Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur
Let's not change the subject:

[Partisan] While the South did most of the exporting, it imported very little -- and on imports tariffs are assessed.

Do you, Non, believe that you can unilaterally affect imports without impacting exports? Or is this statement by our midwestern friend liberal claptrap.

733 posted on 10/02/2005 4:18:48 AM PDT by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies ]


To: Gianni
Do you, Non, believe that you can unilaterally affect imports without impacting exports? Or is this statement by our midwestern friend liberal claptrap.

Let's get back to the original question, which you're avoiding. What did the south import in such massive quantities that they accounted for upwards of 91% of all imports? It's a simple question, how about an answer?

As to your non-related question, there is no doubt that prior to the rebellion the south accounted for the overwhelming majority of all U.S. exports. During the course of the rebellion, and for many years following, the southern exports of cotton and tobacco and naval stores was almost non-existant. By your reasoning, U.S. trade should have disappeared, tariff income should have dropped to nothing. It did not. Tariff revenues by the middle of the rebellion were higher than in the year prior to the rebellion. Trade following the rebellion grew in spite of losing the cotton exports. All inspite of tariff rates higher than in the 1850s and which increased constantly in the decades following the rebellion. This seems to fly in the face of your claims that all trade rose and fell on southern imports, and that increases in tariffs decreased trade.

736 posted on 10/02/2005 4:59:32 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson