Get unlimited digital access to $0.99 for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Readers Respond

Tariff and secession caused Civil War, not slavery

Reporter Arthur Hirsch's article on the recent article on the re-enactment at the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg included a familiar Civil War anecdote about a Confederate soldier who had been captured at Fort Donelson ("A defining day relived," July 2). Responding to a question from his Union captors, he famously answered, "We're fighting because y'all are down here." As a source of empirical evidence, this tale invites profoundly misleading interpretation: There is a duty to disclose the message actually intended by a Rebel who spoke his answer fully seven months before Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.

The Civil War came because Southern states seceded. However, with 15 slave states by 1860, President Abraham Lincoln and the slaveholders had well known that a Constitutional Amendment ending slavery would never be feasible. It was accordingly obvious that Southerners opted for secession as the remedy for a different grievance altogether — egregiously inequitable effects of a U.S. protective tariff that generated 90 percent of federal revenue. Foreign governments retaliated for it with tariffs of their own, and payment of those overseas levies represented the cost to all Americans of their U.S. government, or 90 percent of that cost.

Southerners generated two-thirds of America's exports and also bore two-thirds of those retaliatory tariffs abroad. In other words, the Old South carried 60 percent of a federal load resulting directly from levy of protective tariffs on imported foreign goods. The 18.5 percent of U.S. citizens who resided in the Old South bore a share of federal government cost that was three times their proportionate obligation.

Southerners could not hope for relief from the retaliatory tariffs overseas unless their trading partners could be relieved of the onerous federal tariff levied throughout the U.S. Offered the Old South by President Lincoln was nothing by way of fiscal reform at all. And so, that Fort Donelson captive only paraphrased Confederate leadership — a leadership determined to throw off a U.S. government that, if allowed to remain "down here," would forever impose economic subservience upon Southerners who consequently had no honorable alternative to secession.

Dennis G. Saunders, Columbia

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Pick up the pace of Md.'s absurdly low speed limits
    Pick up the pace of Md.'s absurdly low speed limits

    I was glad to read that Maryland is considering raising it's absurdly low speed limits ("Maryland Senate votes to raise maximum speed limit to 70 mph," Feb. 19)

  • War on heroin starts with teens
    War on heroin starts with teens

    Gov. Larry Hogan's focus on addressing the heroin epidemic ("Hogan creates two panels for fight against heroin," Feb. 25) is a testimony that the scourge of heroin and other substance addictions has garnered bipartisan concern. The next public policy strategy should translate this realization...

  • Online travel agency taxes needn't be so confusing
    Online travel agency taxes needn't be so confusing

    Much has been written about proposed legislation regarding how hotel taxes should be calculated for bookings through online travel agencies ("A room with a tax," Feb. 18).

  • Commercial fishing is regulated
    Commercial fishing is regulated

    Here's some things readers of The Sun should know about commercial fishing ("Rockfish poaching: It's more than just a few fish," Feb. 24). It is against the law to use gill nets in seven states: Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey and Florida. It is also...

  • Is O'Reilly delusional?
    Is O'Reilly delusional?

    Fox News' Bill O'Reilly said he was in the Falkland Islands "war zone." He wasn't. He said the riot in Buenos Aires was a "war zone." It wasn't ("Bill O'Reilly ratings rise in spite of allegations on his Falklands claims," Feb. 24).

  • Why is The Sun ignoring UM's winningest team?
    Why is The Sun ignoring UM's winningest team?

    Last week both the UM men and women's basketball teams played important conference games. Yet the next morning there was absolutely no coverage in The Sun of the women Terps' big victory that kept an 18-game winning streak alive.