See my post #1521 above.
It and others say one purpose of the Morrill Tariff was to reduce imports, and even more the huge specie transfers needed to pay for them.
From the same NY Times source quoted in #1521:
rustbucket: "You have a valid point that all of the transport of Southern produce and cash, however much they totaled, wasn't entirely lost to the North as a result of the war because not all Southern states seceded for whatever reason (Northern force, voter preference, etc.).
However much the financial loss to the North amounted to after the South seceded, it still had a big impact on various sectors of Northern economy."
Of course, as did two million Northern men serving the Union Army, no question about that.
I'm merely pointing out such changes were not as important, not as apocalyptic, as sometimes claimed.
Instead, most Northern businesses adjusted, adapted and continued to prosper.
rustbucket: "Do you have problems with the economic disruptions that Appleton's says happened in the North as a result of their loss of a significant cross border exchange of goods and services?"
No, merely pointing out they were not as important as sometimes claimed.
For example, our poster DiogenesLamp maintains such economic factors were not just apocalyptic, they drove Northeastern businessmen to demand Lincoln start a war to restore the status quo ante.
I'm saying such Marxist class warfare reasoning exaggerates the importance of economics.
It's just like saying "the US declared war on Japan in December 1941 over Marxist economic factors" while ignoring the huge effects of Pearl Harbor.
DiogenesLamp ignores Fort Sumter, choosing instead to focus on imaginary Northeastern business influences.
rustbucket: "Let’s look at cotton mills in the North, The city of Lowell, Massachusetts had many cotton mills. From Wikipedia:"
Sure, but similar could be said of other wars, wars we don't usually blame on Marxist class warfare reasoning.
rustbucket quoting New York Herald: "The result of this is that manufacturing operations are reduced to about one-fourth of their usual extent.
How long they may be able to continue at that rate is scarcely problematical, should not our troops speedily liberate a considerable amount of cotton."
You remember, don't you, the Herald was an anti-Lincoln, pro-Democrat organ?
So the Herald is here mocking Republican policies, in the same way Democrats mocked George Bush's Iraq war as "all about the oil."
Now Trump says is should have been about oil, but the fact is, for Bush, it wasn't.
Now do you "get" it?
rustbucket quoting NY Herald: "From extended inquiry we find that the contraction of manufacturing has released about seventy thousand operatives from the mills.
About one-third of these are males who have mostly walked out of the factory and into the camp, and are doing good service in endeavoring to wrest cotton from the grasp of the rebels."
Just like recent years Democrats claimed Bush sent troops to Iraq to take their oil.
Neither Bush nor Lincoln were motivated by such Marxist thinking.
But of course, Democrats are all about such thinking.
rustbucket mocking slave-holders: "Sounds like Gollum in Lord of the Rings on slavery, "We wants it, we needs it.
Must have the precious slaves. They Abols stole it from us.
Sneaky little hobbitses rebelses abolitionists.
Wicked, tricksy, false!" (/gollum voice)"
See, anybody can play silly mocking games.
"It is now just a year since the first of the bills, of which we have spoken, was passed, and we wish to note its effects.
These have been as, during this crisis of our affairs, we most desired to have them, namely:1. First -- A reduction in the value of articles of luxury imported.
2. Second -- The accumulation and retention of specie (the basis of all financial operations) in the country.
3. Third -- An increase in the revenue arising from the levy of duty on those articles which would always be imported, in times of peace or war; and,
4. Fourth -- A prospective increase in the manufacturing interests and capital of the country."
Driving up the tariff reduced the amount of imports. That is protectionism. They got less real tariff income as a result. Their money was worth less.
Your quote above is from the New York Times of March 15, 1862. Let’s look at what the Times said about the Morrill Tariff a year earlier.
The New York Times, March 29, 1861 [my bold, red, and paragraph break below]:
Our Revenue Policy
It is of course a matter of surprise to no one that we are obliged to read, upon each fresh arrival from Europe, such denunciations of our new tariff law, as we reproduce in other columns of this paper. There never, in fact, was an important measure that attracted less attention on its passage, or, when the public consciousness was fully aroused, was more reprobated the world over as ill-timed and mischievous to the last degree, than the enactment in question. We resisted its passage upon the very grounds that are now almost universally urged for its repeal; and showed that it would alienate the Border States, lose us the sympathy of Europe, and above all, yield neither revenue, nor protect our industry, because it could not be enforced. …
The public, however, could not be awakened from its lethargy, and in a community now unanimous for its repeal, we found difficulty in getting a second. But the measure is a law. What is to be done with it? Repeal it, as a matter of course. This should be the first act of the Administration. It is a commercial as well as a political necessity. The crisis is imminent and demands immediate action.
Some desire by the Times to have the raised tariff back then, huh? Quite a different take on the tariff.
Here's the New York Times as quoted by the New Orleans Picayune of April 3, 1861 [my bold again]:
Never was a nation in greater embarrassment. We confess our inability to enforce the most important laws we enact, and sit passively down and see them violated without raising a finger. How can we maintain any national spirit under such humiliation? We take the step of all others most calculated to alienate the border States and foreign nations. We can neither collect our revenue nor afford protection. Who, under such circumstances would dare to embark in any enterprise? How much revenue can we collect in Northern ports? No one can answer these questions.
…
The door to borrowing is still left open. But it has been entirely contrary to the genius of our Government to borrow without any present or prospective means of payment. The Government fortunately can, by borrowing, temporarily supply all its wants. ... We learn that Secretary Chase has already declared that the tariff must be repealed.
[BroJoeK]: rustbucket: "Let’s look at cotton mills in the North, The city of Lowell, Massachusetts had many cotton mills. From Wikipedia:"
[BroJoeK]: Sure, but similar could be said of other wars, wars we don't usually blame on Marxist class warfare reasoning.
I'm sorry, you absolutely lost me there. Marx supported the North in this war [Link]. If cotton supplies became limited during the war, wouldn't you look to see if there was an effect on the cotton mills that Appleton's said there was? But instead you see Marxest class warfare rather than a confirmation that Appleton's was right?
In that same issue, the New Orleans Picayune quoted from Gore's General Advertiser, the oldest established newspaper in Liverpool, England as follows [my emphasis below]:
The Southern States know well that the commercial intercourse between them and the manufacturing countries of the old world, especially Great Britain, cannot be too untrammeled by fiscal regulations. The commerce-killing tariffs of the North are hateful in their eyes. What interest have they in the iron foundries Pennsylvania, or the cotton factories of Lowell? They care not to protect the shipping of the North. Their object is our object, only more naturally theirs than ours, "to sell in the dearest and buy in the cheapest markets of the world."
We therefore confidently assert that the question of slavery is not the real bone of contention between the Northern and the Southern States. The question at issue is that of free-trade, or protection so insatiable in its demands and so selfish and its exclusiveness as to impose a prohibitory duty on articles in the production of which it cannot hope to compete with those who possess infinitely superior facilities for the work.