Talk:Morrill Tariff/Archive 2

Historians and economists
I see you have a major bias against economists. And large ignorance as to how they reach their conclusions. Milton Friedman, along with Hayek are well known as qualititative economists who use history as empirical evidence. I disagree with your assertion that you must take into account "sociology" or "pyschology" when examining history. I believe those are completly irrelevant. Historians look at facts not other bogus information or taking individuals fallacious reasoning as evidence for an outcome (at least they are supposed to in theory).

THere is no evidence that suggests that tariffs are good beyond the fallacious and ill reasoned arguements you have given. For example the rise of Germany against England. I hate to break it to you but England was still very much a protectionist society up until they eliminated their last tariff. Trade was largely restricted to the empire, goods in india were raw materials only rather than finished products etc etc etc.

Furthermore, protectionism, as these economists argue, gives you very short term benefits as money is pumped into industries but over the long run they are not sustainable as the industries require more and more money as their innovation effeciency slips further and further behind their competition. Those are the proven facts, mathematically and historically.

Furthermore, the belief that tariffs must have worked because UK "shrunk" in their global production while the US and Germany grew is a fallacious conclusion. Take this as an example. You own the worlds only factory and produce 100% of the worlds goods. Now lets say you increase production by 100% as the worlds population grows, but not you have competition. 2 Competitors each take 10% of the production of consumable goods. Your factor now, despite doubling production, has been reduced to manufactoring only 80% of the worlds goods. Are you losing? Falling apart? Failing? No. (Gibby 16:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC))


 * Don't be so arrogant. Actually I have a PhD minor in economics theory and have known Friedman for decades (I for example compiled the bibliography in the Wiki article on him). This is a history article so put the theorizing in economics or mathematics. Friedman write at length on 19c US economic history and did not say the tariff was bad. (I just did a search using Google.books

Before you write history you really need to read history. So find some people who agree with you who have done some research on the 1850-1900 period. Let's go over which American industries 1850-1900 slipped further and further behind? Steel? Railroads? textiles? machinery? where? answer is nowhere. The "short run" seems to have lasted over 100 years! If you disagree Please give some numbers. Rjensen 16:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen - Please remember to stay on track with this article. It is not the place for a debate about Milton Friedman or the long term effects of protection vs. free trade in the U.S. history. It is not the place to post a section about whether the economists or the historians are right on free trade. Keep this article on track and about the Morrill Tariff just as the Underwood Tariff article should be about the Underwood Tariff. Thank you. - Justin Morrill

Thats nice you have a PhD minoring in economic theory, whoopty do. I know plenty of PhD in political economy who don't know squat about economics and take every chance they can get to muck it up to argue socialist outcomes...and they teach at top research institutions!!!!

In Free to Choose and Capitalism and Freedom, Friedan does tell you that tariffs are bad...and that they exist for no good reason for the general welfare of America. Justin, my counteropints against Rji were if he was to include the baseless revisionism that tariffs were good then I was to include the counterarguement that they were not.

If economies grow protected they grow despite the tariffs. Tariffs cause consumers to pay higher prices for goods. They protect industry from competition thus end up directing resources to places where society, given a free market, is not willing to actually send resources. Resources are thus wasted, extra money is exploited from consumers, innovation of product is deminished, and effeciency of industry decreases.

- American railroads had to be ripped up, and reset. Later they had to be protected against competition from trucking. - American steel today is innefeciently produced and requires higher and higher tariffs to produce. It lost the incentive to build new factories thanks to the tarrifs and as a result can only build steel in massive batches, which society no longer desires. They are becoming more and more unprofitable. - American cars...a great example of how protection eliminates innovation. American cars have been behind imports for 30 years now with no signs of catching up. For 30 years GM has argued for more protection because they can't compete against Japanese cars...and the ceo's have admited that these are better cars than GM makes!!!

Tarrifs are nothing more than a perverse wealth transfer from the poor (consumers) to the rich (capital owners). Period. Milton Friedman discusses this at length. Tarrifs are exploitation, they hurt the general welfare of society, and reduce the effectivness of the economy. They are anchors not means to growth. You subscribe to pure historical revisionism and fallacious economic reasoning. You're just wrong! (Gibby 06:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC))
 * You are arguing that Morrill impoverished America, from a great powerful nation with robust economy in 1860 to a has-been poor, falling-behind place in 1900. Let's look at the data set again, please.  Numbers, numbers, numbers! Wiki must not have a POV that is detached from all the events of 19th century history.  When we talk about 1865 we do not use 1965 examples. As for Friedman, he has written a LOT on economics (I'm the one who cataloged it for Wiki) and to my knowledge he has never criticized the 19th century tariffs. He has praised the civil war financial system--which is what the article is about--and he has dismissed the "utopians" who pretend top apply mathematics to real history. Rjensen 08:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm you arent listening to a word I say are you? No, the microeconomist arguement is that tarrifs do the things I described. The United States has grown despite the tarrifs. TARRIFS ARE HARMFUL are Milton Friedman has always held that position! What kinda numbers are you looking for? THe problem is people like you have gotten the wrong answer from the numbers available. You simply think that economic growth under a period of tarrifs means that tarrifs lead to growth. This is a fallaciously sophmoric conclusion to make as the grounds are a bit shakey to draw this conclusion. Tarrifs behave exactly as I described, exactly as Milton Friedman described. Despite our protectionism, we still had a solid private property system, and just enough liberalism to grow. If we eliminate all tarrifs we'll be even better off, if we never had the tarrifs to begin with we'd be even better off. (Gibby 15:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC))


 * Are tariffs harmful? That is an important question if we talk about steel tariffs in 2006. It is utterly irrelevant for the historian of 1861. NOTHING we say can change what the people did then.  If you think tariffs were bad, --couldn't have been as bad as 600,000 deaths in the war! Historians may WANT to change what happened in 1861 but we CANNOT and therefore we do not try.  Let's try this approach: the US Government needed $$$$$$ to fight a war. What funding policies would you recommend? what mix of tariff, income tax, excise tax, greenbacks and bonds? As I mentioned Friedman thought the mix that was chosen at the time was fairly good, but if you think people made a mistke you have to come up with a better plan. What's your better plan? Rjensen 15:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I can see where your historical revisionism comes from...or your short term memory, you added a sentence at the top of the morrill tarrif page stating that the tarrif helped boost our economic growth over the next several decades. This required either a deleition, or a counter point to the contrary (of which there are many!)

Hows this for fighting wars of aggression...free trade provides the necessary preventive measures to keep nations from engaging in such wars. Raising tarrifs and centralizing economic authority into the hands of the government are sure ways to make war. Friedman would never say the tarrif was good, he would say the what the tarrif was used for, and that was to raise an army and attack teh south. If he said it was good, he would only have admited such taxes and government intervention are good for really only one thing and that is making war.

My better plan is simple. Eliminate cenralized authority of economics, promote free trade, unilateraly eliminate tarrifs, simplify the tax code. We won't be fighting aggressive wars, period.

Tarrifs and economic control give governments perverse incentives for making war, they cause war. It can be said that as the cause of war they are worse than the destruction of war.

(Gibby 17:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC))


 * Please let's avoid getting into abstract discussions of tariff policy. We're only here to discuss the contents of this article. Cheers, -Will Beback 17:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Friedman and Underwood
The high Morrill rates stayed in effect to 1913 (with a brief interlude 1894-97), and were lowered seriously by the Underwood 1913 tariff. In a history article it's essential to say how the thing ended. As for Milton Friedman, he and Schwartz wrote one of the most influential economic histories, and he dealt in depth with finance of the 1860s, which is what this all about. Users need to know what he said. Likewise it's important to explain why historians reject Beard--it's because Beard used one state (Pennsylvania) and wrongly assumed the rest of the northeast was similar. He picked Pennsy because it churned out lots of tariff pamphlets (that man Carey's friends) and Boston and New York did not. so Beard missed the 3/4 of the picture, which Hofstadter fills in. New York and Boston business opposed the high tariff, so BEard's model of Northeast versus South is not true. . Rjensen 08:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * When you have two of the foremost historians (Hofstadter and Friedman) weighing in with a position that most historians agree with, they have to be heard. If someone want to add other historians, why go right ahead. But don't hide information. The topic, please remember, is Civil War finance. Rjensen 08:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen - I appreciate your enthusiasm here, but you are mistaken on some issues of fact and seem to be getting way off track by going to Friedman. Friedman belongs in an article about the general history of United States tariffs. Unless he said something specifically about the Morrill Tariff though, he does not belong here any more than any randomly picked economist who said similar things about trade in general. Second, the Beard hypothesis is very much so a debated issue - but it is not a settled issue, and Hofstadter certainly did not settle it. Hofstadter wrote in 1938 and his article was a few brief pages on the issue raised by Beard. There have been dozens of books and articles written between then and now though, so please quit treating Hofstadter as if he were a final authoritative word (saying things like "Hofstadter shows..." or "Hofstadter proves..." and "Hofstadter disproves..." are not kosher on wikipedia b/c they endorse Hofstadter over everything else written since then). Michael F. Holt's book comes highly recommended to me. He is probably the foremost historian presently living whose expertise is in the years between the Mexican and Civil Wars, and he says (contradicting Hofstadter) that there was tariff agitation in several northern states as early as 1858 in response to the 1857 depression. Holt even specifically names Massachusetts and New York as high tariff loci in addition to Penn and NJ. It is also true that almost all of New Yorks and Mass's delegations in congress voted for the Morrill Tariff. Since voting is the only measure that officially counts it is probably more important as measure of whether those states actually supported it or not than is a business pamphleteer from one of those states. - Justin Morrill, 2.14.06


 * two points: The Morrill tariff is about finances in 1860s, and Friedman is a leading expert on that subject. 2) I just looked over Beard. He mentions the Morrill act only in passsing (v 2 pa 106 -- 10 words that says tariffs were raised during the war) and in his lengthy discussion of causes of CW does NOT list tariffs as an issue. He AGREES w Hofstadter that New England did not want high tariffs and that POennyslvania and NJ were the main sponsors in 1860.  You have a half sentence from Holt on 1858--a different year--what does he say on 1860? Rjensen 08:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As for relevance: I suggest we drop the Dickens business. Put it in Dickins bio. Rjensen 08:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen - in response to your two points, you are overly generalizing that the Morrill Tariff was about finances. As you know there were three major tariff bills sponsored by Rep. Morrill. The first and largest is the most famous one from 1861, and according to Henry Carey - the man who designed it - its main purpose was to restore protection, not to raise revenue. The second two were to add revenue because of the war along with the income tax and other taxes. Unless Friedman specifically identifies the Morrill Tariff by name though, his comments probably are not appropriate. Holt states that the push for tariffs began in 1858 in response to the 1857 Depression. This is to distinguish it from 1846-1857, when the tariff folks truly were more silent. His point is that the Depression caused them to renew their program for higher tariffs and that seems to be the current consensus among historians. The result was the Morrill Tariff, which was drawn up in 1859, proposed in 1860, and signed into law in 1861. - JM, 2.15.06
 * The tariff was negotiated by dozens of members of Congress, and discussed by hundreds of newspapers. Carey was articulate but to make his views the ONLY interpretation is of course not how historians work. There was a war on and tariff = $$$. Let's keep Friedman in--you kept Beard in even though he never mnentions the M tariff by name. Why keep Dickens in when we don't even have DICKENS name--just an anon editorial in a magazine. If you want to add Holt on 1858 then please do so, but he never mentions the M tariff by name either. Rjensen 09:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen - your history is very mistaken in this matter. The law bears the great Justin Morrill's name because Justin Morrill controlled what was in it, and he used Carey as his chief adviser. Other congressmen certainly went to him with suggestions on thingds that mattered to their districts but in the end it was Morrill and Carey's child. The newspapers reported on what got passed - they did not design the law though. You are also being overly general that "there was a war on and tariff = $$$" - there was no war on in 1860 though before the presidential election. That is when Morrill sponsored the bill and it passed the House in May. They certainly didn't do that because of a war that hadn't happened yet. But as Carey and Morrill indicated, they did want protection at the time. Also Beard and Holt both write much more directly about the Morrill Tariff than Friedman does. They both talk about the tariff politics of the late 1850's and early 60's and what they meant, whereas Friedman does not. You only state in general that he doesn't talk about tariffs from the ENTIRE 19th century. That's 100 years. And Dickens? I don't know, but what is there looks to be very well researched and exhaustively footnoted - almost scholarly in detail. It is about the Morrill Tariff and more information is better than less, so I guess I don't see any real need to change it. - JM


 * The law bears Morrill's name because he chaired the Ways and Means committee and it has always been the practice to name it after the chairman. Carey was an advisor but no more than that. Lots of people had an interest (esp Sen Cameron of PA who handled the Senate version). Over 100 members of Congress debated the issue and there were dozens of amendments. The law was not passed until the war was 4 weeks in the offing. Everyone knew a war was a very likely possibility in Feb 1861.  Neither Beard nor Holt mention the MT (Beard has one sentence on  p 106). Ypu only seem interested in the protectionist motivations of some people (Carey,. Morrill). But in fact the tariff was much bigger than either of them, and did last 50 years without them.  Until I added it today the article never even mentioned how much customs revenue it raised.

As for protection: the article still does not say exactly who was protected from what. As for Dickens -- or whoever-- that excerpt never mentions the tariff (unless you read it as saying southerners for many years have complained about the high tariff--in which case it's totally misinformed) so why is he there at all? Rjensen 10:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen - Your history about this era is very flawed. Justin Morrill did not become the chairman of the Ways and Means committee until after the Civil War. Thaddeus Stevens was the chairman of it in 1861 and Morrill was the sponsor - a committee member but not the chairman. Also most early tariff bills were NOT named after the Chairman of the Ways and Means. When named at all they were always after the person in the government who designed them. Alexander Hamilton and Robert Walker had bills named after them when they were Secretary of the Treasury. You are also very wrong about there being dozens of amendments to Mr. Morrill's bill. Almost every attempt to amend it lost the vote and there were essentially no major changes to the Morrill Tariff between May when the House passed it and the next February when the Senate passed it. The Conference Committee on the bill was so inconsequential that it was signed into law about 48 hours later. It is certainly true that they knew a war was coming in Feb. 1861, but the point is that the bill predates that by over a year. When congress debates a major bill it takes several months or years even today. I am interested in showing the protectionist aspect of the Morrill Tariff because that is accurately what it was. It is only due justice to Mr. Morrill's legacy to acurately portray the most detailed explanation of what he was doing. Morrill was a very smart man and he knew in his mind that the tariff had important revenue AND protection aspects that could be made into policy. Protection was his goal in the first and main Morrill Tariff bill. Revenue was his goal in the two wartime revisions. But even the revenue aspects you keep listing were not a part of the best known Morrill Tariff law - they were part of the two revisions to it made in 1861 and 1862 after the war started. It is accurate to say that they were made because of the war but you keep lumping them all together and obscuring this important distinction with broad generalizations of the three bills as if they were only one. A last point on Dickens is that it is useful to read what has already been written about him. Read through the exhaustive conversations about him as I have and it is not true that his newspaper "never mentions the tariff." If you look above at the references the name of the entire article was called "The Morrill Tariff" and, regardless of whether he or one of his writers did most of the writing of it the major Dickens scholars all agree that it was his opinion. Dickens is certainly as notable as Lord Palmerston or Marx so I simply don't see reason in your case to delete him and not the others. - JM 2.15

I agree with points both have made above. The most important thing is to present the truth regarding the Morrill Tariff(s) and not to make this more than an encyclopedia article. My reverts earlier were to ensure accuracy and flow of information. Both of you have put much work into this, so I applaud that. The fact is, the Morrill Tariff was the plan of the Republican Party, many of whom were former Whigs, to institute a protectionist tariff as a part of the American System of Clay that was the root of the Whig Party efforts so thwarted because of mistakes on their part in previous elections (ie. choosing Harrison over Clay, when they were sure to win in 1840, then ending up with Tyler). Lincoln was a original Whig man and supported high tariffs, national banking, and internal improvements. Thus, the Morrill Tariff I(passed by newly elected Republican majority two days prior to Lincoln's nomination, which should be in this article as fact) whcih established rates around 38%, then further increases to pay for the war and to achieve true protection (48% levels). This was in addition to the National Banking Act of 1863, and the Pacific Railways Act of 1862; hallmarks of the Lincoln and the Republican Party's plan to industrialize the country. The South opposed this of course, and they passed a low 10% tariff to raise revenue. This stuff is all fact. When discussing Morrill, it not important what this person says or that, but the facts of the situation as they really existed then...and here we have Dickins, who doesn't matter to the debate as he wasn't involved in the politics in the Congress over the passage of this bill. --Northmeister 15:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Alfred Marshall quote
Question - Is Marshall actually talking about the U.S. Morrill Tariff policy of the 1860's? The quote you added is general. It just talks about Britain protecting its own industries - not America. Could you give some more of it to show why it belongs here? - JM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin Morrill (talk • contribs) 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The version now is the best I've seen so Far
Gentlemen, we are getting to a version of this page that looks good, is accurate, represents the debate and has square references to enlist the curiosity of the reader and to back what is said. The British debate to me is of little importance. This is a tariff in American History. The British were at that time still one of leading competitors and many during that time did not trust them. Marx said it was slavery, so what. So have many mainstream historians over the years (by mainstream, the mass of historians attribute the leading cause of the Civil War to Slavery). Marx, also said there would be an workers revolt in Germany and that nation would be one of the first to go Communist. He was wrong. Just like when Smith stated in the Wealth of Nations that the new US Republic would not become a manufacturing power because it had a natural propensity for agriculture. He was wrong, we proved him wrong after 1861 (starting with this Tariff). My contention is that it was both, as per the references on this page. The South disliked protective tariffs because it refused to industrialize and was to reliant on export. It's plantation culture kept them backwards. Their Constitution was modeled on the US Constitution with two notable exceptions...they eliminate 'to promote the General Welfare' out of their preamble, and restricted the use of protective tariffs to revenue only per their Congressional powers; thus this and the slave system reliant on this were causes. Historic fact is important. The opinions of historians vary, as with any topic. What do the facts say, that's important. --Northmeister 18:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the best way to view this article is being separated into two parts. The first part is by far the most important - it tells the basic facts of what the Morrill Tariff was and what it did like Northmister recommends. This is the history of the Morrill Tariff as it happened. This is the emphasis of sections 1, 2, and 3. Section 4 can be viewed as the second part of this article. It has little to do with the way the Morrill Tariff was passed but should be viewed as a discussion of how people reacted to it and all the various views. These are less important and shouldn't be the article's main thrust. There function in there though is to give the reader a glimpse of some of the stuff that has been written about the Morrill Tariff though so he can pursue it if he wants. It is important to know that the Morrill Tariff pissed off Great Britain, but it is more important to know what the Morrill Tariff was first. That's why the first half of this article is before it. I am confident now that any reader who was interested in the British response could now go research Dickens or Lord Palmerston on his own given the introductions we have here. But he'd already have sufficient background on what the Morrill Tariff is and does since the first part of the article takes care of that. - JM
 * The article is getting better. As for Dickens, he adds zero to the debate (his letter shows he thought the Morrill tariff had been in effect long before the war.) The article is weakest still on the long-term impact of the MT. Did in fact it make much difference anywhere? How much difference did it make? That's why Marshall's 1903 analysis is so important. Rjensen 20:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Dickens and Marshall...I agree about Dickerns with Rjensen...but I agree with JM about organization. I don't see why it is important to take Dicken's out. You both know my opinion on the whole British inclusion, but as a matter of compromise keep both as relevant to the discussion in their proper place. --Northmeister 20:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen - I just read the Dickens section again and I don't see where his letter says he thought the Morrill Tariff had been in effect long before the war. Where are you getting this from? - JM


 * Start fresh: WHY is so much attention paid to novelist Mr Dickens? He wrote one sentence about the Morrill Tariff in 1862, and might have written or approved an editorial that never mentions the MT.  We already have excellent coverage of the British public opinion in the article.

Dickens says (1862): "But the North having gradually got to itself the making of laws and the settlement of the Tariffs, and having taxed the South most abominably for its own advantage..." That is simply false -- he assumes the high tariff had long been in place. NO: It was passed in Feb 1861 AFTER the South seceeded. So he's badly informed. This is the ONE sentence of his that mentions the MT. So he made a passing comment--so what?? How does that help inform a Wiki user? How does that explain the MT tariff? On the other hand when the leading British economist makes a considered judgment in 1903 about the long-term impact of the MT rates, then that is worthy of telling our users. Rjensen 21:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I took out ending statement on Dickens as not helpful. Added the word's 'weighed in' to the Marshall section. --Northmeister 21:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK how's this. Keep the editorial and attribute to Dickens, but drop the long footnote and the long list of cites to Dickens scholarship. People interested in Morrill Tariff will not want to be misled into looking into those books on Dickens.Rjensen 21:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that is reasonable right in line with presenting the facts without distracting from the article. What do you say JM? --Northmeister 22:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

R Jensen - I think you are seriously mistaking or misrepresenting that quote as an error of Dickens. Nothing there appears to assume that the Morrill Tariff had been in place and Dickens sure doesn't say that. He was probably complaining about the "Tariff of Abominations" of 1828 ("having taxed the South most abominably") and thus can be interpreted as likening that law to the Morrill Tariff. You also keep repeating the lie that Dickens' editorial "never mentions the Morrill Tariff" but go read above and you'll see it is right there - the article's TITLE was "The Morrill Tariff."

About its authorship - I agree that all those footnote things were probably too long. So what you and Northmeister suggest is fine. What should be said is that the editorial represented Dickens' views since it was in his newspaper where he had control of the editorial. This is like saying the unsigned editorials in any newspaper today represent the views of their editorial boards. When the New York Times runs an unsigned editorial criticizing Justice Alito it means that the New York Times' editorial board believes that about Alito. - JM


 * Tax "historian" Charles Adams seems to have started this whole Marx vs Dickens "debate". He uses the scary Marx & the popular Dickens not because they were especially relevant or qualified, but seemingly because the very mention of their names arouse emotions. Back when I first came here, the quote was assertively attributed to Dickens, while Marx was heavily criticized. Problem is Dickens almost certainly did NOT write it - though no doubt he approved it. I went to considerable effort to research this issue, but would still be willing to see it disappear - EXCEPT
 * the "M-D debate" is now part of the literature that many people who come here will have already read,
 * We can expect others to come here & try to re-insert a direct attribution of the quote to Dickens if his name still appears in the article.
 * If Dickens is mentioned at all, the footnote should stay - otherwise the reader is being either mislead or left wondering why he is there at all. Footnotes are not part of the main text and anyone who does not want to read that detail can easily skip over it. - perhaps it belongs better in a Charles Adams article, with a link here & NO mention of Dickens --JimWae 03:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dickens now is shown as a representative of British public opinion. To that extent it's not controversial--or revealing, and does not need a footnote at all. If people want the history of the Wiki article, it's all here at a click. The article is about the Morrill tariff and people who are interested in Dickens are likely to go to the Dickens article, or the many sub-articles on his books, rather than to an article on American economic policy. Rjensen 03:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The "british debate" section is incoherent - 2 views emerged - but two views are not presented yet. There were 2 views on the causes of the war, and there may have been 2 views on the appropriateness of the tariff.  The section gives one view on the tariff and 1.5 views on the causes of the war. -- but mostly there were 2 views on which side to support. --JimWae 04:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC) --- and which of these 2 sides does a 1903 commentary relate to--JimWae 04:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC) -- For Dickens, the choice of quotes is between something he published but did not write, or something he wrote but did not publish --JimWae 05:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point about the incoherence--I tried to fix it. Rjensen 05:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Major Rewrite
Hello - I seldom get into edits like these but found it necessary in this case. I came to this article this evening in search of a quick reference and encountered a cluttery mess. The existing prose was simply atrocious. It contained repetition of the same material in places scattered all over the article, cases of tit-for-tat points of view, and all sorts of strange digressions into topics that are barely related to the article, if even at all. There were all forms of unrelated side tangents about Alfred Marshall's opinion of British-American trade, Charles Dickens' use of ghostwriters, and cluttery quotes by competing historians.

I removed or shortened most of these because they were simply so distracting.

The history of the Morrill Tariff itself was also neglected amidst all this clutter. I did my best to fill in the gaps of the timeline.

The article was clumsily arranged with many repetitive sections and little flow between them. I reformatted these, eliminated the clutter, and placed things into a more logical order.

I do not mean to trod upon anyone's prior work, but a major rewrite was necessary to make this article into a somewhat encyclopedic narrative. It is still imperfect and I hope others will pick up where I left off. Sincerely, JFSimmons (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC).