Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Was the whole idea to keep the southern planters from getting too rich from the idea of no labor[black] over head. This compared to what[business wise] the Nor`easters had to put up with??
Are you referring to the idea of tariffs keeping southern planters from getting too rich? If so, then I don't know how you would connect them to labor systems. Tariffs were simply an external tax to raise revenues and/or provide protection for home industry and agriculture (somehow the agriculture part keeps getting left out) The variable effects of tariffs on the consumer end were paid across the marketplace. The tariff on a pound of sugar was the same regardless if the end consumer buying it grew Alabama cotton or NY wheat or mined PA coal.
Quote:
Didn`t the gentlemen, in the northeast, come up with the brain child of secession first?
For as long as there was a Union there had to have been some who fancied disunion. Cash has noted that the accusations of New Englander's advocating secession in convention is much political ado about nothing. The only significance of trying to establish a "Northern" attempt at secession is to accuse the entire North of hypocrisy for not bowing to southern secession. That attempt I find hollow for several reasons.
Last edited by cedarstripper; 09-03-2005 at 10:16 AM.
Exactly my point but in another direction. The south had no"Labor" costs other than the original cost of the human chattel they had working the land {plus some maintenance}. Up here in the north we could make things as bad as possible but still had to pay workers. The field is now tilted in a southernly direction{1840`s on} overhead wise. My question , and completely ignorant of such matters, is this the reason the tariff taxes[redundant?] were such a problem???
Paul
I'll let cedarstripper and the first 10 pages of this thread cover the tariff question, but allow me to interject that slaves were not overhead-free.
Birth in the slave quarters had the potential of greatly improving the wealth of the owner. After all, this was a potential $750 asset (or $400 to $1500, depending on the area and time) against which to borrow. But first there was the need to keep the child alive. A boy did not become a full hand until about 16. He did not become even a quarter hand until he became strong enough to handle simple chores. If a field hand, he was likely worked out by the time he was 40, at which time he became again a half- and, subsequently, a quarter-hand. Elders were usually kept until they passed on. Girls, although they worked hard enough, were most useful when they were increasing the size of the herd.
A valuable slave therefore had but 20 to 30 years of production to justify the investment, during which time he had to be fed, clothed and sheltered. The quality of this "maintenance," as you might imagine, varied. I read one account where an oversee boasted of an $0.08 1/2 daily cost for the "overhead." More benevolent masters might spent a more reasonable, $0.15, and the daily figure was frequently a birth-to-death expense. A bad year did not stop the outlay.
By far the most valuable slave was the craftsman whose rental more than paid for his upkeep and returned a tidy profit to the master who fostered the trades among his charges. As such, one might expect that the craftsman received better maintenance, but that's not necessarily so -- greed is universal.
The greedy northern capitalist paid his employees as little as necessary to keep them from moving on. He paid them only when they worked, and provided no food or shelter. There was no initial outlay, no waiting until the worker was old enough to work. It sounds like the slave had a better deal until you consider that the wage slave could move on. Rather than save pennies to buy his freedom, his saved pennies could buy him transport to the free lands, open a business, become an employer.
Slaves were a great expense. Few planters correctly expensed them in their books. To many, if not most, if they sold their crop for more than it cost them to plant it, they had a profit. Claimed gains of 15 to 20% on investment might amount to as much as 3 or 4% by the time expenses were correctly figured.
Given that these numbers are going to be questioned, I'm going to have to spend the night finding my reference.
I am sorry to take so long to respond to you regarding your post. I am currently looking to find the exact tariff (Pittsburgh Plus) and its date established and repealed. It had been dubbed this by the South. I do however have several links that refers to the tariff. Also, I would like to give you the definition of tariff.
“A tariff is a tax placed on import and/or export of goods, sometimes called customs duty a revenue tariff is set with the intent of raising money for the government. A protective tariff is usually applied to imports to “protect” domestic industries from competition.” Source - http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Tarrif the following pages of this link are fascinating and very enlightening.
The industrial North needed the raw goods from the South and forced these tariffs in order to gain the products from the agricultural states. Because high tariff rate the European countries sparingly imported the South’s raw products (not just cotton, these included ores that were used by the industrial North).
These tariffs did not include finished products that were produced in the North then shipped back south.
I stand corrected on the desire for secession of the North. However, I still believe it was the rights of the people state by state to determine their destiny. The statement was not intended to insult anyone.
My original intention in entering this group was to research on my family – at the time I was warned that I could very easily wind up falling into the other discussions. You were right. It is fascinating and I am spending more time in research than I thought.
Bob,
A few notes:
.. The industrial North needed the raw goods from the South and forced these tariffs in order to gain the products from the agricultural states...
The tariffs were created for protection of U.S. industry. Being more advanced Britian had a larger advantage in cutting production costs, enabling them to sell products to American at a lower price. The addition of a tax, or tariff helped cut that advantage, making American products cheaper for Americans to buy, and to sell out of the country also. ( And remember, there was No export tax for any American products going out of the country.) Tariffs were used by every country to protect internal industry.
.....Because high tariff rate the European countries sparingly imported the South’s raw products......
819,500,528# of cotton in 1861 doesn't sound like 'sparingly'.
Also in 1861 the United States shipped 7,385,717 cwt of corn to the United Kingdom, along with 15,610,472 cwt of Wheat,Wheat meal, Flour and other kinds of grain. The tariff rate did not affect material, raw, or finished, that was shipped to Britian. There was No Export Tariffs, from the United States to other countries.
....These tariffs did not include finished products that were produced in the North then shipped back south.....
There were No tariffs between any sections of the United States, either Federal or State created. Nothing. There were shipping charges, and possibly 'proctor' fees and bank loan fees to pay...but NO internal tariffs.
Just a few observations
Chuck in IL. http://mobile96.com
Chuck: If I may try to expand on a couple of things-
Quote:
The tariffs were created for protection of U.S. industry.
They were also the primary source of federal revenue. And for all the flack tariffs recieve today, they seemed to be the preferred method of raising that revenue, and truly the form of tax that was fitting for the federal government's constitutional scope, seeing as they only dealt with foreign import commerce. How ironic that so many today try to claim they were unconstitutional.
Quote:
Being more advanced Britian had a larger advantage in cutting production costs, enabling them to sell products to American at a lower price.
I think the technological advantage that the British enjoyed was mostly diminished by the mid-1840s. The advantage they still enjoyed though was cheap labor. Seems those folks in the British Isles really didn't have a very good standard of living, but lots of surplus labor (hence all the US immigration).
Quote:
819,500,528# of cotton in 1861 doesn't sound like 'sparingly'
Quite right! The argument is often made that reduced British and French imports to America had to result in less cotton exports (or a lower price) to Britian and France. While this theory might work in a fishbowl, it ignores that Britian and France had other developing markets in Europe and India for their cotton textiles. What should have been of greater concern to southern planters was the British attempts to kickstart cotton production in India and Egypt. Must be even they didn't like buying from a monopoly. Remember Dr. Livingston (I presume) in Africa? He was looking for tribes to grow British cotton.
Quote:
There were shipping charges, and possibly 'proctor' fees and bank loan fees to pay...but NO internal tariffs.
Some southerners estimated that 40% of the money from cotton growing ended up in the pockets of people who handled it and financed it. The planter typically existed on credit from cotton factors who supplied the planter throughout the year until the crop was harvested. By that time, the factor virtually owned the harvest - just one of the problems of having only one annual crop. Imagine what happened whenever there was a flood or drought.
The industrial North needed the raw goods from the South and forced these tariffs in order to gain the products from the agricultural states.
1) While the North contained the majority of the nations industry, it was still primarily agrarian. 2) The various tariff acts generally had bi-partisan support. The 1846 tariff act was passed by Democrats and signed by a Democrat president, was in place for 11 years, considered a "free trade" tariff, was well accepted in all sections, and had higher ad valorem rates than the 1861 (Morrill) tariff act. The 1846 act was amended to lower rates with the 1857 act because of annual surplus revenue it reaped. 3) As Chuck noted, tariffs had nothing to do with domestic commerce.
Quote:
These tariffs did not include finished products that were produced in the North then shipped back south.
Depending on demand and domestic competition, finished domestic products from the North that had foreign substitutes may have enjoyed a larger market share and larger profit margins, just like Lousiana sugar might have when sold to Northerners.
Quote:
My original intention in entering this group was to research on my family – at the time I was warned that I could very easily wind up falling into the other discussions. You were right. It is fascinating and I am spending more time in research than I thought.
In discussing the tariff, the idea that it was set to somehow impoverish the south falls flat on its face.
First of all, Louisiana, being a sugar-producing state, favored high tariffs. Last I looked, they were in the south.
Tariffs were placed only on imports, not on exports. And American cotton was highly sought, so a tariff on imports did not materially affect demand for cotton exports.
Additionally, the vast majority of tariff revenue was paid in the North, not in the south. Northern ports collected more than 90% of the revenue from the tariff, and the states that eventually seceded made up only 29% of the population. To claim the south paid more of the tariff is to believe that an agrarian society with only 29% of the population consumed 70-80 percent of the imported raw materials and finished goods from abroad. Not in this world. Additionally, looking at their actual spending patterns, the southern population actually consumed relatively few foreign goods, preferring instead to consume Northern and Western goods. I've already posted the exact figures on the tariff, with references, along with Prof. Robert Russel's analysis of the south's consumption of goods.
First of all, Louisiana, being a sugar-producing state, favored high tariffs. Last I looked, they were in the south.
Oh, Southerners had complaints about the protectionist tariff on sugar. In the Senate debate on the 1861 tariff bill (Morrill) they objected to the sugar tariff rate....because it was being lowered, and the reduction of revenue was being offset by coffee and tea being removed from the free list and affixed with a duty. Of course, as coffee and tea had no domestic production, the tariff recieved was purely a revenue tariff. So much for the argument that if you lived in the South you were a free-trader.
Quote:
To claim the south paid more of the tariff is to believe that an agrarian society with only 29% of the population consumed 70-80 percent of the imported raw materials and finished goods from abroad.
And yet many do try to make this claim, insisting that the foreign imports the South bought were somehow of a type exclusively consumed by Southerners, while Yankees mostly consumed their own production. I posted some figures previously which showed that out of $54 million in duties collected in 1860, over $40 million were collected on just seven articles. Sugar topped the revenue list, followed by manufacturers of wool, cotton, and silk. Duties on iron came in a measley 5th place (with 1/2 the revenue that sugar produced), wines/spirits right behind it, and cigars/tobacco finishing up the bottom of the list. Since these seven articles made up 74% of duties collected, I'd like someone to show me where the dutiable articles exclusively consumed by Southerners were.
Quote:
I've already posted the exact figures on the tariff, with references, along with Prof. Robert Russel's analysis of the south's consumption of goods.
--
In the "Rebellion!!" thread, post #162 and in the "Slavery: The Cause" thread, post #550.
"There were difficulties to be overcome before direct importations could be established other than deficiency of capital and credit, the long credit system, or the absence of a thoroughly Southern mercantile class. One lay in the comparatively small amounts of foreign goods consumed in the South. There is no way of calculating accurately the value of the foreign imports consumed in territory naturally tributary to Southern seaports; but the probabilities are that it did not so greatly exceed the direct importations as Southerners generally supposed. Some Southern writers made the palpably untenable assumption that the Southern population consumed foreign goods equal in value to their exports to foreign countries, that is about two-thirds or three-fourths of the nation's exports or imports. More reasonable was the assumption that the per capita consumption of imported goods in the South was equal to that of the North; but even that would seem to have been too liberal. A much higher percentage of the Northern population was urban; and the per capita consumption of articles of commerce by an urban population is greater than the per capita consumption by a rural population. Southern writers made much of the number of rich families in the South who bought articles of luxury imported from abroad; but there is no doubt that the number of families who lived in luxury was exaggerated. That the slaves consumed comparatively small quantities of foreign goods requires no demonstration. Their clothing and rough shoes were manufactured either in the North or at home. Their chief articles of food (corn and bacon) were produced at home or in the West. The large poor white element in the population consumed few articles of commerce, either domestic or foreign. The same is true of the rather large mountaineer element, because if for no other reason, they lived beyond the routes of trade. Olmstead had these classes in mind when he wrote: 'I have never seen reason to believe that with absolute free trade the cotton States would take a tenth part of the value of our present importations.' One of the fairest of the many English travelers wrote: 'But the truth is, there are few imports required, for every Southern town tells the same tale.' " [Robert R. Russel, Economic Aspects of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861, pp. 107-108]
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
