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.
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?
My recollection of discussions with warehousing being an added cost to the South was in reference to the claims of the South consuming over 80% of dutiable imports (and therefore supplying over 80% of tariff revenue) and the counter question that, if the South was the great marketplace for foreign goods, why a perfectly reciprocal import/cotton traffic didn't develop directly between Europe and southern ports, instead of entering through icy northern ports and adding the cost of offloading, warehousing, and again loading for shipment South.
Just some general info that might be of interest:
Bonded warehouses could be located at any Port of Entry or Port of Delivery. I have before read some references to bonded train cars hauling cargo that had not yet cleared Customs. Importers could also buy a bond guaranteeing a future payment of duties by a specified date on goods that could then clear immediately.
Just a little shipping info I thought was interesting:
On May 3rd, 1859, the brig "Wenonah" contracted with New York merchant Eladio Rubira to "ship out" from New York to Cienfuegos, Cuba whatever cargo he wanted, below and above deck freight free, and to haul back a full load of sugar and/or molasses and 10% small stowage for 39 cents/100#. At the time of departure, they were not decided whether the return shipment would be to Philadelphia, Baltimore or New York - decision to be be made on leaving Ceinfuegos.
On the 21st of December, 1859, the Wenonah was lying in port in New York, ready to haul 278 tons of "Rail R Iron" to Fernandina, Florida for the sum of $1.75/ton. There was no mention of a return cargo.
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.
Even before the Erie Canal, New York had no rivals when it came to imports and exports. In 1821, only Boston came close, and by 1831, NY cleared $25.5 million in exports and $57.0 million in imports compared to Boston's $7.7 and $14.2 million respectively. In 1831, Philly did $5.5 in exports and $12.1 in imports, while Baltimore did $4.3 and $4.8. In 1831, New Orleans did $16.7 in exports and $9.7 in imports.
Quote:
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.
Agreed. Imagine the difficulty a jobber would face in Charleston or Mobile in getting rid of a cargo of European imports as compared to a jobber in New York or Boston or Philly. And while there was a plentiful cargo of cotton in the southern ports for the return trip across the pond, it was only available beginning in October, and really the shipping most heavily took place between January and April. The remainder of the year, southern ports were lonely places, with New Orleans being almost deserted during the summer.
In an earlier post on another thread, Trice had mentioned something about the federal debt in 1857. I happened across the following in my notes tonight and thought it might be of interest concerning the need for amending the 1857 tariff act.
When the tariff act of 1857 went into effect on July 1, 1857, there was a $17.7 million balance in the Treasury, and $29 million in public debt, none of which was due at that time. By 1858, the debt had grown to $44.9 million. July of 1859 showed a debt of $58.7 million, and on the last day of May, 1860, the debt was projected to be $65.6 million, with only $1.9 million in the Treasury. (Congressional Globe, May 7, 1860, p. 1946)
This information about the amount of money in the treasury during the times you mention falls in line with the idea that the first Morril Tariff was simply designed to meet this financial crisis not to be confused with the war time tariffs that followed later.
I have mentioned this before, but thought it should be repeated. From the book, Greeback, by Jason Goodwin: "The Union entered the (Civil) war with two hundred thousand dollars in its coffers, but the treasury secretary, Salmon P. Chase, remained cool until the Battle of Bull Run in July 1861 upset all hopes of an easy victory over the South. The army was now looking at a long campaign, and soldiers needed to be paid. Chase borrowed from the northern banks, sold war bonds to patriotic investors, and finally, sorrowfully (for he was a hard-money man) he turned to the option of printing money."
Where is all the money that the tariff, even the recently passed Morril Tariff, that the greedy North is often accused of having rung from the South, to the tune of 80%? This also seems to tie in with the figures you provide in your above post.
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
Even before the Erie Canal, New York had no rivals when it came to imports and exports. In 1821, only Boston came close, and by 1831, NY cleared $25.5 million in exports and $57.0 million in imports compared to Boston's $7.7 and $14.2 million respectively. In 1831, Philly did $5.5 in exports and $12.1 in imports, while Baltimore did $4.3 and $4.8. In 1831, New Orleans did $16.7 in exports and $9.7 in imports.
Yes, I would think of that as correct. But the first cargo over the Erie Canal from one end to the other is in 1825, IIRR. This led to explosive growth both in western NY and all along the Great Lakes. Freight rates to those areas dropped by about 95%, the population exploded, and the traffic overwhelmingly went through New York from that point on.
Boston was too remote and difficult to reach for that trade. Philadelphia and Baltimore wanted it desperately, but there was no practical way for a water route across the mountains and attempts at river-dredging, canals, and such all failed.
The RR might have changed all that, but the New York Central system gave a route to Lake Erie and the west long before any alternative. The B&O finally got to the Ohio River in about 1850 or so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
Agreed. Imagine the difficulty a jobber would face in Charleston or Mobile in getting rid of a cargo of European imports as compared to a jobber in New York or Boston or Philly. And while there was a plentiful cargo of cotton in the southern ports for the return trip across the pond, it was only available beginning in October, and really the shipping most heavily took place between January and April. The remainder of the year, southern ports were lonely places, with New Orleans being almost deserted during the summer.
One reason for the slow traffic in New Orleans was that traffic that would have gone downriver to New Orleans (the only practical route out) from the new population in Ohio-Indiana-Illinois was going north-and-east because of the Erie Canal and, by the 1850s) the RRs. The new settlers pouring into the Ohio Valley, the Great Lakes, and Iowa-Minnesota-Missouri largely came by that route. Railheads on the north bank of the Ohio were also taking traffic from Kentucky that would have gone downriver before 1850, and Kentucky was becoming less of a "Southern" state as a result.
What that leaves in the South is a very seasonal market based on agricultural products. Very risky for merchants. Miss the season by a little and prices will change drastically, up or down. You might find great difficulty in getting a return cargo. Essentially, a risky voyage that might lose money if conditions delay you or you miss the market -- and a longer, more expensive trip for the ship, which will thus be less available for shorter, more frequent trips that made money at less risk.
"Before the Civil War, federal taxation was almost completely synonymous with the tariff. . . . [T]he historical origin of the tariff lay in a separate issue. In addition to its administrative and economic characteristics, a tax on imports offered a political advantage over other forms of taxation. Congress could design a tax on imports without talking about slavery. The irony here is extraordinary. The tax that southerners would resent and resist so famously – because it forced them to subsidize northern industry – originated in a political accommodation to slavery during the Revolution."
Robin L. Einhorn, American Taxation, American Slavery (University of Chicago Press 2006), at 117.
So those who helped created and push the tariff so it would have no/minimum impact upon the institution of slavery shouldn't complain of it or use it as an excuse when leaving the Union over slavery?
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
We seem to be drifting toward Hinton Helper's early contention that the money to be made by employing slaves diverted southern attention from more permanent improvement in infrastructure and diversification. That is, southern leadership took its collective eyes off the ball and dropped it.
When they found the ball no longer in their possession with little hope of getting it back, they found blame in everyone else but themselves.
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
So those who helped created and push the tariff so it would have no/minimum impact upon the institution of slavery shouldn't complain of it or use it as an excuse when leaving the Union over slavery?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Yes. In fairness, in 1787 everyone envisioned that the tax on imports would be an "impost" -- a flat ad valorem tax on all imports plus additional duties on liquor perhaps a handful of "luxury" items. This was the form in which Madison introduced the first impost bill in 1789. No one seems to have realized that the impost would immediately become a tariff with different rates on different goods, designed in part to protect certain goods and industries.
No one seems to have realized that the impost would immediately become a tariff with different rates on different goods, designed in part to protect certain goods and industries.
One of those lessons of history that, if forgotten, will come back to haunt you. "What this government giveth, the next can taketh away."
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
