University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan COPYRIGHT BY
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This dissertation has been 65-1249 microfilmed exactly as received LEACH, Duane Marshall, 1935- THE TARIFE AND THE WESTERN FARMER: 1860-1890. The University of Oklahoma, Ph. D., 1965 History, general University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan COPYRIGHT BY DUANE MARSHALL LEACH 1965 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA > GRADUATE COLLEGE THE TARIFF AND THE WESTERN FARMER: 1860-1890 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY DUANE MARSHALL lEACH Norman, Oklahoma 1964 THE TARIFF AND THE WESTERN FARMER: 1860-1890 BY (2- DISSERTATION COMMITTEE ACKNOWI£DGHENTS The author wishes to acknowledge the unstinting encouragement and guidance given by his major professor. Dr. Qllbez^ C. Fite, Research Professor. A vote of thanks goes also to Professors ¥. Eugene Hollon, Rufus G. Hall, Max L. Moorhead, and Alfred B. Sears, not only for reading this manuscript, but also for their help and encouragement throughout my graduate study. I must also thank the Manu scripts Division of the Library of Congress, The Iowa State Department of History and Archives, and the Minnesota State Historical Society. Special thanks are due Miss Ruth Sutch of the Cambria Public Library who provided me with materials of Inestimable value. The author Is also deeply Indebted to Miss Opal Carr and Mrs. Inna Tomberlln without whose help this manuscript could not have been completed. Ill TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter I. THE BACKDROP ............. 1 II. THE FARM DILEMMA: PROSPERITY AND PANIC. 38 III. THE TARIFF COMMISSION AND THE DEFEAT OF REFORM .................................... 91 IV. THE CAMPAIGN OF 1884 ..................... 139 V. GROVER CLEVELAND AND THE FARM-TARIFF PROBLEM................................... 163 VI. THE FIGHT FOR THE FARM VOTE I8 8 7-I8 8 8. I88 VII. THE PARMER, THE TARIFF AND THE ELECTION OF 1888 . ................................. 212 VIII. AOaCOETURE AND THE McKINLEY BILL........... 243 IX. THE FARMER TAKES A STAND ................... 276 BIBLIOtaiAPHY....................................... 296 iv THE TARIFF AND THE WESTERN FARMER: i860 - 1890 CHAPTER I THE BACKDROP: I789-I860 Nineteenth centuiry America was one of triumph and distress for agriculture. Unparalleled expansion and pro duction were coupled with unprofitable prices and declining social prestige. Rapidly and inexorably industry encroached on the farmer's place of pre-eminence in American life. The agrarians, confused and divided, struggled to understand the basic causes of their problems. One particular aspect of public policy, the tariff, was especially perplexing. No other single economic and po litical issue in the nineteenth century persisted like the tariff which had roots going back into the colonial period. Producers in the colonies, farmers included, favored pro tection.^ With nine-tenths of the people involved in agri culture, a number of colonies enacted laws to protect farm ^William Hill, "Colonial Tariffs," Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vll (October, I892), 78-79. 2 products. Massachusetts In 1632 prohibited the Importing of barley, wheat, beef, malt, and flour. There were other colonies which effectively kept out livestock. Primarily, duties were levied for revenue only; however, protection was granted to any Industry believed capable of development.^ The protective movement was given additional Impetus by the American Revolution. The war had spawned new Indus tries and at Its close tariff advocates sought to Increase the restrictive system. A part of the American attitude can be explained as a nascent nationalism. Americans re mained deeply Imbued with the colonial Idea of frugality, and to "make do" without British luxuries was morally appeal ing.^ The large flood of European goods after $783 led to a demand for restrictive legislation. Moreover, It was hoped that the specie flow to Europe could be checked. The lack of hard money was an old problem, and strong effort was made to keep available specie within the country.^ Conse quently, the use of tariff Imposts Increased under the Arti cles of Confederation, as Pennsylvania alone enacbdd fifteen ^Ibld., 8I-8 I; Louise P. Mitchell, "The Colonial Economy," Current History. XXVI (February, 1954), 65 . ^W. 6 . Sumner, Lectures on the M.story of Protec- tionlsm In the Ohlted ^ a t e s (Wew Ÿork: a. p. Putnam's §bns,"l ^ ) ‘, 19-51.--------- ^Carl W. Kaiser, History of the Acad^mic Protec- tloMat - F M e Tfrade Controversy In America before I860, (Riiladelphla: University of Pennsylvania press, 1939;, 15; M. E. Kelley, "Tariff Acts Under the Confederation," Quarterly Journal of Economics, II (July, 1888), 48l. 3 such pieces of legislation between 178O and 1788. The Massachusetts legislature stated In July, 1785, that, "It Is highly necessary for the welfare and happiness of all states to encourage agriculture, the Improvement of raw materials, manufactures and a spirit of Industry. The Massachusetts Bill of 1785 placed specific and ad va- 6 lorem duties on beef, cheese, butter, and pork. Rhode Island, New York, and New Hampshire likewise passed pro tective acts. Furthermore, the tariff was already pre^ clpltatlng lively debates In the newspapers of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Agriculture and manufacturing were to be encouraged either by duties or bouhtles.^ The tariff law of 1789 was slightly protective In nature, and proved a harbinger for the future. The early debates were Illustrative of the sectionallzlng effect of the tariff which quickly revealed Its local and national character. Congressmen and Senators rushed to gain protec tion favored by their constituents. T. Fitzsimmons of Pennsylvania attaq>ted to portray the bill of I789 as one beneficial to the entire country, and he declared that "local considerations" must be cast aside. Agriculture could not ^Kelley, "Tariff Acts Under the Confederation, " 474. ^Ibld., 474. 7lbid., 479; Pennsylvania Gazette, February 15, 1786. ---- 4 place Its welfare ahead of the nation as a whole. When one portion of the country prospered from the tariff, he said, o eventually the remaining part would also benefit.° The agricultural South remained cool to the Idea of protection throughout the entire debate. Beverly Tucker, Representative from South Carolina, questioned whether even the smallest tax on steel should be allowed for fear It would burden agriculture. Richard Bland of Virginia stated that sufficient American shipping did not then exist to carry farm produce, and any extra tonnage duties paid by foreign shippers would be added to freight charges.9 Despite lack of enthusiasm, the planters were not un willing to accept protection for special products. Virginia and South Carolina vigorously supported a duty on hemp. Both the West and South hoped to ejqpand their production of this crop, and the latter also desired to levy a duty on rum and molasses. Although agricultural demands were not always In hamony with the businessmen of the East, proponents of the tariff viewed It as politically unwise to Ignore the special 10 interests of the ejqpandlng South and West. William Hill, "Protective Purpose of the Tariff Act of 1789," Journal of Political Economy, II (December, 1893), 54-56; Annals of' Congress, 1st Cong., 1st Sess., l45, l4t- 148, 153. ^Ibld.; Hill, "Protective Purpose of the Tariff Act of 17897" ^ . ^^Ibld.; Annals of Congress, 1st Cong., 1st Sess., 132-134,“3ST-225; Mitchell, ^The Colonial Economy," 72. 5 The final schedule of the 1789 bill placed duties on hemp, molasses, and malt. Molasses paid six cents a gallon, malt ten cents a bushel, and hemp seventy-five cents per hun dred pounds. Southern arguments against taxes on iron and metal products failed while the resistance to a duty on salt also went unheeded. Although not prohibitory, the rates on 11 agricultural produce were generally higher than othejpa levied. The heated debates of 1789 gained close scrutiny from the British. England was a heavy purchaser of American fazm products and worried about the growth of discriminatory rates against English industrial goods. Fhineas Bond, British consul in Hiiladelphia, quickly allayed their fears. Bond ad vised his government to disregard the stormy philippics of the American Congress. American agriculture, he declared, had to have an overseas market to survive, and England was its best customer. Bond predicted that any attempt to cur tail this market would work great hardship upon the American 12 economy. Fresh from their triumqxh in 1789, agrarians met a more serious challenge in 1791. The publication of Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures stands as a line of demar cation for agriculture in American economic life. This skill fully written document placed the farmer on the defensive. llgumner, 23-24. ^^Rilneas Bond to the Duke of Leeds, August 13, 1789, American Historical Association Annual Reports, (1896-97), I, 608-614 . 6 Hamilton systematically analyzed and rejected the prevailing theory of agricultural superiority in the life of the nation. Secondly, he outlined a plan for the promotion of manufac tures, the advantages of such a program, and actually laid the basis of protectionist thought for the next one hundred years. There Is no evidence that agriculture viewed the Report with alarm. Dideed, the paper predicted a prosperous future for farmers idio produced surpluses for an eaqpandlng home market. Without the advantage of hindsight farmers could not have known that government intervention In the form of tariffs on Industrial goods might help to erect a wealthy and powerful business community idilch would eventually 14 eclipse their role In society. Hamilton's strongest argument on behalf of agriculture was the home market. The tariff, he said, would stimulate new Industries and they In turn would provide an outlet for farm surpluses. Moreover, new demands for raw materials would arise. Hamilton argued that, as the manufacturing labor force grew, the call for 15 farm products had to Increase. Also, he wrote, the home market removed agriculture from such heavy dependence upon 13p. W. Taussig (ed.). State Ripers and Speeches on the^T^lff (Cambridge: Harvard bhlversity Frees, 1092;, C.