No they were not. A protectionist tariff by definition falls on the high side of the revenue apex. Revenue tariffs fall on the low end. The tariff in place as of 1857 was predominantly on the low end.
Admitting that is like admitting one has to breathe air
Not at all. Claiming that is however akin to claiming that all forms of the income tax are progressive. They are comparable because they are both gratuitous claims and, in factual content, are both wrong.
Morrill did reintroduce the old tariff levels, at the beginning of that session, South Carolina lawfully seceded, and by the end of it the seceded states turned traitor and the war began.
Your timeline is so far off as to become laughable. The Morrill tariff was introduced way back in the beginning of 1860. It was taken up in 36th Congress' first session and passed the House of Representatives on May 10, 1860. It was also taken up in debate but shortly before congress recessed for the summer, Sen. Robert M. T. Hunter was able to delay action on it until after they reconvened in December through a parliamentary manuever. The election of 1860 was fought during the summer and fall of 1860 and determined in Lincoln's favor that november. Throughout the campaign a major and reoccurring issue was whether or not the president would help pass and then sign the Morrill bill that the senate had not voted on yet. Lincoln was firmly in favor of passing it.
Congress reconvened in the first week of December 1860 and stayed in session until inauguration day on March 4, 1861. The senate also went into a special session through March 28. South Carolina was the first state to secede and did so in late December 1860. The next wave of five states came between mid-January and February 1861. The seventh came on March 2, 1861. The remainder seceded after Fort Sumter (which was April 12-13).
The Morrill bill came up in the senate around the first week of February 1861. On February 15 Lincoln publicly gave his endorsement to it and pledged that it would be his primary legislative agenda if the Senate did not pass it by inauguration day. The Morrill bill was debated on the floor for the rest of the month, then passed about 3 or 4 days before the inauguration.
ALL THAT IN SUMMARY: The Morrill bill was already drafted and passed half way through congress six months BEFORE they even knew who would be the next president and over seven months BEFORE a single state seceded. It was passed into law BEFORE that new president was inaugurated and had been law for over a month BEFORE the first battle of the war.
The idea that somehow the Congress was at fault for raising taxes to fight a war is truly bizarre
Congress did not raise taxes to fight a war. They did not even know there was going to be a war when the Morrill bill was introduced over a YEAR before that war. They did not know who was going to be president either when that bill was introduced 3/4ths of a YEAR before the election. particularly as the Confederacy did far more than simply raise taxes.
The confederacy did not raise taxes and in fact its tariff rate at about 13.5% was about a third of the Morrill act's rate.
33% average tariff rate? Average rate of all rates, but not overall average rate paid per dollar.
BZZZT! Wrong. The Average Tariff Rate is an economic calculation. It's formula is a ration of the value of duties collected to the total value of taxable imports. The figures are normally accurate within a plus or minus of about 2% points (some degree of fluctuation exists because they didn't always keep exact numbers for the total value of imports that came in). Among the academic world there are generally two recognized standard sources for pre-1900 average rate calculations and both are identical within a percent or two of each other. The first is the US Bureau of the Census historical statistics publication. The second is Frank Taussig's Tariff History of the United States (Taussig was the head of the economics department at Harvard).
Miserable scholorship and amateurish analysis on your part, driven by uncontrollable fantasy.
Boy, when it comes to making a fool of yourself you sure know how to hit the bullseye! Not only were your absurd assumptions about my statistics WRONG, they are also in conflict with the industry standards among professional economists. Ask any one of them where to go for pre-1900 tariff stats and they will tell you either Taussig or the Census Bureau. Now, are you through embarrassing yourself yet or shall we continue?
Again, how is you overlook the war the traitors started and it's fiscal demands on the noble patriots of American ideals and values?
Excluding from consideration the rhetorical garbage that dominates that question, it is quite easy. It is a simple fact of history that the Morrill bill was written well over a YEAR before there was any war in the first place.
As for southern domination of CONGRESS, it was in the Senate.
Evidently you are not through embarrassing yourself. To claim that the senate was dominated by the south in 1860 is similarly false. As I pointed out to you, the Senate President Pro Tempore (more than a figurehead back then) right before Lincoln's election was from Indiana. Want a numerical breakdown of the senate as of December 1, 1860 as well? Here goes:
32 members from the NORTH
22 members from the SOUTH
4 members from the WEST COAST
8 members from the four border states (MD, DE, MO, KY)
In slave states versus free states:
36 members from FREE states
30 members from SLAVE states
As a side note that soon increased to a 38-30 split after Kansas joined the union in January.
You seem to have absolutely understanding of our Constitution. Get a copy and read it my lad. You should do it before you start to shave for the first time. In my country, bills don't pass Congress without the approval of the Senate. What country do you actually live in?
Feel better spewing all that out? I ask because I cannot see how you could gain anything from the embarrassment to which you are subjecting yourself. By my calculation (which I posted in detail to Ditto the other day) the Senate could have passed the Morrill act on a VP tiebreaker as early as March 4, 1861 when the Kansas senatorial terms officially began. That would take 31 republicans, 3 northern democrats or northern constitutional unionists, and VP Hamlin - an obtainable goal as soon as that special session of the senate began.
As for the difference between revenue and protectionist tariffs, your argument is that same one a wife uses to complain to her husband about which dollars in the joint savings account are hers.
Now that's an odd and ignorant statement for you to make. I summarized the difference between the two as it is described in a graduate level economics textbook.
You keep citing the HOuse votes and ignore the Senate votes.
You are fibbing again. I described the senate vote in great detail to Ditto the other day on this same thread. I also described the senate breakdown just now to you and it was NOT under southern control as you dishonestly claim.
Calhoun advocated the most severe protectionists tariffs in out history of that era
...and within a few years saw the error of his way. From the 1820's to his death Calhoun was the undisputed leader of the free traders in America.
and set the pattern for setting protectionist tariffs not just on particular industries, but on single products
False. That tactic was set in 1789 when the first congress enacted a protective tariff on six specified New England manufactures. It was expanded upon and highly publicized two years later in 1791 when Alexander Hamilton proposed specific and particular tariffs on single products in his infamous Report on Manufactures. At the time a young Calhoun flirted with the protectionist beliefs that he adamantly rejected in his maturity, product specification was old news by about 25 years.
Anyhow, time is short so I will save you from having to face your own further embarrassment until later this evening. My word of constructive advice remains though. When you get to school on Monday morning go ask teacher if you can borrow a book on trade economics. In case that is too complicated also hear that one of the conservative think tanks does a series of children's books. They convey basic lessons and concepts of economics in the form of fables and children's stories, so that may be more attuned to your learning level.