Lincoln's Tariff War

What is so hard to understand?

Nothing. You post the Opinion of one editor of one newspaper when the facts are that the pressure on Lincoln from the textile industry was exactly the opposite of that Opinion. The textile industry, which was the largest industry in the nation in 1861, lobbied mightly, and thankfully unsucessfuly, to keep the slave produced cotton flowing north by allowing secession. War was not in their best interests and they suffered for it.

If we were to project ourselves 140 years into the future and read selected editorial Opinions from 1998, we will have ample "proof" (by your standard) that Bill Clinton was not only the first black president, but the greatest president in history who was hounded by those evil Conservatives.

Why is so hard for you to actually look for the primary sources as opposed to taking every dung pile of Lost Cause mythology from DiLorenzo, or his "primary sources" at Crown Rights, as fact?

You have been living on junk history. It's time to grow up.

I've become accustomed to whack-nuts claiming that Smoot-Hawley was the MAJOR cause of the Great Depression

I never heard anyone claiming it "caused" the crash of '29, but I have heard many well respected economists say that it deepened the recession and caused a cascade effect that prevented recovery --- i.e. Depression.

Looking at that chart, I was amazed at how high the rates were. I had not realized they were that big and that broad based. From a pure economic standpoint, it does not appear to be either a revenue increasing plan or a pragmatic protection tariff for key industries, but a massive tax increase, in the midst of an economic downturn --- Not a smart move.

Maybe after I finish fighting the Civil War, I'll dig into the Depression. ;~))

but I have heard many well respected economists say that it deepened the recession and caused a cascade effect that prevented recovery --- i.e. Depression.

These claims are also greatly exaggerated. Prior to the Depression, imports formed only 6 percent of the GNP. With average tariffs ranging from 40 to 60 percent (sources vary), this represents an effective tax of merely 2.4 to 3.6 percent. Yet the Great Depression resulted in a 31 percent drop in GNP and 25 percent unemployment. The idea that such a small tax could cause so much economic devastation is too far-fetched to be believed.

Even an effective tax of 2.4 to 3.6 percent is overstating the effects of the tariff. The tariff rates were already high to begin with. One source reveals that Smoot-Hawley raised rates from 26 to 50 percent; another source from 44 to 60 percent. In that case, we are talking about an effective tax increase of 1.4 percent at most.

Furthermore, Smoot-Hawley did not entirely shut down trade. For the U.S., it fell from 6 to 2 percent of the GNP between 1930 and 1932. This does not mean, of course, that Americans necessarily "lost" that 4 percent. It merely means that they had 4 percent more to spend on their own domestic products.

Looking at that chart, I was amazed at how high the rates were. I had not realized they were that big and that broad based.

Yes, I agree that 60% is excessively high. However, comparison to the 20% effective rate on total imports would seem to indicate that they were not all that broad-based. Interestingly, during the 1820s period you noted, the rate on dutiable imports and the effective rate on ALL imports are much more in line with each other.

Despite staunchly opposing those who exagerate the negative effects of tariffs, I do not myself advocate the use of selective or protective tariffs. Nor do I favor excessively high tariffs such as those that have been imposed in our past.

Rather, I advocate a truly broad-based revenue tariff that would be applied to ALL imports at a rated between 10% and 20%. (This would be comparable to the "red line" in the chart.)

Targeted, or selective/protective tariffs do not work well and skew the competitive playing field. They may benefit some industries while hurting others, while also creating loopholes to circumvent the tariff. A broad-based revenue tariff avoids these complexities while providing minimal advantage to domestic production in our domestic market (IMHO, necessary at this time due to other burdensome regulations the federal government imposes on domestic industry). The relatively low rate would not shut down trade, and revenues could be used to offset cuts in other forms of domestic taxation.

Good Post.

“Today’s tyranny began with Lincoln. He voided Self-Determination and the Constitution and threw thousands of Northerners into prison without trial when they objected to his usurpation OR WERE EVEN SUSPECTED OF BEING AGAINST HIS TYRANNY! He directly caused the deaths of tens of thousands of prisoners, Northern and Southern, by starvation and disease. The blood of 600,000 soldiers of the North and South are on his hands. The slavery of the empire which binds us today owes its greatest debt to him.” --FreeReb

**“Every clause of Jefferson’s tremendous indictment of King George in 1776 was true of Lincoln in 1861-1865.” ---John Gardiner Tyler in THE CONFEDERATE CATECHISM, Section 10, pg. 5. **

Your knowledge of history outside of what you learned at your little public school is lacking sorely.

Actually, they taught me the same half-baked revisionist BS history that you preach here ---- tariffs caused the war and slavery was just a side light. It was from homogonized corporate feel-good history texts that would sell just as well in 1950s Jim Crow Alabama as in Pennsylvania.

It wasn't till I began reading beyond the politically correct corporate texts that I discovered the truth. You should try it sometime. You'll find there is a big world out there that your Lost Cause Mythology never covers.

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.