Whisky Papa-ing? Let's see...YOU made an unsubstantiated claim that Morrill simply reinstated non-protectionist 1840's tariffs. That is a Wlat tactic in itself. By contrast, I responded with the fact that senate debates on the act virtually forced its proponents to admit its protectionist goals (BTW, no less a source than Henry Carey called the Morrill act the most important protectionist effort in decades) and with the fact that its average rates, 35 and then 47%, were clearly protectionist at levels well beyond the pre-1857 tariff. So it would seem to me that you are the one "Whisky Papa-ing" here.
A cheap and shallow misdirection to say the least. All tariffs had high points, particularly on books, which the south disdained and often burned on import.
No misdirection at all. I am simply noting the average rate as calculated by economists and recorded by the US government. That figure is the standard economic measure of a given tariff's strength just as rate schedules for income tax today are its standard measures. If you don't like that take it up with the government's statisticians and economists.
Another piece of foolish and insipid revisionism.
And from you, another Wlat-ism. Simply calling something "revisionism" without substantiation is insufficient to demonstrate that charge. What I stated is historical fact and I stand by that fact ready to defend it. Challenge it if you desire, but calling it names and dismissing it upon your own gratuitous assertions will not suffice on this forum. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
The Congress before Lincoln was dominated by the South, as almost all Congress's prior to that time were.
Oh really? The US House before Lincoln's election had a northern majority and a speaker from New Jersey. The 1857 House had a northern majority and a speaker from Massachusetts. The Senate before Lincoln was elected had a northern/western state majority and a president pro tempore from Indiana. The one in 1857 had the same majority but it did have a southern president pro tempore from Texas. During that same period the previous two presidents had also been northerners, one from New Hampshire and the next from Pennsylvania. The chairman of W&M was also from Pennsylvania and so forth. So no - the south did not dominate EITHER house of congress in the period you claim.
Any tariff the North ever put in place was quickly dismantled by the south. Tax opinions were never split cleanly on North/South lines.
They certainly were as of May 10, 1860. On that day the House voted on the Morrill bill. Every southerner save one voted no. Every northerner save about 5 or 6 voted yes. It was indisputably the most sectionally split major vote on north/south lines in that entire session of congress.
All tariffs are protectionist
Actually no they are not. All tariffs do have at least a slight protectionist capacity, though certain tariffs overshadow this capacity with their revenue capacity. As any credentialed and sane economist will tell you, revenue tariffs and protectionist tariffs are two distinct types of policy. They are typically distinguished by whether they fall on the lower side or upper side of the revenue apex.
and the first industry speicific one was put in place by John C. Calhoun.
Calhoun favored protectionist tariffs briefly as a young legislator in the 1810's. A decade later he had learned the error of his ways and spent the rest of his life as one of their strongest opponents.
The idea that southern legislators did not value them most highly is totally disingenuous and mere beer hall prattle.
And that is yet another of your wholly unsubstantiated claims. Their error is further exposed by simply looking to the major tariff votes between roughly 1827 and 1861. The south became increasingly unified in its opposition to protectionism throughout that era and by 1860 was voting against them in virtual unanimaty. Only one southern senator and one southern congressman voted for the Morrill bill. The rest all vehemently opposed it.
WHat piss poor drivel.
Only on your part. It is further becoming evident that you have not the slightest clue about what you write, nor even the most basic understanding of trade economics. In light of that fact I will happily offer you a word of friendly advice before you end up subjecting yourself to the complete and utter demolition of others who have followed your course on this issue (a fact that many around here can attest to if you so desire to ask). Take a moment off and read a basic trade economics text. Freepmail me if you desire and I can even recommend some. Otherwise you cannot hope to correctly discuss the issue of tariffs any more than an uneducated grade schooler can hope to perform brain surgery upon being handed a scalpel. The choice of whether you want to learn or simply embarrass yourself is wholly yours to make. Just note that in the immortal words of John Paul Jones, I have not yet begun to fight.
LOL. Cotton was a mere drop in the bucket of GNP.
If you have data to that effect it is your burden to display it. I will endeavor to verify your claim later when I am at a place where I may look it up. In the meantime I will simply note that in 1860 cotton exports provided somewhere around 65% of the entire nation's trade exports - more than any other commodity from any region and enough to boost the southern trade contribution in excess of 75% when crops such as tobacco were also included.
You make it sound as though the US economy only operating on British pounds, and only when cotton was sold. How utterly ridiculous.
Huh?!? I don't believe I ever said a word in my previous post about British pounds or anything remotely related. I did however note the fact that the United States trade economy in 1860 was almost entirely due to southern exports and that is a simple fact of history whether you like it or not.
80% of the tariff was on consumables, and at rates equivalent ot modern sales taxes.
It is once again evident that you are way out of your league. Sales taxes and tariffs do not work the same way economically, and especially protective tariffs. Sales taxes are generally imposed at low levels on inelastic goods where they will have only minor deterent effects upon purchase of those said goods (in laymen's terms, they are imposed upon retail consumption items). Protective tariffs are installed not to reap the benefits of inelasticity but rather to shift consumer purchasing behavior from a cheaper import to a more expensive domestic substitute. As for rates being comparable, unless you know a state that charges a 40% sales tax on steel products that is simply not so.
What a joke. You ignore the whole impact on the system of the war. Utterly facetious and deceptive strawmanship.
Do you seriously believe the mindless and inane ramblings of what you post? Or do you simply take some sort of irrational and bizarre benefit out of dropping meaningless insults without the substance to back them? Once again, everything I say I also stand by as historical and economic fact. And once again, everything you have posted in attempted "response" to them constitutes little more than wholly unsubstantiated and gratuitously asserted nonsense.
Now you need to explain how it is the 'disastrous' Moriill Tariffs ruined the Northern war effort and collapsed it's economy.
They didn't ruin the northern war effort but they did severely harm the northern economy and make the war both longer and harder to fight. The Morrill tariff almost instantaneously wiped out foreign trade in the north. The largest northern port was New York City and prior to the tariff it handled more than half of the north's trade. With the Morrill act the 1860 trade totals for NYC virtually halved overnight and remained below their 1860 totals until the end of the war.
Utter nonsense.
Son, do yourself a favor and take a class on trade economics. You are essentially pushing towards the position that trade does not require reciprocal payment. After all, those goods just magically appear on the docks, right? And those foreign countries fling their money in our direction out of the kindness of their hearts, right?
The fact of the matter is that trade is and has always been a two way street. You give something of value and you get something of value in return. If you put up a barrier to either part of the exchange it all comes to a crashing halt. That is what the Morrill act was intended to do and that is exactly what the United States trade statistics for 1861-65 indicate that the Morrill act did do.
The south's departure took away the failed economy of the south in a year when the cotton glut was so great that it couldn't even be given away.
Once again that so-called "glut" of cotton was reaching all time price highs and accounted for 65% of the entire nation's exports in 1860. Igore that fact at your own peril.
33% average tariff rate? Average rate of all rates, but not overall average rate paid per dollar. Miserable scholorship and amateurish analysis on your part, driven by uncontrollable fantasy. Again, how is you overlook the war the traitors started and it's fiscal demands on the noble patriots of American ideals and values?
As for southern domination of CONGRESS, it was in the Senate. You seem to have absolutely understanding of our Constitution. Get a copy and read it my lad. You should do it before you start to shave for the first time. In my country, bills don't pass Congress without the approval of the Senate. What country do you actually live in?
As for the difference between revenue and protectionist tariffs, your argument is that same one a wife uses to complain to her husband about which dollars in the joint savings account are hers. Terribly childish thing to bring forward, but no doubt merely accreditable to your obviously few years on the planet little one.
You keep citing the HOuse votes and ignore the Senate votes. Leave a sign out front and the light on, would you. What a laugh!
Calhoun advocated the most severe protectionists tariffs in out history of that era, and set the pattern for setting protectionist tariffs not just on particular industries, but on single products, most notably those in demand for slaves, such as wool baby blankets. It's true he bitched and moaned incessantly about tariffs later on, but that was simply the whore calling the wife a bitch as the goal of his tariffs, which were to build southern industry, totally failed while achieving that goal for free labor in an enlightened society in the North.
Of course the traitorous southerners voted against attempting to balance the budget before the war. That was part of the plan to undermine the Constitution and the lawful government. Did you ever consider reading US history instead of fiction and fantasy? Try it once. You are surely young enough to have time to do it, little one.
Cotton exports were a major part of US exports, but US exports were not the backbone of the economy by any means. Cotton was probably the only crop the decrepit and outrageously wasteful labor sytsem of the south could make any money at, and it did it by raping the land and leaving it in ruins. In addition, each years crop under that incompetent labor sytsem required huge loans, and over half the so called wealth coming back had to be paid back to the North from whence it was borrowed by the wasteful in inefficient plantations systems. Sure, cotton volume kept increasing, but once you take off the costs of the overheads, and look at the market prices in 1860 due to the cotton glut in Europe, the south was still an economic cripple. You see, my lad, you can trump up any foolish pretenses you want with insufficient data and a lack of understanding, but that doesn't make you fictions truth.
Southern trade contribution? In terms of GNP it never ran anywhere near the national average. The north consistantly provided 4 times as much with only twice the number of people. Even from 1787, the south was the dull laggard who couldn't produce, and it only got worse. All the census materials are indisputable on this, but it is true that you must learn to read, write and do the math, otherwise your continued efforts will always reflect your tender years. You don't want to be an old man mistaken for an imature child when you grow up, do you?