The Truth About Tariffs (James McPherson on civil war tariffs)

North and South Magazine (excerpt transcribed by nolu chan) | January 2004 | James M. McPherson

[Grand Old Partisan]

"South Carolina had Union troops on her soil.

There were no Union troops in South Carolina. They were troops of the United States Army, just as were the troops who hit the beach in Normandy and are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan now.

[PeaRidge]

Another government official warned Lincoln about starting the war.

3/27/1861

US Colonel Ward Lamon, arrived in Charleston. He was a close friend of Lincoln, and he soon had an interview with Governor Pickens. He told Pickens that he was Lincoln’s special messenger, and that he had come to make preparations for the removal of the Sumter garrison. He went out to the fort to talk to Anderson, to whom he gave the impression that the troop would soon retire, although Lincoln “was taking an unholy time getting about to it”

When he returned to Washington from Fort Sumter, he reported immediately to President Lincoln that reinforcements could not be introduced without a serious collision. He described the Confederate fortifications as extensive and strong.

Lincoln did not act as if a "serious collision" needed Congressional approval.

[Grand Old Partisan]

"The South consumed more imported goods than all of the Northern and Western states combined."

That statement is beyond absurd -- pathetic, really.

[PeaRidge]

Nonsense. No state of war existed. Your comparison is invalid.

[Grand Old Partisan]

"Nonsense. No state of war existed. Your comparison is invalid."

That does not even begin to make sense.

[PeaRidge]

"That statement is beyond absurd -- pathetic, really."

Well, let's see your data.

[rustbucket]

The fact that it is not a secret doesn't mean that it is well known.

You are correct. However, your question I responded to was "I ask you why no one remembers the Star of the West". Your question was obviously not a true statement because some people do remember The Star of the West, myself included.

John Brown was not associated with any government in any way. It would be hard to imagine why anyone would even think that his raid was the first in a long series of military conflicts between the Union and the Confederacy.

I said that John Brown's actions (and others) led to the war. I didn't say the war started with his action. Or do you feel that there were no events that heightened tensions and contributed to the coming conflict? Perhaps you feel the war just started like spontaneous combustion?

One doesn't have to be a member of a government or government military unit to start a war. Consider Gavrilo Princip. Don't remember him? He was the civilian who started World War One.

I think there were sides (see below) but this sort of argument would eliminate Pearl Harbor from consideration as regards WWII.

You are missing a distinction I made. In the case of the Star, only one side was shooting. The Star didn't fire back. Robert Anderson sitting in Fort Sumter didn't fire back -- I guess he didn't want to start a war. The ship then turned around and left the harbor. End of incident.

Both sides were firing at each other at Pearl Harbor. Same thing had happened at Fort Sumter. Of course, Fort Sumter had been fired at by Confederate forces some days before April 12, 1861. One of the Confederate gunners took a practice shot at the dock. Didn't start the war. The Confederates apologized to Major Anderson. Incident closed.

Well someone down there did. See Star of the West.

Where does it say that The Star of the West fired at the Confederate troops? I'm not disputing that the Confederates fired at her. I'm not aware that her 200 armed troops fired at the shore. If they did, I stand corrected. My understanding was that the troops on the Star were hiding below deck so that they wouldn't be seen.

I believe the reason no one learns about the Star of the West is that it was a clear case of agression by the North. (The North couldn't have started the war, could it?)

Interesting thought and one that matches some Southern opinions of the time. From the Crescent (a New Orleans newspaper? or perhaps a Mississippi newspaper?) reported in The Mississippean of Jackson on Jan. 16, 1861:

We will now see whether the President of the North will attempt coercion of Mississippi. We will see whether he will send any Stars [sic] of the West up the Mississippi river with troops for the subjugation of our sister State. If so, the people of Louisiana will perhaps have something to say to all such vessels passing through their territory. They will, very likely, give all such the same "good morning" which was tendered from Morris Island in South Carolina, day before yesterday, when Federal troops were boldly attempted to be landed upon the soil of that State. ... If coercion is attempted, let it come!

My own feeling is that Lincoln wanted war and he used the occasion of resupplying Fort Sumter to provoke it, knowing full well that it would become an armed conflict. His cabinet voted against the scheme, but he did it anyway.

Obviously the Southern newspapers didn't like Lincoln. They referred to the North as "Lincolndom" and to Lincoln as "his Baboonship".

[GOPcapitalist]

The term "invasion" refers to an armed attack on another country. During the Civil War, the United States Army and Navy did not invade a foreign country, but suppressed an armed rebellion in a section of the United States.

"The words ``coercion'' and ``invasion'' are in great use about these days. Suppose we were simply to try if we can, and ascertain what, is the meaning of these words. Let us get, if we can, the exact definitions of these words---not from dictionaries, but from the men who constantly repeat them---what things they mean to express by the words. What, then, is ``coercion''? What is ``invasion''? Would the marching of an army into South California, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit." -Lincoln, February 11, 1861

[GOPcapitalist]

Tariffs are paid on imports, not exports.

You need to study your economics. Importers are legally bound to pay tariffs, but the incidence of taxation is not on those importers any more than the incidence of the gasoline tax is on the guy who owns the gas station. That incidence passes through in the form of higher prices to others and one of the groups that absorbs an inordinately high ammount of this passthrough is exporters. They also get hit a second time because tariffs kill of imports, which are necessary to sustain the trade of exports that they use for their livlihoods.

While cotton was the source of most exports, the South imported very little except for luxury goods for the slave-whoopin' elite.

That is speculation on your part. That statistics from the era do not support it.

Also, bear in mind that the population was much much lower in the South than in the North -- and a third of them were slaves, who did not import a thing

That is incorrect. Virtually all of the farm machinery and other machined equipment used by the slaves in agricultural production was imported. It is true these were not luxury goods, but the sugar cane presses had to come from somewhere and that somewhere was Europe.

- and that the economy overall was much poorer.

The per capita wealth statistics as well as basic economic indicators (i.e. competitiveness of goods on the world market) all indicate that poverty and unproductiveness were far greater problems in the north. Why else do you think that the south could sell its agriculture to the rest of the world yet the yankees couldn't get anybody to take their yankee crap?

[GOPcapitalist]

To collect that beer you need to cite a U.S. Government source, not some rebel rants. Sorry.

Uh, Partisan - once again the Official Records IS the main U.S. Government source. I know you have a proclivity for confusing it with something else. IIRC the last time I cited something from it for your education you accused me of giving you a "neoconfederate" source. It is not and if you doubt me I invite you to call the GPO who makes the thing tomorrow and confirm it with them.

[Grand Old Partisan]

My point is that a rebel Governor's say-so is insufficient.

If one day, jihadist-Americans surround a U.S. fort with cannons, should the President negotiate with them?

[Grand Old Partisan]

It was your statement, and the onus is on you to support it.

[rustbucket]

To collect that beer you need to cite a U.S. Government source, not some rebel rants. Sorry.

I suppose then that the various Southern secession documents won't be quoted by your side anymore?

Besides, Abraham Lincoln signed the bill authorizing the collection of the Official Records documents, like the one I cited (Beauregard's letter to Anderson). I thought you worshiped anything connected with Lincoln.

[Grand Old Partisan]

You're not following my point. Secessionist documents are plain evidence, but a rebel Governor's allegation about what the President of the United States supposedly said is worth much less than President Lincoln's version. Also, the rebels had surrounded a U.S. Government installation with cannons, threatening to destroy it. Try that today, pointing guns at, say, Ft. Hood, and see what happens to you.

[rustbucket]

If it is not in your history of the GOP, then we should discount it, right?

[GOPcapitalist]

My point is that a rebel Governor's say-so is insufficient.

It's an historical document and is of no more or less value than any similar historical document including a letter by Abe Lincoln.

[GOPcapitalist]

but a rebel Governor's allegation about what the President of the United States supposedly said is worth much less than President Lincoln's version.

Why? Lincoln wasn't exactly a trustworthy guy in his own right and had a way with making Clintonian word use. I'm not aware of any similar circumstance involving the activities of Francis Pickens, so if anything he's more trustworthy than Lincoln ever was.

[rustbucket]

Actually you've reminded me of the last argument we had.

You claimed that President Johnson's policy toward the Southern states was not Lincoln's policy.
I cited a Republican Congressman saying it was.
You said the Congressman was wrong.
I cited a Republican Cabinet member (Welles) saying that it was.
You argued that Lincoln agreed with Radical Republican Stanton's Reconstruction plan, whatever that was.
I pointed out that the account of the last cabinet meeting didn't support your position.
You argued that the notion that Lincoln and the Radicals were enemies was a fiction concocted by Democrat historians.
I cited reports of disagreement over Reconstruction between Lincoln and the Radicals.
I cited the Wade-Davis Manifesto as evidence of the deep division between Radicals and Lincoln.
At this point you claimed I was making stuff up, then left the thread.

I get the feeling you sometimes let your kids make your FreeRepublic posts.

[GOPcapitalist]

Funny. That reminds me of the last conversation I had with him on the subject of tariffs. And the last I had with him on the subject of black confederates. And the last I had with him on the subject of fort sumter....

[rustbucket]

Actually you got me into reading a little further in the Official Records. I discovered that the Confederates had a floating iron-clad battery at Charleston in early 1861. (Anderson's reference to floating iron-clad battery)

I wasn't aware of the use of iron-clads that early. Then on the web I discovered they had been used against a Russian fort in 1855 by the French and British. (Early ironclads). On this site I also learned where the Confederate ironclad CSS Manassas had been used against Federal blockade ships near New Orleans in October 1861. The Federal ships retreated, temporarily stopping the blockade. All this was prior to the USS Monitor and CSS Virginia (Merrimac).