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.
You learn something every day. Given later southern arguments that protective tariffs were unconstitutional because they had an improper purpose, I was stunned to discover yesterday that the very first tariff statute passed by the first Congress in 1789 explicitly invoked the encouragement of domestic manufactures as one of its rationales:
"Whereas it is necessary for the support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandises imported . . ."
I was equally surprised to learn that no member of Congress even suggested that this purpose was constitutionally improper. "There were objections to several of these suggestions [as to which items to tax and in what amounts], but no one denied that Congress could constitutionally impose tariffs to stimulate domestic production." David P. Currie, The Constitution in Congress: The Federalist Period 1789-1801 (New YorK: University of Chicago Press 1997), at p. 57.
Scholars seeking to discern the original understanding of the Constitution often look to the actions of the early Congresses as evidence of that understanding. In this case, Professor Currie dryly observes (id. at p. 60):
"At the very least, however, they [the first tariff statute and the tonnage statute passed shortly thereafter] demonstrate that the First Congress took a broad view of the purposes for which it could regulate commerce, and those who would later argue that the tax power could be exercised only for revenue purposes would have a good deal of explaining to do."
Does anyone have any documentation or source on the South placing a tariff on exports as well as imports?
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I hadn't realized that the Confederacy had passed a Navigation Act. It pokes another hole in the "South was all for free trade" argument and at the same time indicates that the South was not helpless or uninvolved in its own shipping. If it were not able to domestically provide for its own coasting trade, it certainly wouldn't prohibit foreign vessels from engaging in it.
Its been awhile since I read the US Navigation Act, but I think the rebels went further in their scope of prohibition in Section 1. Under the Confederate Act, for instance, British ships could not transport sugar from Cuba to a CSA port. In practice, it would require that British ships picking up cotton could only sail here with British goods in their holds. I don't recall that the US Act had any such prohibition.
It would seem that the CSA legislature was practicing isolationism before it was isolated. The act would have prevented US ships from transporting British goods the CS. Looks mighty like the aim was toward the feet.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Does anyone have any documentation or source on the South placing a tariff on exports as well as imports?
Unionblue,
In his article on the Confederate Constitution, David Currie reports that the Confederate Congress placed a tariff on cotton exports. Because of the blockade, it reportedly netted only a few hundred dollars per month. 90 Virginia Law Rev. 1257 at 1358 (also on the net, cite provided in other posts).
Thanks for the answer. I knew that the Confederate Congress had placed a tariff on imports and exports, something the US never did, but I could not remember on what or how many items.
Thanks,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I hadn't realized that the Confederacy had passed a Navigation Act. It pokes another hole in the "South was all for free trade" argument and at the same time indicates that the South was not helpless or uninvolved in its own shipping. If it were not able to domestically provide for its own coasting trade, it certainly wouldn't prohibit foreign vessels from engaging in it.
Its been awhile since I read the US Navigation Act, but I think the rebels went further in their scope of prohibition in Section 1. Under the Confederate Act, for instance, British ships could not transport sugar from Cuba to a CSA port. In practice, it would require that British ships picking up cotton could only sail here with British goods in their holds. I don't recall that the US Act had any such prohibition.
Cedarstripper
Assuming I read that right, the Confederate version flatly prohibited a foreign ship from carrying goods between any two Confederate ports as well. So if a ship landed part of its cargo at Wilmington, say, and was then going to land more of it at Charleston and Savannah, it could not pick up local cargo to tranship. Protectionism for Confederate shipping, I guess.
Considering the state of Confederate shipping, that seems silly, particularly with a war on. Of course, with a war on there'd be very few foreign ships expanding their vulnerability to the Union blockade by moving from one Confederate port to another; they'd all be favoring a quick in-and-out visit to the Confederacy. Maybe it simply didn't matter unless the Confederacy managed to win.
A while back on this thread, the concept of wharehousing costs came up as an additional burden on the South when it came to tariffs. Either of you be willing to explain the concept and why or why not this would have an impact on shipping costs and tariffs when importing items into the US?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
A while back on this thread, the concept of wharehousing costs came up as an additional burden on the South when it came to tariffs. Either of you be willing to explain the concept and why or why not this would have an impact on shipping costs and tariffs when importing items into the US?
I took a quick look and I didn't see what you were referring to specifically. As a result, I can only speculate on the subject; maybe I can do a little better if you point me to the right messages.
In general, I would guess the warehousing costs involved are normal costs of doing business and that if carefully examined would fall out as a non-issue. Quite possibly, any attempt to eliminate them as a "burden" imposed on the South by those dastardly Northerners would lead to higher costs for Southerners, not lower ones.
My guess is that the warehouses being discussed would probably be in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Boston; New Orleans is another possibility. My reason for that is that the first 3 cities were the largest ports in the United States before the Civil War. Up until about 1825-30, they were in a great race to be #1, but that all changed forever with the construction of the Erie Canal, which made New York #1.
As someone else has pointed out in one of these tariff threads, what we would be talking about here would be bonded warehouses. The shipper would offload the goods into the warehouse and have up to 1 year to sell the cargo before paying the import tax. Without a tax receipt, you can't get the goods out of the warehouse.
Naturally enough, there is a storage charge by the owner of the warehouse. You don't get to keep it there for free. The owner of the goods will pay this cost, and figure it into his price when he sells the goods. I am assuming this is the warehouse cost being mentioned as a "burden" on the South.
If so, this is probably a red herring, a complete fallacy, at least to the extent that it is a "burden" imposed on anyone. As to why this would be more of a "burden" on Southerners than Easterners, Westerners, Northerners, or anyone else, I have no idea. Someone would have to explain it to me. Mind you, it is quite possible some people believed it was; it is just unlikely to prove out under analysis.
Distribution systems generally work from hubs or concentration points for goods. This is done for reasons of efficiency, both efficiency of logistics and efficiency of markets. There are reasons FedEx routes so many flights through a central point, concentrates freight, and then ships it back out -- even though the distance from A-C might be less than the distance from A-B-C. There are reasons you go to a mall to buy things instead of waiting for a merchant to ring your doorbell. There are reasons there are manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers performing different functions in the supply chain. They existed then; they exist now.
For example, the first time I recall ever actually being in a bonded warehouse was in 1989. I was in Tennessee, doing a tour of the Jack Daniels distillery. The hills around the plant were covered with forty-odd such warehouses. The company makes the liquor and then needs to age it in barrels. The aging is done in the bonded warehouses, because the government wants to make sure nothing gets shipped without the tax being paid. When the company wants to ship it to market, they have to pay the tax. This is actually very beneficial to the company, because without that arrangement, the company would have to pay the tax immediately after distilling the liquor.
I am sure there were some Southerners that reasoned that, if goods came directly to Charleston or Mobile or New Orleans instead of going to New York/Philadelphia/Baltimore first, they would pay less. In some pure example, that will be true. But the real world is not simple or pure. Such a transaction would require that a merchant in say, London, know that he could sell his entire cargo easily in the Southern port at a good price, that he could find a good return cargo there, that shipping costs didn't change with the longer trip, that there would be sufficient facilities for him to repair his ship if needed, etc., etc. To a merchant, these are all risks. Risks are things merchants do not take unless they expect to make a commensurate profit. New York dominated American trade in the 1850s. The best markets were there, the best return cargoes to Europe, the shortest turn-around times, etc. If the merchant saw that it was more expensive, or riskier, to deal directly in a Southern port, he would not do it.
Assuming I read that right, the Confederate version flatly prohibited a foreign ship from carrying goods between any two Confederate ports as well. So if a ship landed part of its cargo at Wilmington, say, and was then going to land more of it at Charleston and Savannah, it could not pick up local cargo to tranship. Protectionism for Confederate shipping, I guess.
The confederate prohibition of foreign vessels engaging in the coasting trade is very much like the 1817 US act. In reference to the US navigation act, many a negative comment has been made about the protectionism the New England shipping industry enjoyed at the South's expense, so its comical to find that the Confederacy passed their own, (more extreme, I think) version. But personally, I find the acts, both US and Confederate to be quite logical and smart. In the case of the 1817 US act, these were still the young days of a fledgling nation. It certainly seems in the interest of that nation not to have its ports full of British ships monopolizing the trade, and similarly not in the interest of the Confederacy to have its coasting monopolized by US shipping. Protectionism, yes.....but also good national defense.
I agree with you that Navigation laws with blockaded ports seems rather silly. But such is politics.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
