Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ggekko
I belive the tariff issue was of greater importance than the slavery. The slavery issue was important but is was not the driving issue; the tariff issue was.

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? Wouldn't that be like the founding fathers winning the Revolutionary War and then vote to become a colony of France?

91 posted on 02/18/2003 4:02:48 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
"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".
101 posted on 02/18/2003 10:15:45 AM PST by ggekko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur
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?

Under that same reasoning, if the progressive income tax was such a bone of contention then why was one of the first major acts of Ronald Reagan's presidency the passing of a tax bill?

In case you are still lost as to the answer (which would not surprise me in the least considering your economic ignorance and willful dishonesty), both bills had something in common - they enacted lower tax rates than the liberals had. With the civil war, the north installed a rate of about 36% that rose to over 45% by the war's end. The confederates enacted a rate that was half of that at about 18% and lowered it even further to about 13% by May 1861.

261 posted on 02/21/2003 12:43:15 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson