The South and the Northern Tariff

The South and the Northern Tariff - Speech of Senator Thomas Clingman, North Carolina, March 19, 1861 (Congressional Globe 36-2 p. 1476-77)

CLINGMAN: Mr. President, I admire the closing rhetoric of the Senator form Rhode Island (Simmons); but I want to call his attention to one or two questions which I put to him, and which he does not apprehend, but which I think are practical. The Senator attaches very little weight to the imports that go into the seven States that have seceded. He thinks it a matter of very little moment whether those States remain out or in. I endeavored to show him the error; but perhaps too hurriedly for him to apprehend my meaning; and I beg leave to recapitulate, for I think if there is a practical mind on the floor of the Senate, the Senator?s is one, and I want to see how he will get this Government out of the difficulty. I say to him, that I am as yet a representative of the Government of the United States, and shall faithfully represent what I believe to be in its interests, while I stand here. But let us see how this will affect the revenue. There were made last year about four million six hundred thousand bales of cotton. About two hundred thousand bales of it were made in North Carolina, and I suppose about as much in Tennessee, and about the same amount in Arkansas. There were very nearly four million bales of cotton made in the seven States that have seceded, worth fully $200,000,000. Very little of it was consumed in those States ? not more, perhaps, than three or four millions? worth ? and the rice crop exported exceeded that, and Louisiana made, I believe, about twenty millions? worth of sugar. I do not know what the amount of the sugar crop was last year; it has fluctuated; but it must have been at least that; it has sometimes been more. I think it fair, therefore, to assume that those seven States sent out of their limits from two hundred to two hundred and twenty million dollars? worth of produce. They get back a return in some way. It is not to be supposed it was given away. My friend from Texas suggests to me that they got it in wood-screws. No doubt they did get some of them; and they may have been gotten up in the State of Rhode Island, for aught I know. I was about to say that they must have got back $220,000,000 worth of products in some form. A portion of the money ? not very much ? went for horses and mules; and grain and other agricultural products, but much the larger amount of it went for articles that were dutiable. All of them were not actually imported, as many of them came from New England and elsewhere; but they were dutiable articles, and, but for the duties would have been furnished at a lower rate from abroad. I take it, therefore, that off the dutiable articles there must be twenty or thirty million ? certainly twenty million ? of revenue that would, in the ordinary course, be collected off those States with the tariff which we had last year.

Now, it is idle for the honorable Senator to tell me that the importations at Charleston and Savannah were small. I know that the merchants have gone from those cities to New York, and bought goods there; that goods are imported into New York are bought there, and then are sent down and deposited at Charleston, New Orleans, and other places. But, in point of fact, here is an enormously large consumption of dutiable articles, from one hundred to one hundred and fifty million. These people make their own provisions mainly, and cotton to sell, and do very little in the way of manufactures. Their manufactured goods came from the United States, or from foreign countries. I put the question to the honorable Senator, how much duty does he think this Government is going to lose by the secession of those States, supposing, of course, that they do not pay us any duties; for if New England goods are to pay the same duty with those of Old England, and Belgium, and France, we all know that the New England goods will be excluded, unless they make up their minds to sell much cheaper than they have been heretofore doing? I was curious, the year before last, in going through Europe, to ascertain, as well as I could, the value of labor and the prices of articles, and I was astonished at the rate at which goods may be purchased all over the continent, compared with similar articles here. The reasons they are not furnished as cheap here, is partly due to the circuitous trade. For example: houses in England purchase up articles in Belgium, France, Germany, and even Italy, and make a handsome profit; they then send them to New York, and handsome profits are made there by the wholesale dealers and, finally, they get down south, and in this way they are very high; but the tariff has also operated very largely. That Senator knows, as well as I do, and everybody knows, that if there be direct trade with Europe by these States; if goods are not to go around through New York, and not to pay duties ? and you may be sure they will not go there under his tariff, for nobody will pay a duty of fifty or seventy-five per cent. on what he imports, when he can send the goods to another port for fifteen or nineteen per cent. ? the result will be, that these States certainly will pay this Government no duties at all.

But it does not stop there. Merchants from my own State go down to Charleston, and lay in their goods. This Government, as things now stand, is not going to get any revenue from them. If goods are imported at Charleston at ten, or fifteen, or nineteen per cent. duty, whatever is paid will go into the coffers of the confederate States, and merchants will go down from my State and buy their goods there; and thus you lose a great portion of the North Carolina trade. It will be the same with Tennessee; it will be the same with the Mississippi valley. Now, what revenue are we going to get to support our Government under th epresent condition of things? The honorable Senator is very adroit in parrying questions. I asked him, when he spoke of the free list, if the manufacturers were willing that their chemicals, their dye stuffs, and coarse wool, that has been admitted free, should be taxed; and he replied, ?They are willing to have tea and coffee taxed.?

SIMMONS: The Senator will pardon me. I said, if we wanted money I would tax them, whether they were willing or not.

CLINGMAN: Exactly; but when pressed on that point, he turns it off on the tea and coffee. But, sir, we are legislating here for the United States ? all of us who are here, except by friend from Texas, who is kind enough to stay with us and help us legislate, until he gets official notice of the ordinance of his State. I thank him for his kindness. I think he is doing us a favor to stay here and help the wheels along. It needs the help of Hercules and the wagoner both to get us out of the mud. I want to know of honorable Senators on the other side of the Chamber how this Government is going to support its revenue next year. I think, if you have no custom-house between Louisiana and the Upper Mississippi, merchants up there will come down and buy their goods at New Orleans. If they learn that at New York they can buy goods under a tariff of fifty or seventy-five per cent., and that they can biy them at New Orleans under a tariff of only one third that, they will go down to New Orleans; and the result will be that we shall get very little revenue under the existing system. We may bandy witticisms; we may show our adroitness in debate; but this is a question which we have to look at practically. One of two things must be done: either you must prevent imports into those States, which I do not think you can do ? and I do not suppose there is a Senator on this floor who believes that, under the existing laws, the President has authority to do it ? or you must call Congress together, and invest him with some authority. If you do not do that, you must establish a line of custom houses on the border.

Is it not better for us to meet this question frankly on its merits? My apprehension, as I have already expressed it, is that the Administration intend, (I hope I may be deceived) as soon as they can collect the force to have a war, to begin; and then call Congress suddenly together, and say, ?The honor of the country is concerned; the flag is insulted. You must come up and vote men and money.? That is, I suppose, to be its policy; not to call Congress together just now. There are two reasons, perhaps, for that. In the first place, it would be like a note of alarm down south; and, in the next place, if you call Congress together, and deliberately submit it to them whether they will go to war with the confederate States or not, I do not believe they would agree to do it. Of course, I do not know what is the temper of gentlemen on the other side; but, though they will have a large majority in the next Congress, I take it for granted from what little I have heard, that it will be difficult to get a bill through Congress for the war before the war begins; but it is a different thing after fighting begins at the forts.

The Senator himself says they are going to enforce the laws and carry them out everywhere. I cannot tell what he means. In one part of his speech, I understood him to say that he was willing to let the seceded States alone; but towards the close of it, he spoke of enforcing the laws, and collecting the revenue everywhere. There is a very wide difference between these lines of policy. If you intend to let the confederate States stand where they now do, and collect their own revenues, and possess the forts, we shall get nothing, or very little, under the existing system. If on the other hand, you intend to resort to coercive measures, and to oblige them to pay duties under our tariff, which they do not admit that they are liable to pay, and to take back the forts, we shall be precipitated into war; and then, I suppose, we shall have a proclamation calling Congress together, and demanding that the honor of the United States shall be maintained, and that men and money shall be voted. I would rather the country should ace into this matter.

I shall not detain the Senate with a discussion about the tariff. I take it that we understand it, and I presume that the intelligent minds of the country understand its situation, and how much we shall get under it. The Senator form Rhode Island alluded to a remark which the Senator from New Hampshire made, that Rome lasted seven hundred years, and that, therefore, this Government must last seven hundred years; and he gave us some witty remarks about the sun not going down before breakfast. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that these analogies do not always run out; they will not hold good. I have read that Methuselah lived until he was more than nine hundred years of age. If a man who was something above ninety were told by his physicians that he was in very great danger of dying, that his constitution was worn out, and disease was preying on him, if he were to refer to the case of Methuselah, and say, ?I have not lived one tenth as long as he did; and, according to his life, I am now just before the breakfast of life,? it might be a very satisfactory argument, perhaps, to the man who used it, but I doubt whether anybody else would be consoled by it; I doubt very much whether his physicians would leave him under the idea that he had certainly eight hundred years to live. I am very much afraid that my friend from Rhode Island, when he rests on this declaration of the Senator from New Hampshire is resting on an unsubstantial basis, when he assumed that this Government must, of necessity, live as long as the Roman republic, and that the comparison of the sun does not hold good. However, I see the Senator from New Hampshire near me, and as he understands these things so much better than I do, I yield the floor.

That fact is irrelevent to discussions of the Civil War.

Its perfectly relevant considering that he took up advocating the tariff again in 1859 and rode it all the way into the war as his own justification for ingniting that same war.

Lincoln got out of politics after 1850 for four years.

Not entirely. His activities were diminished, but he did go around making advocacy speeches in the presidential campaign of 1852...on his favorite issue, the tariff.

A fair person would consider the slate clean as of 1854 and consider what Lincoln said after that.

And as I have show, he advocated the tariff after that. He also advocated it before that, including in the four year period when you claimed he was out of politics. Needless to say, it seems your new criteria is the arbitrarily chosen date of 1854 and later. In light of that fact, you better start thinking up a new set of criteria because you may now consider your old one met yet again.

"My dear Sir: I am here, just now, attending court. Yesterday, before I left Springfield, your brother, Dr. William S. Wallace, showed me a letter of yours, in which you kindly mention my name, inquire for my tariff views; and suggest the propriety of my writing a letter upon the subject. I was an old Henry Clay tariff whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject, than on any other. I have not since changed my views. I believe yet, if we could have a moderate, carefully adjusted, protective tariff, so far acquiesced in, as to not be a perpetual subject of political strife, squabbles, charges, and uncertainties, it would be better for us. Still, it is my opinion that, just now, the revival of that question, will not advance the cause itself, or the man who revives it. I have not thought much upon the subject recently; but my general impression is, that the necessity for a protective tariff will, ere long, force it's old opponents to take it up; and then it's old friends can join in, and establish it on a more firm and durable basis. We, the old whigs, have been entirely beaten out on the tariff question; and we shall not be able to re-establish the policy, until the absence of it, shall have demonstrated the necessity for it, in the minds of men heretofore opposed to it." - Abraham Lincoln to Edward Wallace, October 11, 1859

"'That, while providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imposts, sound policy requires such an adjustment of the imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interest of the whole country, and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the working men liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.'" - Platform of the Republican Party adopted in August 1860 and endorsed by Lincoln, their nominee for President

"My dear Sir: To comply with your request to furnish extracts from my tariff speeches is simply impossible, because none of those speeches were published. It was not fashionable here in those days to report one's public speeches. In 1844 I was on the Clay electoral ticket in this State (i.e., Illinois) and, to the best of my ability, sustained, together, the tariff of 1842 and the tariff plank of the Clay platform . This could be proven by hundreds---perhaps thousands---of living witnesses; still it is not in print, except by inference. The Whig papers of those years all show that I was upon the electoral ticket; even though I made speeches, among other things about the tariff, but they do not show what I said about it. The papers show that I was one of a committee which reported, among others, a resolution in these words: ``That we are in favor of an adequate revenue on duties from imports so levied as to afford ample protection to American industry.'' But, after all, was it really any more than the tariff plank of our present platform? And does not my acceptance pledge me to that?" - Abraham Lincoln to James Hervey, October 6, 1860

"Yours kindly seeking my view as to the proper mode of dealing with secession, was received several days ago, but, for want of time I could not answer it till now. I think we should hold the forts, or retake them, as the case may be, and collect the revenue. We shall have to forego the use of the federal courts, and they that of the mails, for a while. We can not fight them in to holding courts, or receiving the mails. This is an outline of my view; and perhaps suggests sufficiently, the whole of it." - Abraham Lincoln, letter to Col. J.W. Webb, December 29, 1860

"The words ``coercion'' and ``invasion'' are in great use about these days. Suppose we were simply to try if we can, and ascertain what, is the meaning of these words. Let us get, if we can, the exact definitions of these words---not from dictionaries, but from the men who constantly repeat them---what things they mean to express by the words. What, then, is ``coercion''? What is ``invasion''? Would the marching of an army into South California, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit. But if the Government, for instance, but simply insists upon holding its own forts, or retaking those forts which belong to it,---[cheers,]---or the enforcement of the laws of the United States in the collection of duties upon foreign importations,---[renewed cheers,]---or even the withdrawal of the mails from those portions of the country where the mails themselves are habitually violated; would any or all of these things be coercion?" - Abraham Lincoln, February 11, 1861

"[I]f the consideration of the Tariff bill should be postponed until the next session of the National Legislature, no subject should engage your representatives more closely than that of a tariff . And if I have any recommendation to make, it will be that every man who is called upon to serve the people in a representative capacity, should study this whole subject thoroughly, as I intend to do myself, looking to all the varied interests of our common country, so that when the time for action arrives adequate protection can be extended to the coal and iron of Pennsylvania, the corn of Illinois, and the ``reapers of Chicago.''" - Abraham Lincoln, February 15, 1861

"The power confided to 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." - Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861

"Sir: I shall be obliged if you will give me your opinion in writing whether under the Constitution and existing laws, the Executive has power to collect duties on ship-board, off-shore, in cases where their collection in the ordinary way is, by any cause, rendered impracticable. This would include the question of lawful power to prevent the landing of dutiable goods, unless the duties were paid." - Abraham Lincoln to Edward Bates, March 18, 1861

"Sir I shall be obliged if you will inform me whether any goods, wares and merchandize, subject by law to the payment of duties, are now being imported into the United States without such duties being paid, or secured according to law. And if yea, at what place or places? and for what cause do such duties remain unpaid, or [un]secured? I will also thank you for your opinion whether, as a matter of fact, vessels off shore could be effectively used to prevent such importation, or to enforce the payment or securing of the duties. If yea, what number, and description of vessels, in addition to those already in the Revenue service would be requisite?" - Abraham Lincoln to Salmon P. Chase, March 18, 1861

"At the beginning of that month, in the inaugural, I said ``The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties , and imposts.'' This had your distinct approval at the time; and, taken in connection with the order I immediately gave General Scott, directing him to employ every means in his power to strengthen and hold the forts, comprises the exact domestic policy you now urge, with the single exception, that it does not propose to abandon Fort Sumpter." - Abraham Lincoln to William Seward, April 1, 1861

"In answer I have to say, that having, at the beginning of my official term, expressed my intended policy, as plainly as I was able, it is with deep regret, and some mortification, I now learn, that there is great, and injurious uncertainty, in the public mind, as to what that policy is, and what course I intend to pursue. Not having, as yet, seen occasion to change, it is now my purpose to pursue the course marked out in the inaugural address. I commend a careful consideration of the whole document, as the best expression I can give of my purposes. As I then, and therein, said, I now repeat: ``The power confided to 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 is necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion---no using of force against, or among the people anywhere'' By the words ``property, and places, belonging to the Government'' I chiefly allude to the military posts, and property, which were in the possession of the Government when it came to my hands. But if, as now appears to be true, in pursuit of a purpose to drive the United States authority from these places, an unprovoked assault, has been made upon Fort-Sumpter, I shall hold myself at liberty to re-possess, if I can, like places which had been seized before the Government was devolved upon me.... Whatever else I may do for the purpose, I shall not attempt to collect the duties , and imposts, by any armed invasion of any part of the country---not meaning by this, however, that I may not land a force, deemed necessary, to relieve a fort upon a border of the country. From the fact, that I have quoted a part of the inaugeral address, it must not be inferred that I repudiate any other part, the whole of which I re-affirm, except so far as what I now say of the mails, may be regarded as a modification." - Abraham Lincoln, in a message of disinformation to commissioners from the Virginia convention, April 13, 1861

"By the President of the United States of America: A Proclamation. Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States: And whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection, have threatened to grant pretended letters of marquee to authorize the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas, and in waters of the United States: And whereas an Executive Proclamation has been already issued, requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, and convening Congress in extraordinary session, to deliberate and determine thereon: Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, with a view to the same purposes before mentioned, and to the protection of the public peace, and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have assembled and deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings, or until the same shall have ceased, have further deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and of the law of Nations, in such case provided. For this purpose a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach, or shall attempt to leave either of the said ports, she will be duly warned by the Commander of one of the blockading vessels, who will endorse on her register the fact and date of such warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port, she will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port, for such proceedings against her and her cargo as prize, as may be deemed advisable. And I hereby proclaim and declare that if any person, under the pretended authority of the said States, or under any other pretense, shall molest a vessel of the United States, or the persons or cargo on board of her, such person will be held amenable to the laws of the United States for the prevention and punishment of piracy. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington, this nineteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth." - Abraham Lincoln, April 19, 1861

The inescapable fact is, Walt, that the single belief that Abraham Lincoln consistently adhered to without any compromise for the entirety of his political career dating from the 1830's to his death is that of implementing and collecting the tariff. And the above is just a brief sample of his many speeches, writings, letters, and proclamations on that issue.

But you are not interested in being fair.

To the contrary, Walt. Despite what you think, "fairness" does not mean that everyone else has to go easy on you in debate. That we choose not to and instead thoroughly deconstruct and rebut your opinion is no less fair than you stating that opinion to begin with. You may not like it, but life is tough and contains a lot of things you may not like. Your false god loved implementing and collecting taxes. It was an issue he adhered to without compromise throughout his entire career. Live with it.

Schurz found questions of protection and free trade to be an uninspired background to Lincoln's thought and moral questions of slavery and freedom to be the inspired center of the mature Lincoln's belief. In this he was correct. And he found a shift in Lincoln's thinking from economic questions to a moral concern with the expansion of slavery. Lincoln did read economics in his younger days and he did address the issues of the day in the 1830s and 1840s, which were largely economic. He couldn't well avoid talking about the questions which were the stuff of political debate. And in his youth Lincoln did show some enthusiasm for Henry Clay's plan to encourage economic development. But Schurz does capture the mature Lincoln rather well.

You quote one sentence from Lincoln's letter to Wallace but leave out the sense of the letter, which is that this wasn't the time for agitation on the tariff question. Lincoln thought that eventually the nation would come to take his view on tariffs, but was not inclined to press the issue. If you're biased or paranoid you might see this as an admission of a behind the scenes conspiracy, but the more plausible explanation is that Lincoln didn't think the tariff was that important an issue in 1859. Politicians have principles, but also priorities. While Lincoln retained his belief in tariffs, he wasn't inclined to promote them at that date because other things were more important. The Whig conception of government was that Congress would work out questions such as the tariff on its own, and it's plausible that that view is reflected in the letter.

It does not seem to be correct to say that Lincoln "was still making speeches on them [tariffs] in his presidential years." A President could not avoid dealing with this issue, but Lincoln made few speeches as President and the tariff does not appear to have been the primary subject of any of them. The Collected Works bear this out. There were the pre-inaugural remarks in Pittsburgh on the tariff, not during his Presidential years, and very much an anomaly for the later Lincoln -- a reassurance to the strongest pro-tariff constituency in the country that its interests would not be neglected. And there were these comments in New Haven:

The old question of tariff---a matter that will remain one of the chief affairs of national housekeeping to all time---the question of the management of financial affairs; the question of the disposition of the public domain---how shall it be managed for the purpose of getting it well settled, and of making there the homes of a free and happy people---these will remain open and require attention for a great while yet, and these questions will have to be attended to by whatever party has the control of the government. Yet, just now, they cannot even obtain a hearing, and I do not purpose to detain you upon these topics, or what sort of hearing they should have when opportunity shall come.

For, whether we will or not, the question of Slavery is the question, the all absorbing topic of the day. It is true that all of us---and by that I mean, not the Republican party alone, but the whole American people, here and elsewhere---all of us wish this question settled---wish it out of the way. It stands in the way, and prevents the adjustment, and the giving of necessary attention to other questions of national house-keeping. ...

The truth is, that this question is one of national importance, and we cannot help dealing with it: we must do something about it, whether we will or not. We cannot avoid it; the subject is one we cannot avoid considering; we can no more avoid it than a man can live without eating. It is upon us; it attaches to the body politic as much and as closely as the natural wants attach to our natural bodies. Now I think it important that this matter should be taken up in earnest, and really settled. And one way to bring about a true settlement of the question is to understand its true magnitude.

"This question" was slavery, not the tariff. This is a good example of the passion and eloquence Lincoln brought to discussions of slavery and disunion, a passion and eloquence not found in his remarks on the tariffs. Schurz may not have been as well acquainted with Lincoln's early career, but he was more correct about Lincoln than later writers who've had access to more information and used it in only to confirm their biases and manias.

I did not address this post to you, but since you have chosen to respond, perhaps you could deal with Clingman's February 4th 1861 speech and his assertion that emancipation leaving millions of freed blacks at liberty would be "the greatest evil" that could be done to the South, far more serious than tariff questions. That speech clearly establishes the preservation of slavery and the "way of life" that it maintained as Clingman's primary interest, and the tariff as a secondary question on par with railway subsidies and the Homestead Act. In his other speeches, the tariff is more important, but it does not take precedence over slavery in importance.

The record also reveals Clingman to have been obsessed by slavery and race for years before the tariff revision of 1861 and shows that tariffs could not have been the primary reason for his support for secession. Clingman was talking about secession, Southern independence and war ten years earlier. It was not the passage of the tariff, but the election of a Republican President, whom he perceived to be anti-slavery, that led Clingman to take the step that he had been talking about a decade before. Clingman's dislike of a Republican, supposedly anti-Southern, President included a dislike of the tariffs that Republicans wanted, but his dislike of protective tariffs did not exclude a fanatical concern about the alleged threat to slavery.

Clingman clearly was a fanatical free trader, but that didn't prevent him from also being a fanatical pro-slaver and slavery expansionist. He changed from being a member of the protectionist Whig party and a follower of Henry Clay to a passionate low tariff Democrat, but never wavered in his support for slavery. One can't simply keep Clingman the free trader and ignore the rest of his life, thought and actions.

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.