Lincoln's Tariff War

When Charles Adams published his book "For Good and Evil", a world history of taxation, the most controversial chapter by far was the one on whether or not tariffs caused the American War between the States. That chapter generated so much discussion and debate that Adams's publisher urged him to turn it into an entire book, which he did, in the form of "When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession."

Many of the reviewers of this second book, so confident were they that slavery was the one and only possible reason for both Abraham Lincoln’s election to the presidency and the war itself, excoriated Adams for his analysis that the tariff issue was a major cause of the war. (Adams recently told me in an email that after one presentation to a New York City audience, he felt lucky that "no one brought a rope.")

My book, "The Real Lincoln", has received much the same response with regard to the tariff issue. But there is overwhelming evidence that: 1) Lincoln, a failed one-term congressman, would never have been elected had it not been for his career-long devotion to protectionism; and 2) the 1861 Morrill tariff, which Lincoln was expected to enforce, was the event that triggered Lincoln’s invasion, which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

A very important article that documents in great detail the role of protectionism in Lincoln’s ascendancy to the presidency is Columbia University historian Reinhard H. Luthin's "Abraham Lincoln and the Tariff," published in the July 1944 issue of The American Historical Review. As I document in The Real Lincoln, the sixteenth president was one of the most ardent protectionists in American politics during the first half of the nineteenth century and had established a long record of supporting protectionism and protectionist candidates in the Whig Party.

In 1860, Pennsylvania was the acknowledged key to success in the presidential election. It had the second highest number of electoral votes, and Pennsylvania Republicans let it be known that any candidate who wanted the state’s electoral votes must sign on to a high protectionist tariff to benefit the state’s steel and other manufacturing industries. As Luthin writes, the Morrill tariff bill itself "was sponsored by the Republicans in order to attract votes in Pennsylvania and New Jersey."

The most influential newspaper in Illinois at the time was the Chicago Press and Tribune under the editorship of Joseph Medill, who immediately recognized that favorite son Lincoln had just the protectionist credentials that the Pennsylvanians wanted. He editorialized that Lincoln "was an old Clay Whig, is right on the tariff and he is exactly right on all other issues. Is there any man who could suit Pennsylvania better?"

At the same time, a relative of Lincoln’s by marriage, a Dr. Edward Wallace of Pennsylvania, sounded Lincoln out on the tariff by communicating to Lincoln through his brother, William Wallace. On October 11, 1859, Lincoln wrote Dr. Edward Wallace: "My dear Sir: [Y]our brother, Dr. William S. Wallace, showed me a letter of yours, in which you kindly mention my name, inquire for my tariff view, and suggest the propriety of my writing a letter upon the subject. I was an old Henry Clay-Tariff Whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject than any other. I have not since changed my views" (emphasis added). Lincoln was establishing his bona fides as an ardent protectionist.

At the Republican National Convention in Chicago, the protectionist tariff was a key plank. As Luthin writes, when the protectionist tariff plank was voted in, "The Pennsylvania and New Jersey delegations were terrific in their applause over the tariff resolution, and their hilarity was contagious, finally pervading the whole vast auditorium." Lincoln received "the support of almost the entire Pennsylvania delegation" writes Luthin, "partly through the efforts of doctrinaire protectionists such as Morton McMichael . . . publisher of Philadelphia’s bible of protectionism, the North American newspaper."

Returning victorious to his home of Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln attended a Republican Party rally that included "an immense wagon" bearing a gigantic sign reading "Protection for Home Industry." Lincoln’s (and the Republican Party’s) economic guru, Pennsylvania steel industry publicist/lobbyist Henry C. Carey, declared that without a high protectionist tariff, "Mr. Lincoln’s administration will be dead before the day of inauguration."

The U.S. House of Representatives had passed the Morrill tariff in the 1859-1860 session, and the Senate passed it on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration. President James Buchanan, a Pennsylvanian who owed much of his own political success to Pennsylvania protectionists, signed it into law. The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent (according to Frank Taussig in Tariff History of the United States) to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent, Taussig writes.

So, Lincoln owed everything--his nomination and election--to Northern protectionists, especially the ones in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He was expected to be the enforcer of the Morrill tariff. Understanding all too well that the South Carolina tariff nullifiers had foiled the last attempt to impose a draconian protectionist tariff on the nation by voting in political convention not to collect the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations," Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected.

At the time, Taussig says, the import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being spent in the North. The South was being plundered by the tax system and wanted no more of it. Then along comes Lincoln and the Republicans, tripling (!) the rate of tariff taxation (before the war was an issue). Lincoln then threw down the gauntlet in his first inaugural: "The power confided in me," he said, "will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion--no using force against, or among the people anywhere" (emphasis added).

"We are going to make tax slaves out of you," Lincoln was effectively saying, "and if you resist, there will be an invasion." That was on March 4. Five weeks later, on April 12, Fort Sumter, a tariff collection point in Charleston Harbor, was bombarded by the Confederates. No one was hurt or killed, and Lincoln later revealed that he manipulated the Confederates into firing the first shot, which helped generate war fever in the North.

With slavery, Lincoln was conciliatory. In his first inaugural address, he said he had no intention of disturbing slavery, and he appealed to all his past speeches to any who may have doubted him. Even if he did, he said, it would be unconstitutional to do so.

But with the tariff it was different. He was not about to back down to the South Carolina tariff nullifiers, as Andrew Jackson had done, and was willing to launch an invasion that would ultimately cost the lives of 620,000 Americans to prove his point. Lincoln’s economic guru, Henry C. Carey, was quite prescient when he wrote to Congressman Justin S. Morrill in mid-1860 that "Nothing less than a dictator is required for making a really good tariff" (p. 614, "Abraham Lincoln and the Tariff").

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Southerners earned the wrath of God and were struck down in the sins for the despicable, barbaric and unholy depravity of flesh mongery. May the traitor flesh mongers rot in Hell. God bless the United States of America which righteously destroyed the illicit nation of contemptable illegal states supported in ignorance and greed by illiterate fools.

I see that Mr. Sumner's unusual penchant for shooting his mouth off in crude yet verbiose strings of south-hating personal invective flows strong in your veins.

Another south-hating Sumner fan was banned recently for his frequent use of vituperations not unlike the above. You suggest yourself to be new to FR, at least according to your profile, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now. But be aware that the needless trashing of individuals will earn you about as many friends around here as does quoting Karl Marx.

Your venemous postings such as the above indicate that you come from that small but obnoxious group of yankeeland inhabitants who spoil their region of the country by scaring off the decent folks both near them and to their south. Perhaps if you dropped the vitriol and took a moment to respect the southern posters here and southerners in general, you might find yourself learning something useful about courtesy.

The point that I'm questioning is the claim by DiLorenzo and others that the south bore the brunt of tariffs. The claim that the south paid the lions share of the tariffs is clearly wrong when you look at the statistics of the period.

I'm not sure how you can say that the tariff affected crop prices. For the years prior to the war the price of cotton had never been higher. If there was a tariff on imported agriculture, and I'm not aware that there was, then that would have benefited southern planters even more by keeping their prices high. And as for international trade, the south exported over 3 million bales of cotton in the year prior to the war. Tariffs would not have affected that.

Lying is a strong word and one that you should not be tossing about when comparing me with the likes of DiLorenzo. Show me when a single dollar of tariff income was collected at Sumter? Where were the people to administer the collection? How was it done? The fact is that Sumter was never used as a customs point. The fort wasn't used as anything until the last days of December when Major Anderson moved his command there. Yet DiLorenzo specifically identifies it as a tariff collection point and he is the one who is lying.

You are avoiding the point. Nothing you have said does anything to support your contention, and that of DiLorenzo, that the south paid the majority of the tariffs. That claim is flat out not true. Imported goods were not sent directly to the south because there was no demand for them. There still wouldn't be a demand for them from an independent confederacy. This great, mythical southern free trade zone would have meant nothing to U.S. industry. Trade with the south would have continued because they would have undercut the European imports. The idea that the domestic market for U.S. industries would have been endangered by a southern free trade zone is ridiculous. Tariffs would have been collected and domestic industries protected. Collecting tariffs in Boston or on the U.S./confederate border what difference would it have made?

As for the North needing the south, the reverse was true. The south needed someone, if not the North then Great Britain or France or someone else. The south was in a dependent relationship. It did not have the finance or manufacturing or transportation necessary to run their own economy and they had made no attempt to create one. Had the south been allowed to secede peacefully then they would have changed from a integral part of the United States to a virtual colony.

You answered nothing. You floated ideas that I pointed out would not and could not have worked.

Were not slaves considered property in the Dred Scott decision? Does Congress have the power to regulate trade? Can the federal government seize property - if compsensation is provided? Yes to all three. The simple fact is that the North did not want blacks to be freed because they would have to pay the owners, the blacks might possibly migrate into their states, and if they didn't, Southern representation in Congress woul be increased. Options the North did not want.

Now that's funny, cause history has proven time and time again that the market, along with its innovative instrument, functions best under competition. It's classical capitalism. And it was precisely the element of competition that Lincoln wanted to eliminate by tariffs, thereby impeding the capitalist market's primary functioning agent.

Like I say, you can be thankful more intelligent people were running the country in Lincoln's time; You'd probably not be happy about working in a nazi or West-India Company coal mine.

You are avoiding the point. Nothing you have said does anything to support your contention, and that of DiLorenzo, that the south paid the majority of the tariffs

Contrary, nothing you have said says otherwise! Show the data that the Northern states paid the majority of tariffs - the only numbers I have seen on this thread are Wise's net tariff fees from 1859-1860 which only show which ports collected fees - not who paid them! Why should Southern states subsidize Northern interests thru federal tariffs?

On 21 January 1861, five days before Louisiana seceded, the New Orleans Daily Crescent editorialized:

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."

The reason that tariffs were low was because they were working as intended -- southerners were being forced to choose between very expensive northern goods and even more expensive (because of the tariff) imported goods.

All things being equal (other than price), faced with a decision between something priced for $1 (northern) and .85 (european) the choice is obvious. With tariff applied it becomes a choice between $1 and $1.11 (30% tariff). Raising it to 47% made it $1.25. But did the North leave their price @ $1? Or did it get raised to $1.15? Either way, northern pockets were filled with southern monies.

Despite this, some would have us believe that southerners were not affected by tariffs, or that southerners were not paying the duties (due to where the goods were shipped), yet no one can provide documentation of northerners protesting higher tariffs. They obviously think that southerners protested higher tariffs on behalf of northerners. < /sarcasm >

What indicator do you want? The tariff was paid by the person receiving the goods. Those persons received the goods in the Northern ports. It would stand to reason that they were Northern businesses that paid them. I'll ask the question again. If there was such a demand down south for imports, if southerners actually consumed 80% of the imports that the tariff was applied to, then why were those items sent via a Northern port? Why were the goods not sent directly to the port closest to their evental destination? Why should the southern consumers have to put up with routing their goods through New York or Boston and then have the additional expense of sending them south? The answer is that if the south actually paid 80% of the tariffs then there is no reason why those goods wouldn't be sent directly to them. If the south actually paid 80% of the tariffs then New York would be a ghost town and Charleston would be collecting $15 or $20 million in revenue. The fact is that there is no evidence, other than the claims of DiLorenzo or others, that the south paid much of the tariff at all.

Lying is a strong word and one that you should not be tossing about

And that is why I do not toss it about. I call it out appropriately when you commit a lie, as you did by accusing DiLorenzo of lying about Sumter regarding a tariff collection instrument. Lincoln's own cabinet meeting notes reflect that he himself saw the use of Sumter to enforce the tariff. You denied it was so in your attack on DiLorenzo. Your denial conflicts with history, as I showed. Therefore it was a lie.

Show me when a single dollar of tariff income was collected at Sumter?

Diversionary tactic. You said that DiLorenzo was a liar for identifying Sumter as a "a tariff collection point in Charleston Harbor," which Lincoln's own cabinet meeting notes identified it to be. Therefore you lied. You then got caught. Live with it.

The point that I'm questioning is the claim by DiLorenzo and others that the south bore the brunt of tariffs.

And the point that I am making is that tariffs are economically employed for their protectionist over their revenue collection elements. That being the case, it is indisputable that the protectionist tariffs helped the north and hurt the south. End of question.

The claim that the south paid the lions share of the tariffs is clearly wrong when you look at the statistics of the period.

Is it? Cause the only statistics you have produced that I see indicate a small number of collection points. It does not say a thing about who paid the tariffs themselves. Besides, tariffs are on imports, not exports, which means those importing goods paid them. Last I checked, a country cannot reasonably import its own goods to itself.

I'm not sure how you can say that the tariff affected crop prices. For the years prior to the war the price of cotton had never been higher.

No kidding. And it was due to the reduction of many protectionist tariffs in the 1840's against yankee wishes that allowed cotton's price to climb for the decade that followed! Now think for a moment. What was the southern tariff complaint with Lincoln's government? THAT THEY WOULD HIKE THE TARIFF BACK UP BEYOND THE OLD LEVELS! It was openly advocated by the northerners, campaigned on by them, and for the first time in decades they put together a party with enough strength in the government to do so (and did just that almost immediately after Lincoln took office). So what happens when the tariff goes up? Prices go up on imports, it takes more cotton to get the same thing due to the tariff, and bye bye prosperity.

It created itself by democratic means legitimately...

It 'created' iself in an illegal manner through illegal actions, as determined by the Supreme Court in 1869.

They had already cast off the United States itself with relative ease. The Lincoln government responded by invading them after they had already come into existence.

Their independence wasn't recognized by the United States government or any other government. They were a rebellious part of the United States.

The army had no more right to Sumter than Jefferson Davis had to take up a garrison blocking the entrance into Boston.

Sumter was a U.S. Army post, built by the government in a city of the United States. The Army had every right to be there. Davis had no such power because he was not in command of the army of the United States or any other country.

Forts all across the south were abandoned by the yankees without so much as a scratch inflicted on either side.

U.S. Military installations had been appropriated by the confederacy.

The south definately fired the first shot, but did so only because the alternative would have inevitably caused more casualties.

How so? Up to that point the Union had taken not a single hostile action against the rebellion, regardless of provocation. There is no reason to believe that that was going to change just because Lincoln put food and reinforcements into Sumter. But Davis chose to take the first step and initiate hostilities. Rather than causing zero casualties, his actions caused hundreds of thousands.

That being the case, it is indisputable that the protectionist tariffs helped the north and hurt the south. End of question.

Hardly the end of the question. Tariffs affected anyone who bought the imported goods. Given the fact that 95% went into Northern ports then that is a strong indication that Northerners were the purchasers. Therefore tariffs hurt the North more.

...the only statistics you have produced that I see indicate a small number of collection points.

The 'small number of collection points' encompassed the three largest northern ports and the 8 or 9 largest southern ports. As for tariffs being on imports, well, duh. Those importing paid the tariff. Those paying the tariff were in New York and Boston and Philadelphia.

So what happens when the tariff goes up?

That last paragraph makes even less sense then the rest of your stuff does.

Not necessarily and not even close to accurate. In order to continue, you must break down the commodities each tariff was paid for and specifically who paid them. Second, take into account any opportunity costs. Third, take into account the issue of economic competition post secession. Specifically, what happens if the south leaves and holds the tariff at its old level, but the north hikes it up to 40% or more? The answer is simple - foreign commerce shifts to southern ports to avoid the tariff. The south develops faster economically as a result, and the southern-bought goods make their way up the coast by way of land, where it is harder to tax and trace, and would likely not be so by necessity of the north's dependent commerce. In short, the yankee tariff is circumvented by the market.

The 'small number of collection points' encompassed the three largest northern ports and the 8 or 9 largest southern ports.

I see you again ignored the question. Who paid those tariffs? Specifically. Break it down by nation, and by commodity

As for tariffs being on imports, well, duh.

Hey, i'm just covering all bases. You have shown your economic ignorance and misunderstanding of the entire tariff concept in previous posts, so I don't want to put anything past you.

That last paragraph makes even less sense then the rest of your stuff does.

If that is so, why can't you bring yourself to address and rebut the issues raised in it? Since you cannot substantiate your attempted blanket dismissal of those points, I may reject that dismissal in a word. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

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.