Crisis and Leviathan: The Federal Government in the Civil War

When the Civil War broke out in 1861, the federal government, like any government in any situation, had three sources of money: taxing, borrowing, or printing.

Taxing

The federal government was much more successful than its Confederate counterpart in funding the war via taxation

In August 1861, tariffs were hiked and the first federal income tax in American history was enacted. “The Republican architects of the 1861 income tax made it modestly progressive by imposing the 3 percent tax on annual incomes over $800 only,” historian James M. McPherson notes: 

…thereby exempting most wage-earners. This was done, explained Senate Finance Committee Chairman William Pitt Fessenden, because the companion tariff bill was regressive in nature. “Taking both measures together, I believe the burdens will be more equalized on all classes of the community.”

Subsequently, “[t]he Internal Revenue Act of 1862 taxed almost everything but the air northerners breathed,” McPherson writes:

It imposed sin taxes on liquor, tobacco, and playing cards; luxury taxes on cigarettes, yachts, billiard tables, jewelry, and other expensive items; taxes on patent medicines and newspaper advertisements; license taxes on almost every conceivable profession or service except the clergy; stamp taxes, taxes on the gross receipts of corporations, banks, insurance companies, and a tax on the dividends or interest they paid to investors; value-added taxes on manufactured goods and processed meats; an inheritance tax; and an income tax. 

It also established a Bureau of Internal Revenue. 

“[W]hile the South ultimately obtained only 5 or 6 percent of its funds by actual taxation,” McPherson notes, “the northern government raised 21 percent in this manner.” 

Borrowing

With federal government finances on something approaching a firm footing, lenders were more willing to lend to it. “Unlike the Confederacy, which relied on loans for less than two-fifths of its war finances,” McPherson notes, “the Union raised two thirds of its revenues by this means.”

Printing

The federal government’s relative success in financing the war by taxing and borrowing meant that it had less recourse to the printing press. 

When the Legal Tender Act of 1862 proposed to issue $150 million of Treasury notes, opponents worried about a repeat of the inflation happening in the Confederacy. “The wit of man has never discovered a means by which paper currency can be kept at par value, except by its speedy, cheap, certain convertibility into gold and silver,” warned Ohio Congressman George Pendleton. If the bill passed, he argued, “prices will be inflated…incomes will depreciate; the savings of the poor will vanish; the hoardings of the widow will melt away; bonds, mortgages, and notes – everything of fixed value – will lose their value.”    

This did not happen, at least not to the extent that it did in the Confederacy. The Confederates did not make their notes legal tender, the federal government did, creating a transaction demand absent in the Confederacy. In addition, the increasing success of Union armies on the battlefield reinforced promises of redemption in specie whilst undermining them in the south. The issue of a further $150 million of “greenbacks” in July brought the total roughly into line with the total circulating in the Confederacy. “But,” McPherson notes:

…while the southern price index rose to 686 (February 1861 = 100) by the end of 1862, the northern index then stood at only 114. For the war as a whole the Union experienced inflation of only 80 percent (contrasted with 9,000 percent for the Confederacy), which compares favorably to the 84 percent of World War I (1917-1920) and 70 percent in World War II (1941-1949, including the postwar years after the lifting of wartime price controls).

Crisis and Leviathan 

The Republicans were of the Hamiltonian tradition in American politics, which imagined a strong central government, and war presented their opportunity. “Under the emergency of war,” Roger Lowenstein writes, 

“…Lincoln’s party formulated a new notion of what the federal government could do. They raised and spent unprecedented sums. They launched the country’s first truly national currency, pushing aside an inchoate system of thousands of disparate bills issued in the states. They created a national banking system and the first credible program for federal taxation. They inserted the government into railroads, education, agriculture, immigration, the sciences, financial regulation. The war government interposed a visible (and at times dubious) hand into industry by enacting a series of high protective tariffs…” 

The Bureau of Internal Revenue, for example, “remained a permanent part of the federal government even though most of these taxes (including the income tax) expired several years after the end of the war,” McPherson writes: “The relationship of the American taxpayer to the government was never again the same.” 

 


READER COMMENTS

David Henderson
Apr 28 2025 at 3:44pm

Very informative. Thanks.

Monte
Apr 28 2025 at 4:06pm

Lincoln’s party formulated a new notion of what the federal government could do.

Yet the Income tax bill signed into law by Lincoln was declared unconstitutional and repealed in 1872.  Nevertheless, Lincoln’s party (the National Union Party) planted the seeds of a more centralized government, which didn’t really come into fruition until the Progressive era of the early 1900s (beginning with the ratification of the 13th Amendment) and was expanded even further during the New Deal.

nobody.really
Apr 28 2025 at 4:35pm

[A] more centralized government … didn’t really come into fruition until the Progressive era of the early 1900s (beginning with the ratification of the 13th Amendment)….

Typo? Perhaps the 16th Amendment (1913, permitting federal income taxes), 18th (1917, prohibiting alcohol and initiating a buracracy to police it), or 19th (1919, extending federal voting rights to women)?

Monte
Apr 28 2025 at 6:35pm

Thanks for correcting, nobody.  I meant the 16th.  Guess I was in a post-antebellum frame of mind.

Monte
Apr 28 2025 at 10:48pm

1913 was also the year that the Fed and DoL were created – a watershed in the centralization of federal power and for which Taft and Wilson “deserve” credit.

Jon Murphy
Apr 28 2025 at 4:08pm

The Bureau of Internal Revenue, for example, “remained a permanent part of the federal government even though most of these taxes (including the income tax) expired several years after the end of the war,” McPherson writes: “The relationship of the American taxpayer to the government was never again the same.”

“Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program” -Milton Friedman

Peter
Apr 28 2025 at 8:44pm

“Unlike the Confederacy, which relied on loans for less than two-fifths of its war finances,”, I’d posit that wasn’t by choice as the passage suggests but simply because the Confederacy had less access to willing lenders.

I’m genuinely curious now on the economics of lending to a side you expect to lose, for example was ISIS selling war bonds? Did the US assume the CSU’s debt? Does the winner have to effectively assume the losers debt if they want to appease lenders as future creditors? Etc.

Craig
Apr 28 2025 at 10:22pm

Given your post I thought you might find this of interest but in the post war case of TX v White which is now typically cited as the case standing for the proposition that unilateral secession was illegal, the case itself had very little to do with the act of secession itself but rather the disposition of some bonds. The bonds were sold by Rebel TX state government (Rebel TX I am saying on purpose because it need to be distinguished here with Reconstruction TX state government). So as it turns out the bonds in question were actually given to Antebellum TX when it joined the Union by the US government, so the bonds were actually backed by the federal government so post war they continued to have value. So Reconstruction TX went to court to get the bonds back and that is when the Supreme Court ruled that unilateral secession was illegal that TX had never actually left the Union, de jure of course, and that the actions of Rebel TX in furtherance of the rebellion were null and void and so the Supreme Court ordered the bonds to be returned to Reconstruction TX.

Craig
Apr 28 2025 at 10:27pm

Initially greenbacks were not fully trusted. Derisively referred to as ‘shinplasters’ what calmed peoples’ nerves regarding this currency is that the Union retained Nevada/California, which at that time weren’t that important in terms of overall population, but both mined material quantities of gold and silver. By contrast the South didn’t have any significant source of mining and subject to the blockade Winfield Scott’s Anaconda Plan also choked off Confederate tariff revenue.

Andrew_FL
Apr 29 2025 at 1:52pm

Here’s how Higgs actually described the post Civil War period in Crisis and Leviathan

“For the most part the government remained serenely indifferent to the radical winds that swirled around it. Local governments provided police, courts, schools, streets and roads; some of the larger cities added sewers and public water works. The federal government paid veterans’ pensions and interest on the Civil War debt; maintained a minuscule military establishment; delivered the mail; chipped away the public domain by various giveaways and sales; kept tariffs high and levied a few excise taxes; and pursued a deflationary monetary policy that allowed during 1865-1878 an approach to the gold standard at the prewar parity and after 1878 the maintenance of that standard and parity. Otherwise, governments did little of much consequence or expense. Though the post-Civil War did not witness pure laissez-faire in the United States, it did see a limited government and an economy in which people had extensive freedom to enter into economic transactions of their own choosing on terms established by the transactors alone. As the legal historian Lawrence Friedman has expressed, “Every new law on the statute books, if it dealt with the economy, was a cup of water withdrawn from the oceanic domain of the law of contract.””

Comments are closed.

RECENT POST

Harvard University is a great private institution, albeit too enmeshed in our naive political zeitgeist. At least two PhD graduates from that university---and in economics, of all fields!---occupy senior positions in Trump’s entourage. About one of them, Elon Musk said that he is “dumber than a sack of bricks,” t...

Read More

I wrapped up my initial post on Lam's book Fewer Rules, Better People: The Case for Discretion with the remark that Lam sets out to make a case in favor of legalism (defined as the view that sticking to the rules is the preferable default, with discretion in the enforcement of rules as at best a necessary evil) before...

Read More

When the Civil War broke out in 1861, the federal government, like any government in any situation, had three sources of money: taxing, borrowing, or printing. Taxing The federal government was much more successful than its Confederate counterpart in funding the war via taxation.  In August 1861, tariffs were hik...

Read More