Replies

"If the tariff was such a bone of contention the why was one of the first acts of the confederate congress the passing of a tariff?"

Tariffs were the only sanctioned way for a Government to raise revenue at that time; there was no income tax (although Lincoln established the first income tax in the North during the Civil War). In point of historical fact, there was a strong philosophical and legal argument made against "direct taxation" (income tax). Given the strong repugnance the Southern leaders felt against unconstitutional encroachments from the North, they would have never resorted to a direct tax, no matter how dire the need. The Confederacy needed money to fight the war and they were still trading with Europe, hence the imposition of a tariff.

In reality, however, the entire Confederate constitution can be seen as a pointed repudiation of Northern mercantilism with particular attention paid to the lack of uniformity of the Union's taxation theme which had a disproportianate effect on the more Agrarian Southern economies. Article I, Secion 8, Clause 1 of the Confederate Constitution reads as follows:

"Congress shall have the power to lay and collect
taxes, imposts, and excises for revenue necessary
to pay the debts, provide for the common defense,
and carry on the Government of the Confederate
States; but no bounties shall be granted from
the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on
importations be laid to promote or foster any
branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and
excises shall be uniform throughout the
Confderate States."

This clause directly addresses the pattern of non-uniform taxation wherein one state would pay a disproportionate tax which was then used finance an internal subsidy for another state. The pattern that was then in force was for many coastal Southern states to pay a disporportiantely high Federal tax on imports from Europe the proceeds from which were used to finance roads and railroads in Nothern states.

During the several years leading up to the start of the Civil War a trade liberalization movement was sweeping Europe. England had repealed the Corn Laws and moved to a low tariff regime; for competitve reasons the French soon followed. Because of the high volume of bilateral trade with Europe several Souther states proposed moving toward a radically lower tariff regime themselves. This movement in the South was viewd by mercantilist interests on the North with near panic. Not only would shipping costs from Southern ports start to undercut the Northern ports but European manufactured goods would be on an equal footing with Northern manufacturers. In secessionist scenario, Northern ports would find themselves in direct competition with low-tariff Southern ports.

What is intuitively obvious to most casual reader of Southern writings of politicians and other leaders prior to the Civil War was the unfairness that these leaders perceived concerning the existing Federal tax regime. The so called "Tariff of Abomination" passed in 1828 nearly impelled South Carolina to secede at that time. This act was later scaled back in 1833 because of its perceived unfairness.

The slavery issue and the tariff issue were both important factors leading to the Civil War. Many Lincoln scholars have ingored the tariff issue because they are Lincoln "fans". A more accurate understanding of Southern motives and actions must take into account the "tariff issue".

Given the strong repugnance the Southern leaders felt against unconstitutional encroachments from the North, they would have never resorted to a direct tax, no matter how dire the need.

Yeah, that 'strong repugnance' lasted until April 24, 1863 when the confederate congress added their own income tax. Here, see for yourself.

Because of the high volume of bilateral trade with Europe several Souther states proposed moving toward a radically lower tariff regime themselves.

States cannot set tariffs on imports or exports without consent of congress (Article I, Section 10) so where was that a threat?

In secessionist scenario, Northern ports would find themselves in direct competition with low-tariff Southern ports.

How? Prior to the war a Northern importer paid the tariff at New York or Boston. Had the south seceded, then an import destined for the same Northern importer would have paid a tariff at the southern port, and then another tariff at the Northern port. All you are doing is adding tariff and transportation costs.

What is intuitively obvious to most casual reader of Southern writings of politicians and other leaders prior to the Civil War was the unfairness that these leaders perceived concerning the existing Federal tax regime.

That's not what Alexander Stephens was saying before the rebellion in December 1860:

"In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina...Yes, and Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at."

There are issues that can be peacefully resolved by the political means at hand and those that can't be contained by constitutional politics and provoke violence. Every indication is that the tariff fell into the former category, and the expansion of slavery, ultimately, into the latter. Southerners had secured low tariffs for years, by cooperating with Northern and Western Democrats. They could have continued to do so for years to come. It was Southern insistence on the expansion of slavery that doomed that coalition. Therefore, it's not wrong to argue that slavery was far more important as a cause of the war than the tariff.