[rustbucket]

[BroJoeK]: rustbucket: "Northern [BroJoeK: anti-Republican, Democrat] newspapers were talking about how their Northern economy would be ruined by the Morrill Tariff that the North passed after much of the South had left."

[BroJoeK]: Right, Democrat papers.

Perhaps you are forgetting Republican papers.

The New York Evening Post, March 2, 1861 [from an old post by nolu chan]:

That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.
* * *
What, then is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled?

The most thorough book about the press during the Civil War was, “Lincoln and the Press” by Robert S. Harper. He characterized the Evening Post as a Republican newspaper. The Philadelphia Press on March 6, 1861 also listed the Evening Post as a Republican paper.

Then there was the New York Times (certainly a Republican paper back then) on March 30, 1861 [my underline bold emphasis below]:

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 powers of the State or Federal government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad.....We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched.

First of all, "protectionism" protected all industries, North, South or West.
Yes, in 1860 most manufacturing was Northern, but Southern & Western producers also received protection from US tariffs.

The key point you miss was that because the bulk of manufacturing was done in the North, the tariff protection of Northern industries resulted in Southerners paying a large amount each year for tariff-inflated prices on Northern goods. Northern manufacturers profited because of the tariff, and Northern workers got jobs. This was sectional aggrandizement at work.

But the 1861 Morrill tariff rates meant that when those exports disappeared, US tariff revenues fell only 26%.

Look at what happened at the Port of New York. The Morrill Tariff went into effect on April 1.

Month ... % change from 1860 to 1861 for each month
Jan ..... 23.5
Feb ..... -15.6
Mar ..... -22.8
Apr ..... -12.3
May ..... -11.5
Jun ..... -34.0
Jul ..... -40.0
Aug ..... -65.7
Sep ..... -55.1
Oct ..... -49.2
Nov ..... -37.5
Dec ..... -54.8

Averaging those percent reductions in tariff revenue for April through December gives a 40.0% loss in revenue after the Morrill Tariff went into effect. That is an approximate figure. To do it more exactly, I retrieved the monthly revenue figures from Appleton's. Using revenue for those nine months the Morrill Tariff was in force in 1861 resulted in a loss of tariff revenue during that nine month period of 41.4%. Even with the higher tariff, there was a significant loss in income. And I posted earlier the yearly totals of business failures in various port cities. Those darn Democrat papers were correct!

[BroJoeK]: rustbucket: "And by the way, despite your flame war style slur, Marx isn't my philosophical mother."

[BroJoeK]: Of course not, not regarding your Confederates' motives and reasons -- those in your own mind were all of the highest possible idealism.
But you degrade Northern thinking, and permit no other considerations, to the level of Marxist materialistic class warfare [rb: my bold that I will respond to such a claim below].
It is simply your own method of mocking and scorning Unionists

Now I am "mocking" Unionists? I'm just arguing a different interpretation of history than what you believe, and I provide information that supports my arguments.

You are forgetting that I said, "I believe that Lincoln did have the ultimate intention of freeing the slaves and that many Republican politicians wanted to do away with slavery in the country too." I acknowledged that antislavery moral choice of the Republicans.

However, I think the main thing driving Lincoln in March and April 1861 was the potential loss of tariff revenue caused by the two different tariffs. That is why I believe he chose to do something that his cabinet had told him would result in a shooting war. It did just that. With a war, he could impose a blockade on Southern ports and stop the lower Southern tariff from diverting imports away from Northern ports where the bulk of revenue was collected regardless of where in the country the imported items were going. Lincoln did think outside the box.

Let's look at your claims that I and others are using Marxist thinking by pointing out what Lincoln was doing behind the scene to initiate war. You are using a fallacious style of argument to make your claim of Marxist thinking. From the book, "An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments" by Ali Almossawi:

Guilt by Association

... some group of people is absolutely and categorically bad. Hence, sharing even a single attribute with that group would make one a member of it, which would then bestow on one all the evils associated with that group.

Marx was for freeing the slaves in the US. You obviously think that way too. Using your fallacious guilt by association argument, your being for freeing the slaves is pure Marxism. Obviously, you must be using Marxist thinking. (/sarc)

As you will note, I rejected that type of fallacious argument by pointing out in my previous post that although Marx praised Lincoln and the North for their intentions to free the slaves, that did not make Lincoln or the North Marxist. Nor you, nor me, of course.

As a last point, economic reasons caused wars long before Marx existed. There are other causes of war too, of course. Look at the wars of religion in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries.

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "Perhaps you are forgetting Republican papers.
The New York Evening Post, March 2, 1861 [from an old post by nolu chan]:"

Sure, I "get" that you wish to confuse & conflate issues to make Northerners look bad, but fortunately it only takes a little work to unwrap the facts.

1. Fact #1: The Morrill Tariff was supported by Republicans, opposed by Democrats and only passed in 1861 after Southern Democrats left Congress.

2. Fact #2: Northern concerns over collecting tariffs in secession states were not related to Morrill, but to any Union tariff.

3. Fact #3: Lincoln himself, on March 3, 1861 addressed collecting tariffs this way:
   
   "I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States.
   Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary.
   I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

   In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority.
   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."

   So Lincoln intended from Day One to collect Union tariffs.
   That may well be the reason pro-Confederate papers called Lincoln's Inaugural a declaration of war, but Lincoln himself did not consider it such.

rustbucket quoting New York Times: "We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched."

In fact, some New York Democrats wanted to join in secession and provide secessionists with whatever concessions might be necessary.
Just how secession might hurt them took some time for them to figure out.

rustbucket: "The key point you miss was that because the bulk of manufacturing was done in the North, the tariff protection of Northern industries resulted in Southerners paying a large amount each year for tariff-inflated prices on Northern goods."

The key point you miss is that not all manufacturing was done in the North and tariffs equally protected producers and wages in all regions.

rustbucket: "Northern All manufacturers profited because of the tariff, and Northern all workers got jobs.
This was sectional aggrandizement national industrialization at work."

Fixed it for you. No problem, you're welcome.

rustbucket: "Averaging those percent reductions in tariff revenue for April through December gives a 40.0% loss in revenue after the Morrill Tariff went into effect.
That is an approximate figure."

Interesting to see the changes by month, and yet we should note the following:

1. These numbers reflect the loss of cotton exports in 1861, with the greatest reduction of 65% in August over August 1860.
   That tells us how much at most cotton mattered to total US exports.

2. Other numbers posted on this thread show the overall average reduction in 1861 came to 26%, demonstrating that cotton was not necessarily the be-all & end-all of US commodity exports.

rustbucket: "Even with the higher tariff, there was a significant loss in income.
And I posted earlier the yearly totals of business failures in various port cities.
Those darn Democrat papers were correct!"

But the facts remain that, first, overall losses were not as severe as secessionists predicted and some Northerners might have feared, and second, the Northern economy quickly adjusted, adapted and continued to prosper.

rustbucket: "Now I am "mocking" Unionists?
I'm just arguing a different interpretation of history than what you believe, and I provide information that supports my arguments."

And I likewise argue that economics (slavery) motivated Deep South Fire Eaters to declare secession and Confederacy.
But here's the difference: I use their actual words in their official Declarations of Causes for Secession.
By contrast, you cannot quote official Union documents (or any others) saying, in effect: "we must start war to collect tariffs".
Such documents don't exist because that's not why they did what they did.