The Morrill Tariff Caused the Perfect Storm
for Economic Disaster in the North
by Gene Kizer, Jr.
Secession cost the North its Southern manufacturing market. The Morrill Tariff threatened to cost the North its shipping industry as U.S. trade was immediately rerouted away from the high-tariff North and into Southern ports where protective tariffs were unconstitutional.
(This post is Chapter Six of my book, Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States, The Irrefutable Argument., available on this website)
Contrast the North and South.
Virginia Governor John Letcher was thrilled about the future of Virginia out of the Union. He had told the House of Delegates three months earlier that "We have the best port in the country; . . . if direct trade were established between Norfolk and Europe, it would give increased prosperity to every interest in the commonwealth. It would secure for us a commercial independence" and it would give us a "great interior and exterior trade" the latter from "ships sailing directly to Europe, at regular intervals from the port of Norfolk."i
The feeling in the North was the polar opposite. There was panic. Shortly after Letcher's speech, The Manchester (N.H.) Union Democrat warned:
The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more ships than all other trade. The first result will be that Northern ships and ship owners will go to the South. They are doing it even now.ii
Governor Letcher continued with great enthusiasm:
I am entirely satisfied, that if direct trade were established between Norfolk and Europe, it would result in the enlargement of our cities, the increase of our agricultural products, the development of our resources, the creation of manufactures, the enhancement of the value of lands, the opening of the coal and mineral beds, make the stock which the state owns in her rail roads productive -- and the end would be a diminution of the state debt, as well as lower taxes.iii
The Union Democrat continued with despair:
In the manufacturing departments, we now have the almost exclusive supply of 10,000,000 of people. Can this market be cut off, and we not feel it? Our mills run now--why? Because they have cotton. . . . But they will not run long. We hear from good authority that some of them will stop in sixty days. We don't need any authority--everybody knows they must stop if our national troubles are not adjusted. An inflexible law cannot be violated. The shoe business is completely prostrate. . . .iv (Bold emphasis added.)
The Union Democrat gave the North 60 days before their mills would stop because they would have no cotton. It is no coincidence that in 55 days, Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South.
On February 18, 1861, Jefferson Davis had said in his inaugural address as Provisional President of the Confederate States of America that the South would immediately establish the "freest trade" possible with the rest of the world:
. . . [As] an agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union. It must follow, therefore, that a mutual interest would invite good will and kind offices.v
But Davis's good will could not touch the impending disaster in the North. There was no mention of slavery by the Union Democrat or anywhere else in the North because slavery was not the cause of the war. The North could care less about slavery or helping black people. The Union Democrat writes the day after Davis's inaugural:
[W]hen people realize the fact that the Union is permanently dissolved, real estate will depreciate one half in a single year.--Our population will decrease with the decline of business, and matters will go in geometrical progression from bad to worse--until all of us will be swamped in utter ruin. Let men consider--apply the laws of business, and see if they can reach any different conclusion.vi
Northern businessmen had already concluded that the Union had to be preserved or there would be "economic suicide" in the North as Philip S. Foner pointed out.
The North's Morrill Tariff, adopted March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln's first inaugural and six weeks before the bombardment of Fort Sumter, was like pumping gasoline into a fire. It was astronomical and made entry of goods into the North 37 to 50% higher than entry into the South.
Southerners were brilliant. They had always wanted free trade so they made protective tariffs unconstitutional. Northerners were not only greedy but utterly ignorant of basic economics.
The Morrill Tariff immediately re-routed most of the trade of the United States away from the North and into the South in one fell swoop.
The North was unquestionably going to lose most of its trade and a huge amount of its wealth and power all at once. Nobody in the world wanted to do business with the North and pay 37 to 50% more for the pleasure when the beautiful sultry ports of the South -- Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, Galveston, Mobile, et al. -- beckoned. The world, and Northern ship captains, were beating a path to the South where free trade reigned and the most demanded commodities on earth were abundant, and where protective tariffs were unconstitutional.
The Morrill Tariff is the epitome of Northern greed and abuse of the economic system, which are major, primary causes of the War Between the States. Its imminent passage had caused "a fierce onslaught by all sorts of interests." Ida Tarbell, historian and Lincoln biographer, said that protection of 20% was even given to wood-screws though there was "but one small factory for wood-screws in the country." The Rhode Island senator who had gotten this protection, Sen. James F. Simmons, was from then on known as "Wood-Screw Simmons."vii
Wood-Screw Simmons is a cute story but there is nothing cute about the 800,000 lives lost in the War Between the States or the million who were wounded.
The Morrill Tariff slammed the door shut on any possibility that the North would be able to deal with the loss of its captive Southern market and now its shipping industry. Northerners had said over and over that their labor needed protection, that they could not compete on an even basis with Europe. Out of a sense of entitlement from long years of protectionism that benefited the North at the expense of the rest of the country, they were not even willing to try.
They were also petrified of the industrialization of the South, which was a certainty. Southerners were extremely excited about developing their own manufacturing.
The secession of the South and the Morrill Tariff were the perfect storm of economic disaster for the North. The Morrill Tariff guaranteed that the Northern economy would not recover but that wasn't the worst of it.
With the goods of the world flowing into Southern ports, they would then be floated up the Mississippi and distributed throughout the rest of the country. Southerners had always wanted more trade with the West and now they would have it.
The New York Evening Post ten days after the passage of the Morrill Tariff stated the hopelessness of the Northern position:
[A]llow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten per cent., which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York: the railways would be supplied from the southern ports. Let cotton goods, let woolen fabrics, let the various manufactures of iron and steel be entered freely at Galveston, at the great port at the mouth of the Mississippi, at Mobile, at Savannah and at Charleston, and they would be immediately sent up the rivers and carried on the railways to the remotest parts of the Union.viii
Philip S. Foner confirms the position of the New York Evening Post:
A Southern Confederacy made economically independent of the North meant, of course, the total loss [to the North] of Southern trade [and] would very likely attract to it the agrarian sections of the Southwest and Northwest. The [Northern] merchants knew that the South had sought for years to cement economic ties with the West. Prior to the secession movement it had failed. But direct trade with England on the basis of a low tariff or free trade, together with the aid of English capital for railroad connections with the West, would be too attractive to be rejected by the Western states.ix
English capital would build factories and railroads, and the South, with its free trade philosophy and control of King Cotton, would not only dominate United States trade thanks to the Morrill Tariff, but would manufacture, ship, and compete in every respect in world commerce. There was nothing preventing this and every reason for the South to rush forward. Free trade is what it had always wanted.
Cotton and other bountiful Southern commodities would be a hop and a skip to Southern manufacturing facilities, which would be a hop and a skip to Southern ports. People would immigrate into the South and increase its wealth and power as had happened in the North for the past half century. Southerners did not need high tariffs and protectionism. They would compete on a level playing field with the rest of the world. They were enthusiastic, confident, and anxious to get going.
i Governor John Letcher, "Governor John Letcher's Message on Federal Relations to the legislature of Virginia in extraordinary session on January 7, 1861," in Journal of the House of Delegates of the State of Virginia, for the Extra Session, 1861 (Richmond: William F. Ritchie, Public Printer, 1861), Document I, iii-xxvii.
ii The Manchester (N.H.) Union Democrat, "Let Them Go!", editorial of February 19, 1861, in Perkins, ed., Northern Editorials on Secession, Vol. II, 592.
iii Letcher, "Governor John Letcher's Message on Federal Relations to the legislature of Virginia in extraordinary session on January 7, 1861," Document I, iii-xxvii.
iv The Manchester (N.H.) Union Democrat, "Let Them Go!", editorial of February 19, 1861 in Perkins, ed., Northern Editorials on Secession, Vol. II, 592.
v Jefferson Davis, "Inaugural Address," as Provisional President of the Confederate States of America, 18 February 1861, at Montgomery, Alabama in Lynda Lasswell Crist, ed., The Papers of Jefferson Davis (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1992), Volume 7, 46-50.
vi The Manchester (N.H.) Union Democrat, "Let Them Go!", editorial of February 19, 1861 in Perkins, ed., Northern Editorials on Secession, Vol. II, 592.
vii Adams, When in the Course of Human Events, 65; and Ida M. Tarbell, The Tariff in Our Times (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1911), 8-11.
viii New York Evening Post, March 12, 1861, "What Shall Be Done for a Revenue?" in Perkins, ed., Northern Editorials on Secession, Vol II, 598.
ix Foner, Business & Slavery, 284.
April 13, 1861
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.
Like a crime scene where the negligent criminal failed to remove all the evidence, Mr. Kizer is providing us with a forensic analysis of the crimes of a tyrant. Yearning for freedom is never a lost cause.
David, You are SO right. There is irrefutable evidence of the economic panic in the North that led to Lincoln starting the war, and there is irrefutable evidence of the right of secession, which was exercised by every single Southern state correctly — by calling conventions of the people, debating the issue then voting to secede. It was the greatest expression of pure democracy in the history of the world for that large a number of people in a landmass as big as Europe, to vote to secede from a tyrannical government, then set up their own republic. American history of the War Between the States era, and in the past 20 years, Reconstruction, as well, is an abomination. The politicization of history – political correctness – by liberals in academia (90% liberal) and the news media (think, the idiotic 1619 Project by the NY Times), is the cause of that. But truth will ultimately obliterate political correctness. I have a lot more coming on this. Thanks very much for writing! Gene
This is a great book that every Southern Patriot should read and be able to share. Gene Kizer has done us all a great service.
Shannon, I really appreciate your support! Got a lot more coming later this year. Stay away from corona (the virus, NOT the beer!) and good luck with all! Gene
To any and all who happen across any articles by Mr. Kizer, I say read them, understand them, embrace them. I say, with great enthusiasm, buy his book “Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States.” It is an amazing book. I have read it multiple times. I have learned new things and understood them better with each reading. I have bought the book in in a lot of 20, twice if memory serves me correctly, and resold them to help get this critical information out to the Southern Patriots.
For those in search of True History, Mr. Kizer is a very fine provider of aid to that end. Buy the book, study the book, and you will be more than able to engage anyone in a serious debate on the causes of the illegal war of northern invasion.
Bill, Thank you so much for your kind words! I appreciate all you do in getting the truth of Southern history out there. I know you have been working hard for years out in the field. I do make sure all my publications and articles are documented thoroughly so the good people defending the South can defeat the misinformed and ignorant. The politicization of history by academia and the news media has utterly destroyed the credibility of those two institutions but good history is out there all over the place and increasing thanks to the Abbeville Institute (http://www.AbbevilleInstitute.org), Society of Independent Southern Historians (http://www.SouthernHistorians.org), my blog and websites (http://www.CharlestonAthenaeumPress.com and http://www.BonnieBluePublishing.com), Phil Leigh’s blog (https://civilwarchat.wordpress.com/), the excellent publications at Shotwell Publishing (http://www.ShotwellPublishing.com) and so many others. Keep up the good work, brother! Gene
Mr Kizer Jr sir. Thank you again for a very informatve and fact filled account of the truth about the southern position during the mid 18 hundreds. Again more positive truth that the war of northern aggression was not or clearly had nothing to do with slavery. I again thank you for bring forth the real truth. Please keep these articles coming. By way of this type of information I am able to covay to others the facts and truth so little known to those who are so ignorant about the reason for the war between the States. Again sir my boundless thanks to you and you writing gift. With greatful thanks Wayne Justice
Wayne, Thanks so much for writing! Yes, slavery as the cause of the War Between the States is an absurdity of biblical proportions. If it wasn’t for the pathetic nature of the history of the war in this politically correct day and age, the public would know better. That’s why I wrote Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States, The Irrefutable Argument., available on http://www.CharlestonAthenaeumPress.com. It is well documented with 218 footnotes and 207 sources in the bibliography. I have discounts for camps who want to buy books as fundraisers or to give to the historically challenged. It amazes me how many supposed good historians like Eric Foner have no idea of the importance of the economic issues when today, economic issues are everything. It was even more that way in the 1860s. All wars are fought over money and power and threats to money and power. No war is ever fought because a country dislikes the domestic institutions in another country and wants to send its sons off to die and be maimed to change them. Ten Northern states issued resolutions before the war affirming their support for the Union and making it clear they were either in favor of slavery or didn’t care. I’ve got more coming on that too. Gene
Dear Mr. Kizer and Athenaeum folks,
I’m new to this site. It is informative. I am impressed. I always knew that slavery was not the cause of the war, but I did not know how dramatically the facts line up to show that economics was so clearly the driving force in it all.
Blessings to you all,
Lewis, Thanks for writing! There is a lot more to come. The imminent economic collapse of the North is why Lincoln had to have his war. Northerners did not want to have to compete economically with the free trade South that was in complete control of King Cotton and tight with Europe. At that point in history, they had such overwhelming resources such as four times the white population of the South, and a pipeline to the wretched refuse of the world with which to feed Union armies (25% of the Yankee army were new immigrants while 100% of the Southern army were Americans), Lincoln thought it would be a fast war. He was wrong and as a result he killed almost a million people and maimed even more than that. Gene