.
Posted on 05/21/2002 2:12:42 PM PDT by WhowasGustavusFox
Lincoln's Tariff War
By Thomas J. DiLorenzo
When Charles Adams published his book "For Good and Evil", a world history of taxation, the most controversial chapter by far was the one on whether or not tariffs caused the American War between the States. That chapter generated so much discussion and debate that Adams's publisher urged him to turn it into an entire book, which he did, in the form of "When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession."
Many of the reviewers of this second book, so confident were they that slavery was the one and only possible reason for both Abraham Lincoln’s election to the presidency and the war itself, excoriated Adams for his analysis that the tariff issue was a major cause of the war. (Adams recently told me in an email that after one presentation to a New York City audience, he felt lucky that "no one brought a rope.")
My book, "The Real Lincoln", has received much the same response with regard to the tariff issue. But there is overwhelming evidence that: 1) Lincoln, a failed one-term congressman, would never have been elected had it not been for his career-long devotion to protectionism; and 2) the 1861 Morrill tariff, which Lincoln was expected to enforce, was the event that triggered Lincoln’s invasion, which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
A very important article that documents in great detail the role of protectionism in Lincoln’s ascendancy to the presidency is Columbia University historian Reinhard H. Luthin's "Abraham Lincoln and the Tariff," published in the July 1944 issue of The American Historical Review. As I document in The Real Lincoln, the sixteenth president was one of the most ardent protectionists in American politics during the first half of the nineteenth century and had established a long record of supporting protectionism and protectionist candidates in the Whig Party.
In 1860, Pennsylvania was the acknowledged key to success in the presidential election. It had the second highest number of electoral votes, and Pennsylvania Republicans let it be known that any candidate who wanted the state’s electoral votes must sign on to a high protectionist tariff to benefit the state’s steel and other manufacturing industries. As Luthin writes, the Morrill tariff bill itself "was sponsored by the Republicans in order to attract votes in Pennsylvania and New Jersey."
The most influential newspaper in Illinois at the time was the Chicago Press and Tribune under the editorship of Joseph Medill, who immediately recognized that favorite son Lincoln had just the protectionist credentials that the Pennsylvanians wanted. He editorialized that Lincoln "was an old Clay Whig, is right on the tariff and he is exactly right on all other issues. Is there any man who could suit Pennsylvania better?"
At the same time, a relative of Lincoln’s by marriage, a Dr. Edward Wallace of Pennsylvania, sounded Lincoln out on the tariff by communicating to Lincoln through his brother, William Wallace. On October 11, 1859, Lincoln wrote Dr. Edward Wallace: "My dear Sir: [Y]our brother, Dr. William S. Wallace, showed me a letter of yours, in which you kindly mention my name, inquire for my tariff view, 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 any other. I have not since changed my views" (emphasis added). Lincoln was establishing his bona fides as an ardent protectionist.
At the Republican National Convention in Chicago, the protectionist tariff was a key plank. As Luthin writes, when the protectionist tariff plank was voted in, "The Pennsylvania and New Jersey delegations were terrific in their applause over the tariff resolution, and their hilarity was contagious, finally pervading the whole vast auditorium." Lincoln received "the support of almost the entire Pennsylvania delegation" writes Luthin, "partly through the efforts of doctrinaire protectionists such as Morton McMichael . . . publisher of Philadelphia’s bible of protectionism, the North American newspaper."
Returning victorious to his home of Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln attended a Republican Party rally that included "an immense wagon" bearing a gigantic sign reading "Protection for Home Industry." Lincoln’s (and the Republican Party’s) economic guru, Pennsylvania steel industry publicist/lobbyist Henry C. Carey, declared that without a high protectionist tariff, "Mr. Lincoln’s administration will be dead before the day of inauguration."
The U.S. House of Representatives had passed the Morrill tariff in the 1859-1860 session, and the Senate passed it on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration. President James Buchanan, a Pennsylvanian who owed much of his own political success to Pennsylvania protectionists, signed it into law. The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent (according to Frank Taussig in Tariff History of the United States) to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent, Taussig writes.
So, Lincoln owed everything--his nomination and election--to Northern protectionists, especially the ones in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He was expected to be the enforcer of the Morrill tariff. Understanding all too well that the South Carolina tariff nullifiers had foiled the last attempt to impose a draconian protectionist tariff on the nation by voting in political convention not to collect the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations," Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected.
At the time, Taussig says, the import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being spent in the North. The South was being plundered by the tax system and wanted no more of it. Then along comes Lincoln and the Republicans, tripling (!) the rate of tariff taxation (before the war was an issue). Lincoln then threw down the gauntlet in his first inaugural: "The power confided in me," he said, "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 force against, or among the people anywhere" (emphasis added).
"We are going to make tax slaves out of you," Lincoln was effectively saying, "and if you resist, there will be an invasion." That was on March 4. Five weeks later, on April 12, Fort Sumter, a tariff collection point in Charleston Harbor, was bombarded by the Confederates. No one was hurt or killed, and Lincoln later revealed that he manipulated the Confederates into firing the first shot, which helped generate war fever in the North.
With slavery, Lincoln was conciliatory. In his first inaugural address, he said he had no intention of disturbing slavery, and he appealed to all his past speeches to any who may have doubted him. Even if he did, he said, it would be unconstitutional to do so.
But with the tariff it was different. He was not about to back down to the South Carolina tariff nullifiers, as Andrew Jackson had done, and was willing to launch an invasion that would ultimately cost the lives of 620,000 Americans to prove his point. Lincoln’s economic guru, Henry C. Carey, was quite prescient when he wrote to Congressman Justin S. Morrill in mid-1860 that "Nothing less than a dictator is required for making a really good tariff" (p. 614, "Abraham Lincoln and the Tariff").
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So a predetermined ex post facto ruling of the supreme court makes it all illegal? You know as well as anybody that the court had no other option than to rule against secession in 1869 in light of the circumstances that immediately preceded it. Besides, revolutions, peaceful or otherwise, do not require the consent of the previous government in order to occur. Try again.
Their independence wasn't recognized by the United States government or any other government.
Yet their independence was a reality inherent to their status as self created and self governing in an actualized independence from their previous government. Again, revolutions do not require the consent or recognition of their prior government. That would be absurd.
Sumter was a U.S. Army post, built by the government in a city of the United States.
And that city along with its surrounding waters and territory was no longer a city of the United States. Hence the fort, which was hundreds of miles from anything even remotely belonging to Lincoln, was no longer theirs.
The Army had every right to be there.
They had no more right to be there than Jefferson Davis had to hold a fort in Boston. Of course, if the latter were the case by your own admission, it wouldn't have been of any consequence since all the people of Boston would have had to do was go a couple hundred miles up the coast to New York for an open port.
Davis had no such power because he was not in command of the army of the United States or any other country.
Funny. Cause if what you say is true, he put up quite a fight over the next four years for having no army!
U.S. Military installations had been appropriated by the confederacy.
You are again avoiding the question. Confederacy occupation of previously northern forts elsewhere occured without incident. Yet you said Sumter had to be kept at all costs or else it would ammount to recognizing the confederacy as legitimate. Again my question: What made Sumter so special that the entire issue of recognizing the confederacy's legitimacy revolved around it alone, and none of those other forts?
How so?
The south had 4 options. Option 1 was without question the lowest in casualties: 1. Act as it did preempting Lincoln's attack. No casualties suffered.
2. Wait for Lincoln's attack, repulse it, then take the fort. Liklihood of casualties.
3. Repulse Lincoln's attack and leave the fort as is, prompting future attempts by Lincoln to reach the fort. Liklihood of casualties and uncertainty of future attacks.
4. Let Lincoln enter and increase the fort's garrison making it harder to take in the future. Liklihood of more casualties than a fort with a lower garrison.
Up to that point the Union had taken not a single hostile action against the rebellion
Sending a fleet of warships under false pretenses to commence forceful entry into the fort around April 5th ammounted to initiating a hostile action. The confederates preempted that military maneuver on the 12th. Excepting isolated skirmishes by both sides in prior months, the April 5th sending of warships by Lincoln was the first hostile act of the war.
There is no reason to believe that that was going to change just because Lincoln put food and reinforcements into Sumter.
Incorrect. Lincoln's orders, which you have no doubt seen considering that I have posted them repeatedly, directly authorized forceful entry by military warships to reach Sumter. Southern intelligence caught wind of his intentions despite them being misrepresented as strictly peaceful by Lincoln. Therefore there was every reason in the world to believe that hostility would occur.
But Davis chose to take the first step and initiate hostilities.
Incorrect. Lincoln initiated hostilities a week earlier with his orders to the fleet. Davis merely preempted those orders from being carried out by acting the day before Lincoln's warships arive.
Well...at least you admit that it was a rebellion and have dropped the farce of the confederate actions being legal.
I'm not sure I follow you. It is inherent to the nature of laws that what is legal depends upon he who enforces them. The government in place in 1861 attempted to enforce itself otherwise against the actions of the south. Doing so was "legal" for it to the extent that it had vested itself with its own authority at the time to do so, but that does not make the said authority legitimate unless you reduce yourself to the troubles of the legal positivist route.
You appear to have failed in making the distinction between what is legal and what is constitutional. The two are not the same. Regarding the constitutionality of secession, I am in concurrence with Alexis de Tocqueville's characterization of the act as previously indicated.
I'm not sure I follow you. It is inherent to the nature of laws that what is legal depends upon he who enforces them. The government in place in 1861 attempted to enforce itself otherwise against the actions of the south. Doing so was "legal" for it to the extent that it had vested itself with its own authority at the time to do so, but that does not make the said authority legitimate unless you reduce yourself to the troubles of the legal positivist route.
You appear to have failed in making the distinction between what is legal and what is constitutional. The two are not the same. Regarding the constitutionality of secession, I am in concurrence with Alexis de Tocqueville's characterization of the act as previously indicated.
"Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected."
There was not "new, tripled tariff" in March of 1861. Congress had not voted on such a tariff. Lincoln did vow in his inaugural address to collect taxes equally in all jurisdictions, which is his sworn constitutional duty, but there was no "tripled tariff" in 1861 to collect. In fact, as Alexander Stephens pointed out to the Georgia legislature in Dec. of 1860, no tariff bill or any bill could pass the Congress without support from southern states. With the South remaining, Lincoln did not even have enough power in Congress to get his own cabinet confirmed without Southern support.
DiLorenzo is either totally ignorant of history or so fixated on his cockamamie Lincoln bashing theories that simple, easily discovered facts, completely escape him. Either way, LouRocksmell is the right place for him. I fully expect to hear DiLorenzo on Art Bell’s show any day now.
ROTFLMAO. Are you telling us that the tariffs were on exports, not imports?
Do you know what a tariff is?
So the south went to war to protect European manufactures?
.
ROTFLMAO!
When did Cotton or Tobacco ever go through US Customs houses?
Do you have any idea how stupid your statements are?
LOL. You guys are a trip. Do you even know what a 'warm water' port is? Outside of the North Slope of Alaska and the Great Lakes, every port in the US, North and South is a 'warm water' port.
Sheese homie ...... I didn't know that would piss you off. I was just struck by how high it was then --- even higher than the 1820s. I hadn't realized that.
Same thing with this article: the claim was made that Pennsylvania's steel industry played a major influence in the 1860 election. Back in my reply #17, I point out that Bessemer hadn't even invented his process until 1856. Carnegie didn't see it until 1872, and the Edgar Thompson works opened in 1875.
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.