Posted on 01/04/2009 2:29:32 PM PST by NCjim
Odd, then, ain’t it, that South Carolina didn’t mention tariffs or taxes in their Declaration of Secession?
They mentioned only resistance by northern states to return of fugitive slaves, intentions to limit slavery in the territories, and northern states allowing blacks to vote, thus skewing the elections.
I found the last particularly interesting, since SC had roughly twice the representation it deserved in the House because of being allowed electoral credit for 3/5 of its slaves. Apparently SC had no objection to black slaves being counted for purposes of determining representation, but objected fiercely to free blacks being counted!
Sherman was Lincoln’s General.
Hussein hates South Carolina in the same way. He is trying his best to emulate Lincoln and has the same views of the South.
Your source claims 75% to 90% of the tariff burden fell on the South. I believe this is nonsense.
The consumers of the imported product paid the tariff. Since the seceding states had roughly 1/4 the population (counting slaves) and roughly equivalent per capita income, it is logical to assume they consumed roughly 1/4 of the imports and thus paid about 1/4 of the tariffs.
Most southern apologist discussions of this topic conflate the balance of trade issue with the tariff issue. Since 75% to 90% of American exports were from the South, they claim the South paid the same proportion of the taxes on imports.
I’m sure there is a logical flaw in this argument, but I’m not enough of a jackleg economist to point out where it lies.
In actual fact, the agricultural sector throughout the country subsidized the particular products protected by tariffs. An IL farmer paid exactly the same amount for protective tariffs as a GA planter. The South was disproportionately affected simply because it chose not to develop industries of its own, which when it seceded turned out to have been a very poor choice.
In fact, for this reason up to 1854 the largely agricultural states of the Northwest were generally allied with the South against the Northeast. Then the South and its allies in the Democratic Party pushed through the Kansas-Nebraska Act and brought the expansion of slavery to the forefront of the national discussion. As a result the Northwest dropped its alliance with the South and realigned itself with the more heavily industrial Northeast.
The sectional issue thus became one of free states (North) against slave states (South), not agricultural vs. industrial. This sectional realignment constitutes about the best possible refutation of the theory that the dominating issue of the 1850s was tariffs rather than extension of slavery.
I find it remarkable that many of those who denounce ante-bellum protective tariffs as immoral are all in favor of similar measures today.
I'd be interested in seeing some documentation of this. I've read quite a few biographies of Lincoln, and all agree he was an atrocious businessman. His building a media empire seems unlikely.
Right. Here is what actually happened about access to the sea via the Mississippi River (passed by the Confederate Congress, February 25, 1861):
The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That the peaceful navigation of the Mississippi river is hereby declared free to the citizens of any of the States upon its borders, or upon the borders of its navigable tributaries; and all ships, boats, rafts or vessels may navigate the same, under such regulations as may be established by authority of law, or under such police regulations as may be established by the States within their several jurisdictions.
SEC. 2. Be it further enacted, All ships, boats, or vessels, which may enter the waters of the said river within the limits of this Confederacy, from any port or place beyond the said limits, may freely pass with their cargoes to any other port or place beyond the limits of this Confederacy without any duty or hindrance, except light money, pilotage, and other like charges;...
Whoopie. On February 26th they could have just as easily passed a law shutting down traffic to the U.S. Or a law placing a 100% tariff on goods passing through to the U.S. The economic life of the central U.S. was at the mercy of the confederate congress and there was nothing they could do to prevent it.
You’re speculating again.
Of course I am. Informed speculation, but speculation nevertheless. No way of telling what would have happened given the volatile nature of the rebel government.
Where in the heck did you come up with that fractured fairy tale?
Righto.
Such a law would be quite likely to be passed as retaliation for failure to promptly return fugitive slaves. If the northern states resisted returning these people, as required by the Constitution and federal law, when they were part of the same country, how likely would they be to do so when they were refugees from a foreign and hostile nation?
Closing the river or placing taxes on passage to pressure the Union would be a constant temptation to the Confederacy.
Thomas Jefferson said the Union could not tolerate foreign occupation of the mouth of the Mississippi, to the point that he would ally himself with the British if the French got control of New Orleans.
Interesting thought. Set a fee for Northern traffic on the Mississippi so that the income from it matched the value of fugitive slaves not being returned by the North.
I've argued that the Southern states would be less likely to get their fugitive slaves back once the South had successfully separated from the North. However, the great bulk of fugitive slaves who escaped to the North already weren't being returned prior to the war, so the difference may not have been that great. More slaves living near the North might have tried to escape though, which would have certainly increased tensions.
I have already pointed out twice that Britain had a commercial advantaged in shipping costs over the north. But you Lincoln apologists are determined to see no evil.
And, yet, despite this advantage, it seems that a large majority of the tariff was collected in Northern ports (as shown upthread).
That's the mythology anyway. How about doing some research?
I found some data that rail shipping in the 1850 to 1860 decade cost about one cent per ton/mile.
If you have the data about transatlantic shipping costs, as you obviously do since you are so adamant that it was cheaper to ship from London to Jackson, MS than from Boston, we can actually run some approximate numbers.
I think you're forgetting some very important facts. Shipping from any southern port to some southern locations was itself going to be more expensive than shipping from some northern locations.
To carry this to its logical conclusion, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to ship from Cincinnatti to Louisville than from New Orleans to Louisville, even leaving the transatlantic passage out of the equation.
Let's see your numbers.
Found some numbers indicating transatlantic freight rates in the 1850s varied from $20 to $35 per ton.
That’s considerably steeper than shipment at one cent per ton/mile from almost anywhere in the North to anywhere in the South. 2000 miles = about $20.
Of course it was ugly - that's the nature of war. Sherman did what one would expect of a warrior during a war. One would expect nothing less. Had the south been able to march on Cleveland in a similar manner, they would have done so.
Imagine WW II if we'd have dropped leaflets on Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of nukes. It would have taken 5 more years and 250,000 more American lives to end the war. You don't fight for show, you fight to win. Period.
Those numbers are for US government mail contracts. Remember there were empty ships traveling from Britain to the southern ports.
Long live Billy T and the GRAND ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC!
So where are your numbers?
You can’t just post that X was much cheaper than Y. You need to post prices for X and Y. Otherwise people suspect you don’t really have anything but assertion behind your claims. Convince me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.