Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 03/10/2009 12:48:31 PM PDT by Winged Hussar
Surely not the only difference.
What about additional guarantees to slaveowners?
Reconquistas are communists, not necessarily from mexico.
Whatever, I’m leaving.
But they sure could run.
Southern pride compels me to state that the Yankees at Bull Run had no athletic advantage over our brave Southern warriors in their flight from Missionary Ridge.
If Atlas is to shrug in real life America, I doubt it will resemble anything as quick and dramatic as found in Rand's tale. It took several years in interwar Germany before years of different sorts of economic beatings ruined the German middle class. But the golden goose eventually will have had enough.
As long as there is cable TV and Twinkies (and people can afford them...) there will never be a revolution.
It might interrupt “American Idol.”
Atlas Shrugged ping
California has been EastCoast-ified. Our liberals often come from the East Coast. Barbara Boxer is from New York, as is Gray Davis, and Nancy Pelosi carpetbagged here from Maryland.
And yet nobody seceded because no other state supported South Carolina's position and Andrew Jackson made it clear that he believed secession was illegal and he would oppose it militarily if necessary.
The only difference between the Confederate constitution and the U.S. one was that the Confederate one banned protective tariffs. Try reading some real history for a change, instead of Unionist propaganda.
I have. For example I've read enough to know that one of the first actions of the confederate congress was the implementation of a tariff that had protectionist features in it. And odd act if tariffs were really the major bone of contention you claim it was.
Their is more than one way to skin a cat besides sticking its head in aboot jack & pulling on its tail .You go trying to storm the Capitol building with torches & pitchforks you gonna get hurt , but you run a domestic “Phoenix” program on the democrat party leadership & things will get very interesting to say the least.
The FIRST Confederate Tarrif Act was passed 21 May 1861. 4 MONTHS had passed, it was far from being the first act of the Confederate Congress. And the highest rate was 25% (almost half the Union 47%). Even then, it didn't take effect until 31 Aug 1861. Can you cite the alleged "protectionist" features?
There was a 25% tariff on tobacco and tobacco products. A minimum 15% tariff on cotton goods. A two cent per bushel tariff on salt. A 20% tariff on molasses. A 15% tariff on any and all articles of clothing. In fact, look at the few articles that the confederacy manufactured and you'd likely find a tariff on it.
SCHEDULE D. TEN per centum ad valorem. ... Leaf and unmanufactured tobacco.The 25% rate applied to tobacco products only. Under the Morrill Tariff the rate was higher, 25% vs 10%, on leaf and unmanufactured tobacco.
A minimum 15% tariff on cotton goods.
Yes the great Southern factories wanted to protect themselves </sarcasm>.
Raw cotton fell under Schedule G: Exempt from Duty.
Southern tariffs were lower, and if you see these lower rates as "protectionist", what does that make the much higher Union rates?
Actually it was 20% of leaf and 30% on other forms of unprocessed tobacco. And 50 cents a pound on cigars. But the question isn't how much protection but whether it was a protective tariff at all. A 10% tax on tobacco still inflates the price of imports and protects the price of domestic produce. And allows the domestic producers to charge just that much more.
Yes the great Southern factories wanted to protect themselves .
There was a southern textile industry. Not much, compared to the more advanced North I'll admit, but it filled the local demand for cheap clothing for slaves. But we're talking about a newly independent confederacy. The incentive was there to expand the domestic textile industry, and the protection was there for it.
Raw cotton fell under Schedule G: Exempt from Duty.
And just where would anyone import raw cotton from? Tobacco could be brought in from Turkey. Molasses from the Caribbean. Those needed to be protected. But cotton? The South was the source of the vast majority of the world's cotton output.
Southern tariffs were lower, and if you see these lower rates as "protectionist", what does that make the much higher Union rates?
Nobody is denying that the Morrill Tariff was protectionist. What I'm disputing is the claim that the South didn't enact protectionist tariffs of its own. Whether the tax is 10% or 50%, it still has the effect of artifically increasing the price that domestic producers can charge for their product. So at the end of the day I guess we can agree that the confederacy did enact a protectionist tariff, constitutional prohibitions to the contrary notwithstanding. All that's left for you to do is whine that the North's protectionist tariff was worse than the confederacy's. And I won't disagree with that.
Ya think?
SCHEDULE D.
TEN per centum ad valorem. Acids of every description not otherwise provided for; alcornoque; aloes; ambergris; amber; ammonia, and sal ammonia; anatto, roucon or orleans; angora, thibet, and other goats' hair, or mohair, unmanufactured, not otherwise provided for; anniseed; antimony, crude or regulus of; argol, or crude tartar; arsenic; ashes, pot, pearl and soda; asphaltum; assafoetida. ...Iron ore, and iron in blooms, loops and pigs.
Maps and charts.
Paintings and statuary not otherwise provided for.
Wool, unmanufactured, of every description, and hair of the Alpaca goat and other like animals.
Specimens of natural history, mineralogy or botany, not otherwise provided for. Yams.
Leaf and unmanufactured tobacco.
SCHEDULE A.
TWENTY-FIVE per centum ad valorem. Alabaster and spar ornaments; anchovies, sardines, and all other fish preserved in oil. ...
Scagliola tops for tables or other articles of furniture; segars, snuff, paper-segars, and all other manufactures of tobacco.
A 10% tax on tobacco still inflates the price of imports and protects the price of domestic produce. And allows the domestic producers to charge just that much more.
Yankee tariffs were up to 3 times the amount.
And just where would anyone import raw cotton from?
Egypt. Britain imported almost 65% of the Egyptian cotton crop by 1859. India, Brazil.
So at the end of the day I guess we can agree that the confederacy did enact a protectionist tariff.
Not hardly. The Confederacy enacted a tariff to raise revenue, not protect any industries. You fail to prove your ludicrous assertion, and cannot even get the facts correct on the rates.
Yes, I think. I was talking about the duties on the Morrell Tariff. You had gotten them wrong.
Yankee tariffs were up to 3 times the amount.
Indeed they were. Depending on the price of cigars at the time they could have been 4 or 5 times higher or more. But the U.S. Constitution did not contain a clause reading, "nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry." The confederate constitution did. Any tariff laid on a product produced in the confederacy had the effect of artificially raising the price that could be paid for it and was, in effect, a protectionist tax. But then again what did the constitution matter to the confederate congress anyway?
Egypt. Britain imported almost 65% of the Egyptian cotton crop by 1859. India, Brazil.
Due to import costs and lower quality, Egyptian and Indian cotton was always a poor second best to U.S. cotton. Their heyday came during the rebellion when U.S. supplies were cut off, and by the mid-1870's Egypts cotton industry was bankrupt. The idea that the confederacy would pay the premium to import lesser quality cotton is laughable.
Not hardly. The Confederacy enacted a tariff to raise revenue, not protect any industries. You fail to prove your ludicrous assertion, and cannot even get the facts correct on the rates.
A tariff meant solely to raise revenue would apply the tax only to imports not manufactured in the confederacy. By applying a tax to molasses, salt, tobacco, cotton textiles, and other industries either in their infancy or which the confederacy needed to foster in order to survive without the U.S they were protecting those producers. They were artificially increasing the price they could charge for their goods. That is the definition of a protectionist tariff.
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.