"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.
[BroJoeK]: 'Sure, but similar could be said of other wars, wars we don't usually blame on Marxist class warfare reasoning.'<.I>
rustbucket: "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?
You fellows are all hiding behind the skirts of your mother Marx's dialectical materialism, instead of standing up and confessing basic historical facts.
Remember, Marx was the one who eliminated all idealistic or spiritual motives in history, replacing them with materialistic class warfare as the be-all & end-all of reasons.
And that's just what you do here.
Certainly you demand that Northern motives can have nothing but crass economic class warfare reasons.
At the same time you claim that Confederate motives had nothing, "nothing I tell you", to do with protecting slavery, but rather Confederates were inspired only by Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, especially the part where, "all men are created equal".
So, in you minds, it's Marxism for the North, liberty & constitution for the Confederacy, and I'm saying: that's pure ahistorical fantasy.
Sure, from some British perspectives, trade was all that mattered and therefore must be the "real reasons".
Indeed, if that particular perspective had dominated in the UK, Britain might well have supported the Confederacy militarily, and then things could have turned out quite different.
But in fact, the vast majority of Brits fully understood that slavery was the root cause and real reason, and since Brits also hated slavery, they would do nothing to support their natural economic allies in the South.
So, rusty, you've again quoted a minority opinion when the majority fully understood what was really going on.