The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price. --- so did Abe.
On Sunday, June 30, 2013 8:27:37 AM UTC-5, MJ wrote: > > > 6/23/2013 > *Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause Of The Civil War > *David John Marotta > > 6/30/2013: We were surprised by some of the reactions to our recent > article on protective tariffs as one of the primary causes of the Civil > War. We have written a post expanding on our citations and reasoning in > Jefferson > Davis Posthumously Responds to Our Readers’ > Reactions<http://www.marottaonmoney.com/jefferson-davis-posthumously-responds-to-our-readers-reactions/> > > Although they opposed permanent tariffs, political expedience in spite of > sound economics prompted the Founding Fathers to pass the first U.S. tariff > act <http://www.marottaonmoney.com/what-our-founding-fathers-got-wrong/>. > For 72 years, Northern special interest groups used these protective > tariffs<http://www.marottaonmoney.com/do-tariffs-protect-an-infant-industry/>to > exploit the South for their own benefit. Finally in 1861, the oppression > of those import duties started the Civil War. > > In addition to generating revenue, a tariff hurts the ability of > foreigners to sell in domestic markets. An affordable or high-quality > foreign good is dangerous competition for an expensive or low-quality > domestic one. But when a tariff bumps up the price of the foreign good, it > gives the domestic one a price advantage. The rate of the tariff varies by > industry. > > If the tariff is high enough, even an inefficient domestic company can > compete with a vastly superior foreign company. It is the industry’s > consumers who ultimately pay this > tax<http://www.marottaonmoney.com/the-benefits-of-free-trade-defined-the-consumer-always-wins/>and > the industry’s producers who benefit in profits. > > As early as the Revolutionary War, the South primarily produced cotton, > rice, sugar, indigo and tobacco. The North purchased these raw materials > and turned them into manufactured goods. By 1828, foreign manufactured > goods faced high import taxes. Foreign raw materials, however, were free of > tariffs. > > Thus the domestic manufacturing industries of the North benefited twice, > once as the producers enjoying the protection of high manufacturing tariffs > and once as consumers with a free raw materials market. The raw materials > industries of the South were left to struggle against foreign competition. > > Because manufactured goods were not produced in the South, they had to > either be imported or shipped down from the North. Either way, a large > expense, be it shipping fees or the federal tariff, was added to the price > of manufactured goods only for Southerners. Because importation was often > cheaper than shipping from the North, the South paid most of the federal > tariffs. > > Much of the tariff revenue collected from Southern consumers was used to > build railroads and canals in the North. Between 1830 and 1850, 30,000 > miles of track was laid. At its best, these tracks benefited the North. > Much of it had no economic effect at all. Many of the schemes to lay track > were simply a way to get government subsidies. Fraud and corruption were > rampant. > > With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in > the North, the South rightly felt exploited. At the time, 90% of the > federal government’s annual revenue came from these taxes on imports. > > [image: Tariffs at the South's expense.] > “Cartoon drawn during the nullification controversy showing the Northern > domestic manufacturers getting fat at the expense of impoverishing the > South under protective tariffs.” – Encyclopedia of > Britannica<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/media/113277> > > Historians Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffer found that a few common factors > increase the likelihood of secession in a region: lower wages, an economy > based on raw materials and external exploitation. Although popular movies > emphasize slavery as a cause of the Civil War, the war best fits a > psycho-historical model of the South rebelling against Northern > exploitation. > > Many Americans do not understand this fact. A non-slave-owning Southern > merchant angered over yet another proposed tariff act does not make a > compelling scene in a movie. However, that would be closer to the original > cause of the Civil War than any scene of slaves picking cotton. > > [image: Morrill Tariff Cartoon] > Morrill Tariff Cartoon, featured in Harper’s > Weekly<http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1861/april/abe-lincoln-cartoon.htm>on > April 13, 1861 saying:THE NEW TARIFF ON DRY GOODS. > > Unhappy condition of the Optic Nerve of a Custom House Appraiser who has > been counting the Threads in a Square Yard of Fabric to ascertain the duty > thereon under the New MORRILL Tariff. The Spots and Webs are well-known > Opthalmic Symptoms. It is confidently expected that the unfortunate man > will go blind. > > Slavery was actually on the wane. Slaves visiting England were free > according to the courts in 1569. France, Russia, Spain and Portugal had > outlawed slavery. Slavery had been abolished everywhere in the British > Empire <http://www.forbes.com/companies/empire/> 27 years earlier thanks > to William Wilberforce. In the United States, the transport of slaves had > been outlawed 53 years earlier by Thomas Jefferson in the Act Prohibiting > the Importation of Slaves (1807) and the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act > in England (1807). Slavery was a dying and repugnant institution. > > The rewritten history of the Civil War began with Lincoln as a brilliant > political tactic to rally public opinion. The issue of slavery provided > sentimental leverage, whereas oppressing the South with hurtful tariffs did > not. Outrage against the greater evil of slavery served to mask the > economic harm the North was doing to the South. > > The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal > case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the > defendant’s moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings > > Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the > continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate > about economic > issues<http://www.marottaonmoney.com/the-benefits-of-free-trade-agreements-the-country-always-wins/>and > states’ > rights<http://www.marottaonmoney.com/the-ninth-amendment-the-value-of-our-unenumerated-rights/>. > > The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was > a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even > primary cause. > > The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was > the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among > Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some > industries over others was unconstitutional. > > The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John > Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina > would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state > had the right to reject or nullify federal law. > > In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his > position, saying, “My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s > dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal > improvements system and a high protective tariff.” He was firmly against > free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to > benefit specific industries like Lincoln’s favorite, Pennsylvania steel. > > The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic > growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. > Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later > called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with > such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed. > > The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln’s First > Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the > South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he > promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order > to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a > declaration of war on the South. > > Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied > the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. > The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective > tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household > paid the price. > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmarotta/2013/06/23/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/ > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
