The South and the Northern Tariff

The South and the Northern Tariff - Speech of Senator Thomas Clingman, North Carolina, March 19, 1861 (Congressional Globe 36-2 p. 1476-77)

CLINGMAN: Mr. President, I admire the closing rhetoric of the Senator form Rhode Island (Simmons); but I want to call his attention to one or two questions which I put to him, and which he does not apprehend, but which I think are practical. The Senator attaches very little weight to the imports that go into the seven States that have seceded. He thinks it a matter of very little moment whether those States remain out or in. I endeavored to show him the error; but perhaps too hurriedly for him to apprehend my meaning; and I beg leave to recapitulate, for I think if there is a practical mind on the floor of the Senate, the Senator?s is one, and I want to see how he will get this Government out of the difficulty. I say to him, that I am as yet a representative of the Government of the United States, and shall faithfully represent what I believe to be in its interests, while I stand here. But let us see how this will affect the revenue. There were made last year about four million six hundred thousand bales of cotton. About two hundred thousand bales of it were made in North Carolina, and I suppose about as much in Tennessee, and about the same amount in Arkansas. There were very nearly four million bales of cotton made in the seven States that have seceded, worth fully $200,000,000. Very little of it was consumed in those States ? not more, perhaps, than three or four millions? worth ? and the rice crop exported exceeded that, and Louisiana made, I believe, about twenty millions? worth of sugar. I do not know what the amount of the sugar crop was last year; it has fluctuated; but it must have been at least that; it has sometimes been more. I think it fair, therefore, to assume that those seven States sent out of their limits from two hundred to two hundred and twenty million dollars? worth of produce. They get back a return in some way. It is not to be supposed it was given away. My friend from Texas suggests to me that they got it in wood-screws. No doubt they did get some of them; and they may have been gotten up in the State of Rhode Island, for aught I know. I was about to say that they must have got back $220,000,000 worth of products in some form. A portion of the money ? not very much ? went for horses and mules; and grain and other agricultural products, but much the larger amount of it went for articles that were dutiable. All of them were not actually imported, as many of them came from New England and elsewhere; but they were dutiable articles, and, but for the duties would have been furnished at a lower rate from abroad. I take it, therefore, that off the dutiable articles there must be twenty or thirty million ? certainly twenty million ? of revenue that would, in the ordinary course, be collected off those States with the tariff which we had last year.

Now, it is idle for the honorable Senator to tell me that the importations at Charleston and Savannah were small. I know that the merchants have gone from those cities to New York, and bought goods there; that goods are imported into New York are bought there, and then are sent down and deposited at Charleston, New Orleans, and other places. But, in point of fact, here is an enormously large consumption of dutiable articles, from one hundred to one hundred and fifty million. These people make their own provisions mainly, and cotton to sell, and do very little in the way of manufactures. Their manufactured goods came from the United States, or from foreign countries. I put the question to the honorable Senator, how much duty does he think this Government is going to lose by the secession of those States, supposing, of course, that they do not pay us any duties; for if New England goods are to pay the same duty with those of Old England, and Belgium, and France, we all know that the New England goods will be excluded, unless they make up their minds to sell much cheaper than they have been heretofore doing? I was curious, the year before last, in going through Europe, to ascertain, as well as I could, the value of labor and the prices of articles, and I was astonished at the rate at which goods may be purchased all over the continent, compared with similar articles here. The reasons they are not furnished as cheap here, is partly due to the circuitous trade. For example: houses in England purchase up articles in Belgium, France, Germany, and even Italy, and make a handsome profit; they then send them to New York, and handsome profits are made there by the wholesale dealers and, finally, they get down south, and in this way they are very high; but the tariff has also operated very largely. That Senator knows, as well as I do, and everybody knows, that if there be direct trade with Europe by these States; if goods are not to go around through New York, and not to pay duties ? and you may be sure they will not go there under his tariff, for nobody will pay a duty of fifty or seventy-five per cent. on what he imports, when he can send the goods to another port for fifteen or nineteen per cent. ? the result will be, that these States certainly will pay this Government no duties at all.

But it does not stop there. Merchants from my own State go down to Charleston, and lay in their goods. This Government, as things now stand, is not going to get any revenue from them. If goods are imported at Charleston at ten, or fifteen, or nineteen per cent. duty, whatever is paid will go into the coffers of the confederate States, and merchants will go down from my State and buy their goods there; and thus you lose a great portion of the North Carolina trade. It will be the same with Tennessee; it will be the same with the Mississippi valley. Now, what revenue are we going to get to support our Government under th epresent condition of things? The honorable Senator is very adroit in parrying questions. I asked him, when he spoke of the free list, if the manufacturers were willing that their chemicals, their dye stuffs, and coarse wool, that has been admitted free, should be taxed; and he replied, ?They are willing to have tea and coffee taxed.?

SIMMONS: The Senator will pardon me. I said, if we wanted money I would tax them, whether they were willing or not.

CLINGMAN: Exactly; but when pressed on that point, he turns it off on the tea and coffee. But, sir, we are legislating here for the United States ? all of us who are here, except by friend from Texas, who is kind enough to stay with us and help us legislate, until he gets official notice of the ordinance of his State. I thank him for his kindness. I think he is doing us a favor to stay here and help the wheels along. It needs the help of Hercules and the wagoner both to get us out of the mud. I want to know of honorable Senators on the other side of the Chamber how this Government is going to support its revenue next year. I think, if you have no custom-house between Louisiana and the Upper Mississippi, merchants up there will come down and buy their goods at New Orleans. If they learn that at New York they can buy goods under a tariff of fifty or seventy-five per cent., and that they can biy them at New Orleans under a tariff of only one third that, they will go down to New Orleans; and the result will be that we shall get very little revenue under the existing system. We may bandy witticisms; we may show our adroitness in debate; but this is a question which we have to look at practically. One of two things must be done: either you must prevent imports into those States, which I do not think you can do ? and I do not suppose there is a Senator on this floor who believes that, under the existing laws, the President has authority to do it ? or you must call Congress together, and invest him with some authority. If you do not do that, you must establish a line of custom houses on the border.

Is it not better for us to meet this question frankly on its merits? My apprehension, as I have already expressed it, is that the Administration intend, (I hope I may be deceived) as soon as they can collect the force to have a war, to begin; and then call Congress suddenly together, and say, ?The honor of the country is concerned; the flag is insulted. You must come up and vote men and money.? That is, I suppose, to be its policy; not to call Congress together just now. There are two reasons, perhaps, for that. In the first place, it would be like a note of alarm down south; and, in the next place, if you call Congress together, and deliberately submit it to them whether they will go to war with the confederate States or not, I do not believe they would agree to do it. Of course, I do not know what is the temper of gentlemen on the other side; but, though they will have a large majority in the next Congress, I take it for granted from what little I have heard, that it will be difficult to get a bill through Congress for the war before the war begins; but it is a different thing after fighting begins at the forts.

The Senator himself says they are going to enforce the laws and carry them out everywhere. I cannot tell what he means. In one part of his speech, I understood him to say that he was willing to let the seceded States alone; but towards the close of it, he spoke of enforcing the laws, and collecting the revenue everywhere. There is a very wide difference between these lines of policy. If you intend to let the confederate States stand where they now do, and collect their own revenues, and possess the forts, we shall get nothing, or very little, under the existing system. If on the other hand, you intend to resort to coercive measures, and to oblige them to pay duties under our tariff, which they do not admit that they are liable to pay, and to take back the forts, we shall be precipitated into war; and then, I suppose, we shall have a proclamation calling Congress together, and demanding that the honor of the United States shall be maintained, and that men and money shall be voted. I would rather the country should ace into this matter.

I shall not detain the Senate with a discussion about the tariff. I take it that we understand it, and I presume that the intelligent minds of the country understand its situation, and how much we shall get under it. The Senator form Rhode Island alluded to a remark which the Senator from New Hampshire made, that Rome lasted seven hundred years, and that, therefore, this Government must last seven hundred years; and he gave us some witty remarks about the sun not going down before breakfast. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that these analogies do not always run out; they will not hold good. I have read that Methuselah lived until he was more than nine hundred years of age. If a man who was something above ninety were told by his physicians that he was in very great danger of dying, that his constitution was worn out, and disease was preying on him, if he were to refer to the case of Methuselah, and say, ?I have not lived one tenth as long as he did; and, according to his life, I am now just before the breakfast of life,? it might be a very satisfactory argument, perhaps, to the man who used it, but I doubt whether anybody else would be consoled by it; I doubt very much whether his physicians would leave him under the idea that he had certainly eight hundred years to live. I am very much afraid that my friend from Rhode Island, when he rests on this declaration of the Senator from New Hampshire is resting on an unsubstantial basis, when he assumed that this Government must, of necessity, live as long as the Roman republic, and that the comparison of the sun does not hold good. However, I see the Senator from New Hampshire near me, and as he understands these things so much better than I do, I yield the floor.

The Constitution requires that per capita taxes, not tariffs, be uniform.

Who's Constitution you looking at?:

A per capita tax was a tax laid in proportion to the census(i.e. population) of each state.

Per capita taxes are Capitation & Direct taxes only

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
CAPITATION. A poll tax; an imposition which is yearly laid on each person according to his estate and ability. 2. The Constitution of the United States provides that "no capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census, or enumeration, therein before directed to be taken." Art. 1, s. 9, n. 4. See 3 Dall. 171; 5 Wheat. 317.

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "

"the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."

"Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"

"[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."

Tariffs on the other hand is a short hand reference to a "tariff of duties" (i.e. tariff) Duties must be uniform throught the United States. Meaning the same taxe law applicable without regard to states or one's location in the United States.

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
TARIFF. Customs, duties, toll. or tribute payable upon merchandise to the general government is called tariff; the rate of customs, &c. also bears this name and the list of articles liable to duties is also called the tariff. 2. For the tariff of duties imposed on the importation of foreign merchandise into the United States.

Constitution, Article I Section. 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

And there's Fort Clinton in NYC's Battery Park too. But they were old forts -- the modern, massive ones were in the South.

Here is a photo of Fort Delaware, built from 1836 to 1859 downstream of Philadelphia. Not exactly puny.

Construction began in 1825 on Fort Hamilton in New York. Robert E. Lee beefed up the batteries there in the 1840s. In fact, the biggest muzzle loading cannon ever cast in the US was placed at this fort. I guess it must have been bigger than the Swamp Angel used by the Union on Charleston civilians.

Construction began in 1829 on Fort Sumter. Still wasn't finished when the war started. Fort Warren in Boston was built between 1833 and 1869.

THERMO NUCLEAR HYPERBOIL ALERT!!!!

Not in the least and if you doubt me, check the activities of your liberal democrat Mondale supporting buddy Walt. He shows up on any thread even remotely tied to the south, starts peddling nonsense about his false god, and throws out a load of PC mongering crap about the evilness of the south. It can be something related to the war and he'll do it. It can be a thread on a modern day confederate flag controversy involving the NAACP PC police and the Al Sharpton race baiters. It could be a news story about preserving a battlefield, or recovering a shipwreck. It could be something about William Faulkner, or Gone With the Wind, or Song of the South. Heck, somebody could make a post about Lynyrd Skynyrd and Walt would be there within minutes flooding the place with a mixture of cut n' paste Lincoln quotes and rants about how horrible and wrong the south was, is, and always will be.

This speech doesn't even come close to suggesting that the the "tariff" (actually an import duty) played any significant role in secession or the Civil War.

Did you even read the speech? I am forced to conclude that you did not in light of such a comment. Either that, or you have difficulty with your comprehension skills. Allow me to assist you though with a key excerpt from the speech:

"One of two things must be done: either you must prevent imports into those States, which I do not think you can do; and I do not suppose there is a Senator on this floor who believes that, under the existing laws, the President has authority to do it; or you must call Congress together, and invest him with some authority. If you do not do that, you must establish a line of custom houses on the border. Is it not better for us to meet this question frankly on its merits? My apprehension, as I have already expressed it, is that the Administration intend, (I hope I may be deceived) as soon as they can collect the force to have a war, to begin; and then call Congress suddenly together, and say, "The honor of the country is concerned; the flag is insulted. You must come up and vote men and money." That is, I suppose, to be its policy; not to call Congress together just now. There are two reasons, perhaps, for that. In the first place, it would be like a note of alarm down south; and, in the next place, if you call Congress together, and deliberately submit it to them whether they will go to war with the confederate States or not, I do not believe they would agree to do it. Of course, I do not know what is the temper of gentlemen on the other side; but, though they will have a large majority in the next Congress, I take it for granted from what little I have heard, that it will be difficult to get a bill through Congress for the war before the war begins; but it is a different thing after fighting begins at the forts."

As the speaker admits, the South was buying most of their European goods from Northern importers, so it was Northerners who were paying the vast majority of the import duties, not Southerners

You have just demonstrated your comprehension of market concepts falls short of even your reading ability. Tariffs are not paid by one intermediary in the economy then forgotten about. They are passed on to the consumer by way of the prices.

and the speaker's assumption that the Southerners could simply shift their importing to Southern ports is highly suspect, since it is apparent that importing European goods through Northeastern ports was much more cost efficient.

It is not suspect in the least. If a barrier to trade exists in the north (i.e. a high tariff) but not in the south, the goods will go to the place where they can achieve entry, meaning the south. It's a simple matter of economic law, and also one that the otherwise economically incompetant yankees even understood. The New York Times even urged war on these grounds, noting that their high tariff would drive away trade, and the south's low tariff would pick it up. The New York Herald noted the same to be true. And sure enough, the Morrill bill virtually killed off trade with Europe after it was enacted.

Moreover, even if you assume that the speaker's numbers are correct that Southerners were buying $220 million worth of imports annually and thereby indirectly paying as much as $30 million annually in import duties, that would still be a mere pittance in comparison to the Republican threat to slaveholding

Not when you consider that those figures were from the 1857 tariff, which was low and favorable to free trade. The grievance was with the Morrill act, which practically destroyed international trade with Europe. The southern economy was almost entirely export-based, and when trade halts so do exports.

The secessionist states were attacking federal fortifications before Lincoln was even swarn into office.

...every one of which was within their borders. If the country splits, it is only reasonable, not to mention efficient, that its previous posessions of the sort be allocated geographically, or are you one of those people who believes that "belonging to the United States" really means "belonging to New England, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, regardless of where it may be geographically"?

Just a month after being sworn in the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter.

Only after Lincoln instigated that attack. It is commonly known that the confederates opened fire on the fort, but less known (and for a reason) why they did so when they did. A few days before they fired, Lincoln sent a fleet of warships to Charleston tasked specifically with the purpose of reaching Sumter and using military force to do so in light of the inevitable opposition to their entry into the harbor. The day before the attack, one of those ships in Lincoln's fleet arrived at Charleston and even fired upon a confederate civilian vessle that was entering the harbor. The rest were just over the horizon and expected to arrive at any moment. Aware of this, the confederates gave the orders to open fire and preempt their arrival.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that he was an abolitionist.

Not in the least, and in fact I have made note of that at every opportunity as it gives moral credibility to his position. It speaks volumes that an extreme abolitionist such as Spooner would speak out against the manner in which Lincoln's war was conducted. It also shows that simply noting the evil by which Lincoln conducted that war and its big government consequences does not automatically make someone a "slavery-defending racist bigot white male homophobe rain forest strip miner", as certain persons here like to imply. Here is what he had to say on the matter in a letter to Charles Sumner from 1864:

"You have thus, to the extent of your ability, placed the North wholly in the wrong, and the South wholly in the right. And the effect of these false positions in which the North and the South have respectively been placed, not only with your consent, but, in part, by your exertions, has been to fill the land with blood."

He was not justifying slavery, he was condemning the Constitution, which he soured on because it did NOT abolish slavery.

No. He was condemning the actions that led to the establishment of the authoritarian post-war government. Of the pre-war government, he held out at least theoretical tolerance of its existence. Here is what he said on that issue and how the war changed it:

"Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that --- in theory, at least, if not in practice --- our government was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established...Notwithstanding all the proclamations we have made to mankind, within the last ninety years, that our government rests on consent, and that that was the rightful basis on which any government could rest, the late war has practically demonstrated that our government rests upon force --- as much so as any government that ever existed."

Glad to see that you've become a new adherent to Little Alex. However, in this case he's wrong (or at least misleading) and, so are you. If you had the slightest whiff of historical context you'd understand that Stephens was throwing everything possible in the mix to defuse secession. I know you're too smugly self-assured in your belligerent nastiness to benefit, but I'll explain the economics of mid-19th Century mail subsidies for the benefit of others interested:

Mail to the west coast was heavily subsidized by Washington. Overland costs were so incredibly high that it was about as cost effective to transport mail by steamer to Panama, move it over the isthmus, then by steamer to California and Oregon. A large fraction of the west coast mail involved the business of the federal government - particularly the army - so it was deemed in the national interest to subsidize its timely transport - and both Whig and Democrat administrations had supported a heavy subsidy - and put their effort to squabbling over the overland route's location. It could be said then that a national consensus had been reached that postage rates to the west coast were to be kept well below costs.

Obviously to most - well, maybe not you - climate argued for sending overland mail on the southern route - for year-round service reliability. Equally obvious, steamships have to go south to reach Central America. Steamship companies already operating in the South had a clear advantage on bidding on the routes. The figures cited show that the big picture for revenue and expenses included west coast costs in the Southern column. As the transport of mail was yet another sectional controversy, it is reasonable that Stephens included California and Oregon in this way as their congressman and senators were heavily Democrats.

I know this spoils an opportunity for you to demagogue, but maybe others will appreciate it. And maybe the newcomers will get a look at your irresponsible or uninformed methods of argument. Now, please inform us where you ran across this little gem. I'm sure you didn't look it up yourself. (If I had to guess, I'd say McPherson, but that is just a guess. It's typical of his intentional distortions).

"This speech doesn't even come close to suggesting that the the "tariff" (actually an import duty) played any significant role in secession or the Civil..."

The speech does imply this but you have to put your thinking cap on to grasp the full implication. In 1860, the Cofederate Sates were the predominant exporters to Europe. Europe, by and large, did not buy North American manufactured goods as they were considered inferior to their European counterparts.

Southern exports earned precious foreign exchange that facilitated international trade. In point of fact the Southern secession did cause a Northern financial crisis with North American and European trade sinking dramatically.

Lincoln solved the financial crisis by printing "Greenbacks" out of thin air. The foreign exchange value of the Dollar sunk to 30% of its pre-war value. Lincoln's debt monetization scheme caused an inflationary crisis and later a crash under the Grant administration.

It is also worth remembering that the Dollar was not the World's reserve currency in 1860, Pound Sterling was. Anything purchased from abroad had to be paid for directly from reserves earned from exporting. The "tariff issue", broadly understood, was at the heart of the Civil War conflict; slavery was an issue of secondary importance.

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.