That is incorrect. Some supporters of the act initially CLAIMED they were reinstating tariffs to their late 1840's level but they were in fact selling a bill of goods. By the time it reached the senate even the bill's proponents were starting to admit that it was in fact a protectionist tariff. It hiked average rates to around 35% and then to 47% the next year.
and that the only reason it had been altered into producing deficits by the southern cotton crowd was as part of their conspiracy to trash the Union.
That too is false. The tariff in place by 1860 had been enacted in 1857 shortly before the recession of that year. The unanticipated end to the Crimean war during that year set international markets including food staples into turmoil causing the Panic of 1857 and with it deficits. Over the next three years the federal government failed to reign in its spending and instead, led by the republicans, accelerated it through line items. Thus by 1860 they were facing a budget crisis and by 1861 after Lincoln's election, a credit crisis.
As Alexander Stephens pointed out, there was simply no reason for the South to complain of the tariffs.
Stephens was in error and made that speech at a time when he was leading the fight against secession in Georgia. At the time he had been out of congress for over a year and was not a witness to the events of the Morrill tariff like his colleague Robert Toombs. Toombs accurately and early on identified the Morrill act as a protectionist measure and exposed that fact to public light.
She only contributed 14% of the Federal income, and reaped well over half of the financial benefit.
That too is false. Tariffs, especially protectionist ones, impose economic costs that go well beyond simple revenue collection totals. In fact the overwhelming MAJORITY of costs for your average protectionist tariff are non-revenue ones reflected in (a) the loss of the consumer surplus, (b) dead weight losses abroad, (c) the dropoff in an international market, and (d) the economic pass through of revenue costs onto others than their physical payee. The entire nation's consumers stood to lose from items (a) and (b). The south stood to lose especially so though by incurring not only (a) and (b). They also incurred two items that the rest of the nation would not experience in a significant degree: (c) since their economy made up over 75% of the entire nation's trade exports and (d) since agricultural exporters are price takers who must sell at the world price and therefore cannot pass through tariff costs onto their buyers like everybody else.
An increased tariff would only have increased her annual income.
False. Just like any other tax, tariffs function on a Laffer curve relationship (which in the case of tariffs also incidentally corresponds to their use for either revenue or protection purposes). The Morrill act effectively pushed tariff rates past the curve's apex and onto the declining revenue edge. While this could indeed increase revenue collection, it also extracts a greater non-revenue cost from the economy than the previous level, thus resulting in a net economic loss.
most of them were so dirt poor they couldn't have afforded to pay the miniscule tariffs, even if they wanted or needed to, which they did not.
That is not the issue at all. Even the poorest of southern farmers were agriculture producers. As such they were also participants in the southern economy, which was overwhelmingly an export economy. Tariffs are known as trade BARRIERS for a reason - namely they kill off trade (and incidentally that is exactly what happened in the northern states right after the morrill tariff passed - within just a few months trade into the port of New York almost HALVED). When trade stops a trade-based economy dies, and when that economy dies all of its participants from the massive plantation operator to the smallest of small farmers suffers.
In fact though, the North didn't need to pass the Morrill tariff if the war had not come and the southern states were let go. The 1860 tariffs could have easily been cut into half and still produced large surplusses for the north, where the tariffs were hardly felt at all by any one with an average income.
False. The south's departure took with it a full 75% of the entire nation's export economy. Without exports, you have only credit with which to acquire imports from abroad. Credit alone is insufficient to take on that task wholly and when it is in pieces (as was the case in late 1860) the absence of any substantial exports with which to trade is nothing short of a disaster. Trade in effect stops and when trade stops, imports also stop. When imports stop, revenues collected from those imports stops and the government goes broke.
Absolutely not. You are clearly Whisky Papa-ing.
Some supporters of the act initially CLAIMED they were reinstating tariffs to their late 1840's level but they were in fact selling a bill of goods. By the time it reached the senate even the bill's proponents were starting to admit that it was in fact a protectionist tariff. It hiked average rates to around 35% and then to 47% the next year.
A cheap and shallow misdirection to say the least. All tariffs had high points, particularly on books, which the south disdained and often burned on import.
and that the only reason it had been altered into producing deficits by the southern cotton crowd was as part of their conspiracy to trash the Union.
That too is false. The tariff in place by 1860 had been enacted in 1857 shortly before the recession of that year. The unanticipated end to the Crimean war during that year set international markets including food staples into turmoil causing the Panic of 1857 and with it deficits. Over the next three years the federal government failed to reign in its spending and instead, led by the republicans, accelerated it through line items. Thus by 1860 they were facing a budget crisis and by 1861 after Lincoln's election, a credit crisis.
Another piece of foolish and insipid revisionism. The Congress before Lincoln was dominated by the South, as almost all Congress's prior to that time were. Any tariff the North ever put in place was quickly dismantled by the south. Tax opinions were never split cleanly on North/South lines.
As Alexander Stephens pointed out, there was simply no reason for the South to complain of the tariffs.
Stephens was in error and made that speech at a time when he was leading the fight against secession in Georgia. At the time he had been out of congress for over a year and was not a witness to the events of the Morrill tariff like his colleague Robert Toombs. Toombs accurately and early on identified the Morrill act as a protectionist measure and exposed that fact to public light.
All tariffs are protectionist, and the first industry speicific one was put in place by John C. Calhoun. The idea that southern legislators did not value them most highly is totally disingenuous and mere beer hall prattle.
She only contributed 14% of the Federal income, and reaped well over half of the financial benefit.
That too is false. Tariffs, especially protectionist ones, impose economic costs that go well beyond simple revenue collection totals. In fact the overwhelming MAJORITY of costs for your average protectionist tariff are non-revenue ones reflected in (a) the loss of the consumer surplus, (b) dead weight losses abroad, (c) the dropoff in an international market, and (d) the economic pass through of revenue costs onto others than their physical payee. The entire nation's consumers stood to lose from items (a) and (b). The south stood to lose especially so though by incurring not only (a) and (b). They also incurred two items that the rest of the nation would not experience in a significant degree: (c) since their economy made up over 75% of the entire nation's trade exports and (d) since agricultural exporters are price takers who must sell at the world price and therefore cannot pass through tariff costs onto their buyers like everybody else.
WHat piss poor drivel. LOL. Cotton was a mere drop in the bucket of GNP. You make it sound as though the US economy only operating on British pounds, and only when cotton was sold. How utterly ridiculous. YOu are obviously just trolling for the thrill of it and not at all interesting in any serious history.
An increased tariff would only have increased her annual income.
False. Just like any other tax, tariffs function on a Laffer curve relationship (which in the case of tariffs also incidentally corresponds to their use for either revenue or protection purposes). The Morrill act effectively pushed tariff rates past the curve's apex and onto the declining revenue edge. While this could indeed increase revenue collection, it also extracts a greater non-revenue cost from the economy than the previous level, thus resulting in a net economic loss.
80% of the tariff was on consumables, and at rates equivalent ot modern sales taxes. Pushing the notion that sales taxes in the US are currently the root of all of our economic woes with that rationale would surely flunk anyone studying economics at any school except one of those Tennessee 'buy your own' diploma barns.
most of them were so dirt poor they couldn't have afforded to pay the miniscule tariffs, even if they wanted or needed to, which they did not.
That is not the issue at all. Even the poorest of southern farmers were agriculture producers. As such they were also participants in the southern economy, which was overwhelmingly an export economy. Tariffs are known as trade BARRIERS for a reason - namely they kill off trade (and incidentally that is exactly what happened in the northern states right after the morrill tariff passed - within just a few months trade into the port of New York almost HALVED). When trade stops a trade-based economy dies, and when that economy dies all of its participants from the massive plantation operator to the smallest of small farmers suffers.
What a joke. You ignore the whole impact on the system of the war. Utterly facetious and deceptive strawmanship. Like I said, you have no interest in the history, only in the trolling, which is a total waste of bandwidth. Now you need to explain how it is the 'disastrous' Moriill Tariffs ruined the Northern war effort and collapsed it's economy. I can't wait to hear that joke!
In fact though, the North didn't need to pass the Morrill tariff if the war had not come and the southern states were let go. The 1860 tariffs could have easily been cut into half and still produced large surplusses for the north, where the tariffs were hardly felt at all by any one with an average income.
False. The south's departure took with it a full 75% of the entire nation's export economy. Without exports, you have only credit with which to acquire imports from abroad. Credit alone is insufficient to take on that task wholly and when it is in pieces (as was the case in late 1860) the absence of any substantial exports with which to trade is nothing short of a disaster. Trade in effect stops and when trade stops, imports also stop. When imports stop, revenues collected from those imports stops and the government goes broke.
Utter nonsense. The south's departure took away the failed economy of the south in a year when the cotton glut was so great that it couldn't even be given away. Talk about lies. You really take the cake with that one.