Posted on 01/31/2004 11:18:21 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
DILORENZO IS ESSENTIALLY CORRECT that the tariff supplied ninety percent of federal revenue before the Civil War. For the thirty years from 1831 to 1860 it was eighty-four percent, but for the 1850s as a decade it was indeed ninety percent.
But the idea that the South paid about seventy-five percent of tariff revenues is totally absurd. DiLorenzo bases this on pages 26-27 of Charles Adams, When in the Course of Human Events, but Adams comes up with these figures out of thin air, and worse, appears to be measuring the South's share of exports, and then transposing that percentage to their share of dutiable imports. Exports, of course, are not subject to taxation and never have been, because such taxes are prohibited by Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution -- which Adams appears not to know. In any case, Adams claims that about eighty-two percent of exports from the U.S. were furnished by the South -- he cites no source for this, and it is in fact wrong -- the true figure was about sixty percent on the average, most of that cotton -- and then by a slight of hand claims that this proves the South paid a similarly disproportionate share of tariffs. But of course the tariffs were only on imports.
The idea that the South would pay a disproportionate share of import duties defies common sense as well as facts. The majority of imports from abroad entered ports in the Northeastern US, principally New York City. The importers paid duties at the customs houses in those cities. The free states had sixty-two percent of the US population in the 1850s and seventy-two percent of the free population. The standard of living was higher in the free states and the people of those states consumed more than their proportionate share of dutiable products, so a high proportion of tariff revenue (on both consumer and capital goods) was paid ultimately by the people of those states -- a fair guess would be that the North paid about seventy percent of tariff duties. There is no way to measure this precisely, for once the duties were paid no statis tics were kept on the final destination of dutiable products. But consider a few examples. There was a tariff on sugar, which benefited only sugar planters in Louisiana, but seventy percent of the sugar was consumed in the free states. There was a tariff on hemp, which benefited only the growers in Kentucky and Missouri, but the shipbuilding industry was almost entirely in the North, so Northern users of hemp paid a disproportionate amount of that tariff. There were duties on both raw wool and finished wool cloth, which of course benefited sheep farmers who were mostly in the North and woolen textile manufacturers who were almost entirely in the North, but it was Northern consumers who ultimately paid probably eighty percent of that tariff (woolen clothes were worn more in the North than the South, for obvious rea sons). Or take the tariff on iron -- it benefited mainly Northern manufacturers (though there was an iron indus try in the South as well), but sixty-five percent of the railroad mileage and seventy-five percent of the railroad rolling stock were in the North, which meant that Northern railroads (and their customers, indirectly) paid those proportions of the duties on iron for their rails, locomotives, and wheels. One can come up with many more examples.
SOURCE: North & South, January 2004, Vol. 7, Number 1, page 52
Lincoln certainly delegated one item of high political importance to Lamon, that of telling the governor of South Carolina that Fort Sumter would be evacuated.
Maybe.
I'm not so sure that Sumter didn't become the event it was until after the war was over. The Star of the West was fired upon in Charleston Harbor four months before, but few remember.
And I have to admit that I didn't go over Eros' post with a fine tooth comb. I thought it was interesting and added something to the discussion about the supposed Taney arrest. If you have better information, please bring it forward.
ML/NJ
That's one of the usenet discussions over the Lieber document that came to light after Hummel and Adams et al wrote about the account. There are several pieces of information within it that are also questionable at best. Among them:
But there is no record, as far as I can tell, that Lincoln ever consulted Lamon on a decision of high political importance, much less that he entrusted Lamon with such a decision.
This is about as false as they get. Lamon was extremely close to Lincoln as a friend, advisor, and personal bodyguard. They were friends back in Illinois and used to try cases together before Lincoln was President. After Lamon and Lincoln arrived in D.C. Lincoln appointed him federal marshall and also continuously employed him as a political agent. In fact, this is the reason that Lamon wasn't at Ford's Theater to stop the assassination. A few days earlier Lincoln had sent him on a political mission to Richmond to serve as his agent in the reorganization of the Virginia government now that the war was over. Lamon did that sort of stuff for Lincoln all the time so it is not at all unusual that Lincoln would have used him for the Taney warrant.
Nor does the author's question about the Lamon paper's date discredit it. As I previously noted, Lamon spent a great deal of time in the later years of his life writing down and recording his personal recollections of Lincoln in preparation for a book on that subject. He died with before completion of the project in the 1890's and his daughter accumulated the finished portions of it into a book that was published around 1900. Lamon's notes and recollections on Lincoln encompass a period from roughly 1866 to Lamon's death, and only a small portion of them made it into the biography edited by his daughter (subsequent editions of it, for example, have included appendixes with new passages). It is highly likely if not certain that the habeas corpus document was one such item composed by Lamon.
Nor is it the least bit unusual that he would not have quoted the arrest warrant itself - arrest warrants are entirely boring legalistic documents that normally use a standard form and have very little literary significance in themselves. Contrast that with a court ruling, which is a formal legal argument and is unique onto itself. Lamon was a lawyer and knew this distinction.
In short, the entirity of the usenet piece's argument rests upon conjecture and speculation regarding the person of Ward Hill Lamon. Unfortunately the author of that piece knows extremely little about the life, person, or activities of Ward Hill Lamon during and after the Lincoln administration. As we now learn the very same aspects he questions were entirely consistent with what Lamon is known to have been doing in the years that followed the assassination, viz.: assembling passages with his own recollections of Lincoln for an eventual biography.
I agree. I was referring to Jabez L.M. Curry.
You must not know your history then. Jabez L.M. Curry was one of the preeminant university scholars in 19th century America. To cite him as a scholarly source on tariff policy is perfectly valid. He was also a congressman from Alabama and the University of Virginia's school of education is named after him. His likeness is in the United States Capitol's statuary hall: http://www.aoc.gov/cc/art/nsh/curry.htm
Correct. Lamon was one of Lincoln's most trusted agents throughout the war. When Lincoln had something of high importance that needed personal attention he went to Lamon. That also included sending Lamon to Richmond in 1865 to reorganize the Virginia government, which is why Lamon wasn't at Ford's Theater.
Thanks for the education. I haven't been down to UVa since October! And I never would have made the connection.
ML/NJ
Exports certainly enter into the balance of payments between countries and the value of a currency. Senator Wigfall of Texas had a good take on the situation on the floor of the Senate on Feb 7, 1861 (Congressional Globe, pg 789):
"How will it be with New England? Where will their revenue come from? From your custom-houses? What do you export? You have been telling us here for the last quarter of a century, that you cannot manufacture even for the home market under the tariffs which we have given you. When this tariff ceases to operate in your favor, and you have to pay for coming into our market, what will you expect to export?"
Raising tariffs on imported goods allowed Northern manufactured goods to compete with foreign ones. Earnings from the sales of cotton were then spent, in part, on Northern manufactured goods, thereby transferring some of the wealth of the South to the North.
Notice of Summons?????
OK, Glendower.
[ml/nj] Maybe.
From South Carolina Governor Pickens:
In a very few days after, another confidential agent, Colonel Lamon, was sent by the President, who informed me that he had come to try and arrange for the removal of the garrison, and, when he returned from the fort, asked if a war vessel could not be allowed to remove them. I replied, that no war vessel could be allowed to enter the harbor on any terms. He said he believed Major Anderson preferred an ordinary steamer, and I agreed that the garrison might be thus removed. He said he hoped to return in a very few days for that purpose.
There are references to this effort of Lamon's and Lincoln's in the Official Records, i.e., documents written before the attack on Fort Sumter, such as a letter from General Beauregard to Major Anderson referring to it.
I'm not so sure that Sumter didn't become the event it was until after the war was over.
A unique response, if I've ever heard one.
A unique response, if I've ever heard one.
Okay, smartie.
Tell me why no one remembers, or doesn't want to remember, the Star of the West. It carried Union troops and supplies for Fort Sumter. The folks in South Carolina didn't like this and fired upon the ship when it entered Charleston Harbor on January 9, 1861. Certainly this was a hostile act. Your beloved "Fort Sumter," whatever it was had not been completed or occupied at the time of Lincoln's election. The event everyone wants us to remember occurred on April 12, 1861. Why do they want us to forget what happened before?
ML/NJ
Because what happened before wasn't used by a yankee president as an excuse to launch the bloodiest war of invasion in the history of the North American continent.
Open you eyes. I think I'm on your side.
Why do you think "Honest Abe" didn't want all those Yankees to "Remember the Star"?
ML/NJ
Doesn't look like your summons is working very well, Glendower.
You mean you don't remember the Federal troops who charged civilian laborers with bayonets inside Fort Sumter on December 26, 1860 or the Federal troops who fought and overpowered a ship captain and took his schooner to Fort Sumter that same evening? Those kind of hostile acts? Not hostile I guess unless you were on the receiving end.
I have somewhere, but can't find at the moment, contemporary Southern newspaper reaction to The Star of the West incident that called it war. But none of the above stuck with the general populace as the beginning of the war.
There was a picket ship posted outside the Charleston bar which warned off The Star of the West, but the Star continued on into the harbor despite the warning. The South Carolinians then fired a shot in front of The Star of the West as a warning to stop, but it did not stop, so shooting continued. The Star of the West, which was filled with troops and munitions in spite of President Buchannan's agreement with South Carolinians not to change the situation in the harbor, was hit at least twice before turning around and leaving. It scraped bottom on the Charleston bar several times as it left.
Afterwards, the Federal sloop of war Brooklyn appeared and reportedly drove off a ship trying to enter the port. At least, that is what the old newspapers say.
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.