Replies

Sure, I "get" that you wish to confuse & conflate issues to make Northerners look bad ...

They don't need my help to do that.

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

I've posted Senator Wigfall's December 1860 count of likely Senate votes on the tariff in the incoming Senate showing that it would pass even if all Southern Senators stayed. You disagreed.

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

If so, why were a number of Republicans calling for the repeal of the Morrill Tariff or the blockade of the Southern ports?

3.Fact #3: Lincoln himself, on March 3, 1861 addressed collecting tariffs this way:

It sounds like you are using your error filled almanac again. Or perhaps Lincoln said that in his dry run on Sunday, March 3, the day before his inaugural speech on March 4.

So Lincoln intended from Day One to collect Union tariffs.

He was going to collect tariff revenue from states that had seceded. How could that be accomplished without resistance from the seceded states? The states had seceded consistent with Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison's statements that they could reassume/resume their powers of government. Those three founders were the authors of the Federalist Papers that explained what the Constitution meant.

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.

That pales in comparison with the money spent by Southerners on Northern goods, whose prices were inflated by the tariff. Remember that December 1860 Chicago Times article I posted:

We have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually.

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.

Overall looses were not as severe as Northern newspapers had predicted because Lincoln blockaded Southern ports thereby stemming the flow of imported goods that would have gone directly to the South. Remember Lincoln's blockade proclamation, the proclamation that the Supreme Court said was the start of the Civil War.

Another way of looking at the import figures was that they tell how much of the imports were going to the North and how much (the missing part) had been going to the South. The actual volume of imports to the North dropped more than the 41.4% that the revenue decreased by because it took fewer imports to produce equivalent revenue at higher tariff rates than the volume of imports needed to produce that revenue in 1860.

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.

Lincoln kept his intention for the Sumter expedition secret, but it leaked out anyway. Consider what Lincoln wrote Gustavus Fox on May 1, 1861. Fox was the guy who proposed, planned, and led the Sumter expedition.

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft. Sumter, even if it had failed; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the results."

The result of the Sumter expedition was war.

Lincoln’s two wartime secretaries, Nicolay and Hay, put it this way after the war in their book about Lincoln:

President Lincoln in deciding the Sumter question had adopted a simple but effective policy. To use his own words, he determined to "send bread to Anderson"; if the rebels fired on that, they would not be able to convince the world that he had begun the civil war.

Some of us can see through Lincoln's ruse. Others on this thread cannot.

rustbucket: "I've posted Senator Wigfall's December 1860 count of likely Senate votes on the tariff in the incoming Senate showing that it would pass even if all Southern Senators stayed.
You disagreed."

Because,

First, Wigfall was a newcomer & knew little to nothing about the Senate,
Second, even if passed in the new Congress, a determined Southern opposition could have modified the bill more to their liking -- or less to their disliking, as the case may be, and
Third, Wigfall was a dedicated Fire Eater most interested in making the case for secession, not working out compromises with Unionists.

rustbucket: "If so, why were a number of Republicans calling for the repeal of the Morrill Tariff or the blockade of the Southern ports?"

First, most Republicans supported and most Democrats opposed Morrill, but there were a few of each on the other side and the bill was signed by Democrat President Buchanan.
Second, also remember, secession began five months before Morrill took effect (in April 1861), so the issue of Morrill is not what caused secession.
Third, calls for repeal of Morrill could only come after it was signed, in March 1861, at which time other factors (i.e., Fort Sumter) were already driving towards war.

rustbucket: "It sounds like you are using your error filled almanac again.
Or perhaps Lincoln said that in his dry run on Sunday, March 3, the day before his inaugural speech on March 4."

According to this site, that was the speech delivered on March 4, 1861.

rustbucket: "He was going to collect tariff revenue from states that had seceded.
How could that be accomplished without resistance from the seceded states?"

In early March, 1861 Lincoln believed it could be.
Events soon proved him mistaken in that idea.

rustbucket: "The states had seceded consistent with Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison's statements that they could reassume/resume their powers of government.
Those three founders were the authors of the Federalist Papers that explained what the Constitution meant."

In fact, by Madison's definition and others, Fire Eaters had declared their secessions "at pleasure", which was not considered legitimate.
In early 1861 Democrat ex-president Van Buren, Whig ex-president Fillmore and Democrat ex-president Pierce all opposed secession along with Democrat President Buchanan and Republican President-elect Lincoln.
All also believed that secession by itself was not justification for war.

When war came at Fort Sumter, former Presidents Van Buren, Fillmore and Buchanan supported it, while Pierce criticized war & Lincoln throughout.

rustbucket: "Remember that December 1860 Chicago Times article I posted:

'We have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe.
This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually.' "

Once again:

Tariffs protected all US manufacturing and while Southern & Western production was less than Northern, they were also growing rapidly, thanks to tariff protections.
Tariffs were paid for by exports from all regions, not just the South.
Deep South slave-grown cotton & rice covered about 50%, other regions paid the rest.

rustbucket: "Overall looses were not as severe as Northern newspapers had predicted because Lincoln blockaded Southern ports thereby stemming the flow of imported goods that would have gone directly to the South."

That argument has been shown bogus now several times on this thread.
The reasons are:

The original Confederate tariff was essentially the same as the old Union tariff of 1857.
No merchant would wish to pay tariffs twice on goods imported, for example, first in New Orleans then again in St. Louis.
So imports intended for Union citizens (about 80%) would go to northern ports and those for Confederates (about 20%) to Southern ports.
Even the new lower Confederate tariffs would still mean double payments for products shipped between both regions and so would not change the basic math.

rustbucket: "Remember Lincoln's blockade proclamation, the proclamation that the Supreme Court said was the start of the Civil War."

Constitutionally, the Supreme Court does not declare war, so that case strictly covered a civil suit regarding, iirc, pension payments.
It has no bearing on the fact that Jefferson Davis ordered war / rebellion to begin at Fort Sumter, April 12, 1861.
Fort Sumter was just as much a game-changer as Pearl Harbor eighty years later.

rustbucket: "Another way of looking at the import figures was that they tell how much of the imports were going to the North and how much (the missing part) had been going to the South.
The actual volume of imports to the North dropped more than the 41.4% that the revenue decreased by because it took fewer imports to produce equivalent revenue at higher tariff rates than the volume of imports needed to produce that revenue in 1860."

Again, I'll refer you to PeaRidge's post #1,540 and my response in post #1,553.
They clearly show that overall loss of revenues was only 26% in 1861, after which tariff revenues grew 19%, 37% and 51% in following years.
Such numbers demonstrate that loss of Confederate products was not the great economic catastrophe some have claimed.

rustbucket quoting Lincoln: " 'You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft. Sumter, even if it had failed; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the results.'

The result of the Sumter expedition was war."

But clearly, Lincoln here acknowledges his mission to Fort Sumter "failed".
His consolation is that, with war now started, he could take military actions to defeat the rebellion.
Lincoln's position here is nearly identical to that of President Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor.

rustbucket quoting: " 'President Lincoln in deciding the Sumter question had adopted a simple but effective policy.
To use his own words, he determined to "send bread to Anderson"; if the rebels fired on that, they would not be able to convince the world that he had begun the civil war.'

Some of us can see through Lincoln's ruse.
Others on this thread cannot."

No "ruse", just as FDR did not "ruse" the Japanese by sending the US fleet to Pearl Harbor.
In both cases, enemy military took advantage of perceived US weaknesses to start a war.
Wars both then lost.
Too bad about that.