Wrong. Before Morrill, the average rate was 18.84%. It jumped to 36.2% with Morrill, then creeped up to 47.56% after two years when even more protectionist adjustments were made to Morrill.
By comparison, the confederate tariff adopted in May 1861 had an average rate of just over 13%.
Whether or not you think that “..there was nothing unusually high about those levels” is not the point. It was critically important to Northern manufacturing and consumers that the Morrill tariff was 40% higher and would drive European trade through Southern ports.
You said: “The highest rates of 45% did not come until 1870...”.
Actually they came five years before then.
You said: “The Morrill Tariff could have been defeated in the House in 1860 if the South and/or Democrats had firmly opposed it.
Not true: The sectional breakdown was 96–15 in the north, 7–9 in the Border states, and 1–39 in the south. Had everyone in the South and border states voted against it, it would still carry.
“But there were more than enough Southerners and Democrats who voted for Morrill to allow its passage in the House, in 1860.”
Wrong again.
You said: “In the Senate, Southerners opposed to Morrill held positions of power until they began walking out after the November 1860 election. So Morrill passed first because House Southerners were only halfhearted in opposition, and second because Senate Southerners walked out of the Senate.”
Wrong again and again....this is boring.
On December 12, 1860 speaking before the Senate, before any state had seceded, Sen. Louis Wigfall revealed his opinion on future equal representation as provided by the US Constitution:
“Tell me not that we have got the legislative department of this Government, for I say we have not. As to this body, where do we stand?
“Why, sir, there are now eighteen non-slaveholding States. In a few weeks we shall have the nineteenth, for Kansas will be brought in. Then arithmetic which settles our position is simple and easy.
“Thirty-eight northern Senators you will have upon this floor. We shall have thirty to your thirty-eight. After the 4th of March, the Senator from California, the Senator from Indiana, the Senator from New Jersey, and the Senator from Minnesota will be here.
“That reduces the northern phalanx to thirty-four...There are four of the northern Senators upon whom we can rely, whom we know to be friends, whom we have trusted in our days of trial heretofore, and in whom, as Constitution-loving men, we will trust.
“Then we stand thirty-four to thirty-four, and your Black Republican Vice President to give the casting vote.
Here are the tariff numbers I go by.
You will note: overall tariffs
Once Civil War began, then Union tariffs were further increased, reaching 36% in 1865 and 45% in 1870 -- but these obviously had nothing to do with causing Deep South secession.
PeaRidge: "By comparison, the confederate tariff adopted in May 1861 had an average rate of just over 13%."
According to this source, the Confederates' ad velorum duty rate was 15%, but included new tariffs imposed on "imports" from the Union, which effectively meant Southerners would pay more tariffs than ever before!
PeaRidge: "It was critically important to Northern manufacturing and consumers that the Morrill tariff was 40% higher and would drive European trade through Southern ports."
You obviously intend to suggest that Northern fears of Confederate tariff rates caused Lincoln to provoke war by resupplying Fort Sumter, right?
One problem with that idea is: Confederates did not pass their new lower tariff rate (March 15) until after Lincoln had already announced (March 4) his policy to "hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government".
So Lincoln's policy was not based on Confederate tariffs, but rather on his oath of office as President.
Yes, Lincoln was willing to trade a fort (Sumter) for a state (Virginia), but no such offer was ever accepted.
PeaRidge: "Actually they [highest rates of 45%] came five years before then", meaning in 1865.
According to this source, Union tariffs rose from 36% in 1865 to peak at 48% in 1868, then to 45% in 1870.
PeaRidge on the 1860 Morrill vote: "The sectional breakdown was 96–15 in the north, 7–9 in the Border states, and 1–39 in the south.
Had everyone in the South and border states voted against it, it would still carry."
In fact, there were more than enough votes among Southerners and/or Democrats to defeat Morrill in 1860.
First, eight Border and Southern representatives voted for Morrill, along with seven Northern Democrats.
Those 15 votes alone would change the overall vote from 105 versus 64 to 90 for and 79 against, meaning opponents would need only 12 more votes to defeat Morrill.
Second, those 12 final votes to defeat Morrill could easily have come from among 21 Southerners and 12 Northern Democrats who abstained from voting.
By contrast, only 13 Republicans abstained.
That's why I say Morrill could have been defeated in 1860 if Southerners and Democrats had been solidly opposed.
But they were not.
PeaRidge: "Wrong again."
Right again.
PeaRidge: "Wrong again and again....this is boring."
Right again and again... and your repeated DeNiles are worse than boring.
PeaRidge quoting Texas Senator Wigfall: "Then we stand thirty-four to thirty-four, and your Black Republican Vice President to give the casting vote."
First and foremost it's important to remember that Secessionist Fire-Eaters engineered the Democrats' election defeat in 1860, by splitting their party in two, thus guaranteeing victory for minority "Black Republicans", and giving Fire-Eaters the justification they needed for secession.
A leader among Fire-Eaters was none other than Texas Senator Louis Wigfall.
So your quote above simply shows Wigfall decrying conditions that he himself hoped-for and helped engineer to justify secession.