colored people South of Washington were struggling to get to Massachusetts; that Massachusetts was anxious to receive and retain the whole of them as permament citizens; and that the United States Government here was interposing and preventing this. But I suppose these are neither really the facts, nor meant to be asserted as true by you. Coming down to what I suppose to be the real facts, you are engaged in trying to raise colored troops for the U. S. and wish to take recruits from Virginia, through Washington, to Massachusetts for that object; and the loyal Governor of Virginia, also trying to raise troops for us, objects to you taking his material away; while we, having to care for all, and being responsible alike to all, have to do as much for him, as we would have to do for you, if he was, by our authority, taking men from Massachusetts to fill up Virginia regiments. No more than this has been intended by me; nor, as I think, by the Secretary of War. There may have been some abuses of this, as a rule, which, if known, should be prevented in future.

If, however, it be really true that Massachusetts wishes to afford a permanent home within her borders, for all, or even a large number of colored persons who will come to her, I shall be only too glad to know it. It would give relief in a very difficult point; and I would not for a moment hinder from going, any person who is free by the terms of the proclamation or any of the acts of Congress."

A. Lincoln

[end]

You don't know what you are talking about.

Quote the record.

Walt