Talk:Morrill Tariff

Timeline Clear?
The article states that the tariff was adopted under Buchanan. Then it says it only passed because Southern states had succeeded and did not vote. Both may be correct, but it causes confusion to a reader new to the topic.

Edit Warring over OR, POV, and Fringe Material
Three separate editors have now reverted material added by Mgpthoc aka IP 216.173.167.20. The paragraph that keeps getting inserted is as follows:

''Georgia and Texas secession documents outline many other reasons for secession such as federal money supporting northern projects and illegal’s crossing border. It is estimated that the South paid upwards of 75% of federal monies. Lincoln mentioned how would he finance federal government if South left. Prominent economist Walter E Williams says South fought against an overbearing federal government that was implementing high tariffs disproportionately affecting South. The real proof that War was about overbearing federal control is seen that the upper 7 Southern States did not secede until Lincoln called for troops to invade lower South and Morrill’s high tariff was passed in March 1861 before they left union. (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams120298.asp)''

The problems with the above are numerous


 * 1) The spin on the Georgia and Texas documents, which overwhelmingly refer to slavery issues, is not supported by any reliable source.  Rather than making his own interpretation of the documents, Mgpthoc needs to provide a reliable secondary source that claims the documents were really about “other reasons for secession.”
 * 2) The “75% of federal monies” is frequently cited by the Lew Rockwell crowd but it has no basis in fact.  Reliable sourcing is lacking.
 * 3) Walter Williams is not a reliable source with regards to Civil War history.  Whatever he may have published in the economic field, his Civil War writing is limited to political blogs.
 * 4) ”The real proof that War was about overbearing federal control ...” is simply Mgpthoc’s opinion. He/she needs to cite actual historians who believe this was really a tariff war.
 * 5) Since the entire subject is, at best, a small minority opinion, the already existing single reference to DiLorenzo is more than adequate to represent this opinion -- although one can seriously debate DiLorenzo's status as a reliable source.

In any event, wikipedia works by consensus and until a consensus is reached that this material meets wikipedia standards (an impossible task in my opinion) it needs to remain out. Rather than further edit warring, Mgpthoc and his/her sock puppet IP need to make their case on this discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * MOVED HERE FROM MY TALK PAGE


 * You seem to have taken a whole page of actual information of historical data, try to condense into “paragraph” and titled it  “historiography” trying to make it “fit” reason promoted and implied justification of Lincoln supporters such as McPherson who promoted “slavery main reason” version of War.


 * 1 a : the writing of history; especially : the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods b : the principles, theory, and history of historical writing


 * Yet you are refusing to acknowledge current historical/economist such as Walter E Williams. There are others, Thomas Sowell, Kelly Barrow, Grisson, the Kennedy brothers, Jefferson Davis (who was there), etc.


 * You try to take 4 months leading up to War with “certain” articles and edited secession documents to make whole case for slavery and adding into a topic on Morrill Tariff. Yet this ignores the previous 40+ years of debates of tariffs, threats, murderous insurrections, etc, etc. AH Stephens was not the only person to reference what caused war (yet is always the one y’all pull out “cornerstone” speech, yet ignore the rest of WHOLE speech)


 * Lincoln clearly stated war and economic issues. One week NYT and he were ready to “let South go” until next week when free trade proclamation was issued the next. Then attitudes of collections of tariffs changed. Hence Morrill Tarriff passed in March 1861 BEFORE upper South left.


 * So does your “historiography” analysis stand? I think if you are going to try to imply “most” as you have written then you have to provide proof, which you have not done, except to mention only two to support your theory. One of which has a clear bias as he was from north, grew up with yankee soldiers and wrote same things over and over.


 * This is same man who thought is so important to re-write Forward in Jefferson Davis’ 1st Volume of Rise and Fall and in the 2nd volume leave Davis’ totally out. Why? McPherson was trying to imply Davis, who by firsthand account and experience didn’t know what he was writing about, yet McPherson decades after event did??


 * Or in new Gettysburg Museum, Davis is misquoted on entrance door – with one important part left out – as if it’s not there. Or in every federal museum it is required to “teach” slavery as first stop.


 * Just as in all government schools today, Tariffs are rarely discussed, but slavery is covered over and over.


 * “Say enough” does make a thing true. So trying to justify “war over slavery” and laying Morrill Tariff aside in this article is “you” bringing in things that are “off topic.”


 * I will concur that first source by Walter E Williams may be “off-topic” as it is not specific to “tariff.” So if you going to allow sources citing slavery as cause that is off-topic are you going to allow others that also do? Mr Williams has clearly referenced his sources which are easily found, even in Wiki – as that is most of based on original sources given leading up to your “historiography.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgpthoc (talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The references to slavery are appropriate since they refute the extreme minority claim by DiLorenzo regarding tariffs. Your personal opinions asside, McPherson (as well as Nevins) is treated as a reliable source because his numerous scholarly articles and peer reviewed books are widely accepted, reviewed, and quoted within the historical community.  The same cannot be said for the sources you are pushing.  Williams, as far as I can tell, has NEVER written a scholarly journal article on any Civil War related subject.


 * Tariffs are simply not treated by current, serious historians of the era as a cause of the war. Any mention AT ALL may be overdoing it but your proposal to expand this treatment is a clear violation of a NPOV -- see WP:UNDUE which states:


 * Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Compare: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams120298.asp with http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/98/civil-war.htm . Which one has editorialized in the title? Also, neither supports much of anything in the proposed paragraph.--JimWae (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Historiography
As it's written right now the historiography section is a bit of an oversimplified mess & not really up to date at all. This article should steer clear of broad sweeping statements about nonexistent "consensuses," and amateur debates among the pop history crowd. If someone is willing to rewrite it, let me suggest the following article from the University of Texas History Department's Civil War website. It provides a good summary of the actual historiographical discussion around the Morrill Tariff, summarizing the main views that are currently held by professional historians about its relation to the war. Thank you. WalkerTRW (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC).

What did the Morrill tariff tax?
Seems like an obvious question. Heather Cox Richardson's quote gives part of an answer: "duties on agricultural, mining, and fishing products, as well as on manufactures. Sugar, wool, flaxseed, hides, beef, pork, corn, grain, hemp, wool ... coal, lead, copper, zinc, and other minerals ... dried, pickled, and salted fish."

A what-when-how article adds this further explanation: "a 10 percent duty on goods considered necessities and a 20 percent impost on products that were less necessary ... a 30 percent tax on luxury items based on their value."

What precisely did the bill do about those products exported by the South, e.g., cotton? I don't know, but it's relevant because Southerners didn't like the tariff. Page Notes (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

What about tariffs on exports?
This article gives the impression that one can have tariffs on imports without tariffs on exports. That is emphatically not how the world works! Usually, other countries swiftly adopt retaliatory import tariffs on American products, or from our perspective, tariffs on exports.

These retaliatory tariffs are significant because they disproportionately affected states that relied heavily on exports, that is, Southern states. People care about the Morrill tariff because it helped fuel the creation of the Confederacy by pissing off Southerners, namely by trashing their economy. How a reader can appreciate the significance of the Morrill tariff without learning this is beyond me.

This article says Morrill planned to "distribute the benefits of a tariff to all sectors of the economy," thereby giving a false impression that the Morrill tariff was somehow fair and balanced. Baldly presenting this claim without mentioning that, due to retaliatory tariffs on exports, is just plain wrong. Page Notes (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

“The last grievance of the South was the Morrill tariff, passed as an election bribe to the State of Pennsylvania, imposing, among other things, a duty of no less than fifty per cent on the importation of pig iron, in which that State is especially interested.” 216.40.152.27 (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Karl Marx was "among the few writers in Britain who saw slavery as the major cause of the war"
This is demonstrably false. Many other prominent writers, such as John Stuart Mill, also (correctly) stated that the war was being fought over slavery. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)