Replies

Stopping in NYC allowed imports to be sorted there and placed (based on orders from jobbers/retailers) on more efficient intracontinental ships headed to various Southern ports. Meanwhile, the intercontinental ships could resupply at NYC or Boston and take an export load back to Europe.

But the logic falls apart in light of the claims that the south paid anywhere between 80 and 90 percent of the tariffs. If that percentage of the imports was destined for southern consumers then why stop in New York to sort things out when just about all your cargo is going to the south to begin with? Would it not make more sense to go to Charleston to sort things out and then tranship the small amount destined for the North from there? And why would intercontinental ships want to resupply in New York if the were going to pick up their cotton in New Orleans or Mobile?

But the logic falls apart in light of the claims that the south paid anywhere between 80 and 90 percent of the tariffs.

The statement might hold up if the bulk of the imports consisted of high value-added equipment used only in the south. For instance, the Texas Archeological Society is aware of a number of locations where heavyweight English steam engines and boilers used in the production of molasses and cane sugar are still present on the premises of former cane plantations such as those that dotted the "peach bottoms" of the Texas coastal rivers.

But the logic falls apart in light of the claims that the south paid anywhere between 80 and 90 percent of the tariffs.

I agree. After the South seceded and the Morrill tax raised the import duty rates from 19 to 33% (thereby discouraging imports), the duties raised just as much money for the federal treasury (approximately $60 million) as they had before the South seceded.