Tariffs

[matthew mckeon]

This is in reference to posts 118,119 about consumption of goods by slaves. In Lowell, Massachusetts(home of Benjamin "Beast" Butler), some of the mills produced a coarse cotton fabric(looks like mattress ticking) actually called "negro cloth" marketed to slaveowners in bolts to distribute, perhaps to the slaves that produced the raw cotton processed to make the cloth.

I would presume that slaves would have less money and opportunity to consume goods than free Southerners.

[unionblue]

Matt & Cedarstripper,

The only figure that makes any sense to me is that of $1.94 that each and every free-person paid (on the average) once a year because of the tariff in place in 1860.

Will someone please explain to me how this equates into killing over 600,000 citizens?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[cedarstripper]

Matt, Thanks for the reference to the negro cloth. A recycled wool cloth known as shoddy was also produced for the low end of the market.

In trying to calculate what a section paid in tariffs, only what a section bought in dutiable articles is relevant, and I am surprised to find an opinion that slaves should be included in that buyer's market of imported goods. Taussig writes that the American textile industry was not in competition with Europe for the American market and in fact was exporting cloth and manufactures to Europe. Where the European market share lay was with different types of fabric such as printed cloth and fine broadcloth, lace, etc. I think it is safe to say that slaves did not put much of a dent in that market, nor in Italian furniture, French wine, or Cuban cigars.

unionblue,
I agree that the average amount of duty paid is so insignificant that it cannot be squarely debated as a cause to secede, so I don't think you should be disappointed that you get no takers on that debate. It must be ignored, or else it is an insult to southern honor that a society of such pride would be at peace with a particular tariff of their design, then dissolve a Union over a very similar one.

Cedarstripper

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Matt & Cedarstripper,

The only figure that makes any sense to me is that of $1.94 that each and every free-person paid (on the average) once a year because of the tariff in place in 1860.

Will someone please explain to me how this equates into killing over 600,000 citizens?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Neil, I've refrained from playing the tariff numbers game, you can make numbers say just about anything you wish them to say as has been demonstrated. I have even pointed out that the unfair tax burden on the South had little to do with who was importing what or how much of it.

However, I wanted to note in regard to your comment, the South didn't kill 600,000 citizens, it was about 300,000. The rest died at the hands of the Union.

Regards,
Rose

[unionblue]

Wild Rose,

You will note that I do not mention in my post who killed who, just the total number of deaths that was brought about by the war.

My contention was, with the tariff as a minor issue in comparison what I consider the main reason, a $1.94 paid once a year just does not seem sufficent motive for the North and the South to kill one another in large numbers.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by cedarstripper

You have lost me with your above math. In post #91, you listed $238,419,670 as the total value of exports from the South, and $77,367,070 as total value of exports from the North. (I assume this doesn't include specie, which in itself tends to throw this all further into the North's favor)
If 40% of southern exports belongs to the North ( a southern claim, not mine) then:

$238,419,670........total southern export
- 95,367,868.........(-40% of southern export earned by North)
$143,051,802..............southern wealth from exports

$77,367,070..........total northern export
+95,367,868..........(+40% of southern export earned by North)
$172,734,938..............northern wealth from exports

.....Even using your numbers the South still has a significant share (45%) in the total value of goods exported....

....but remember...this is the most extreme scenario...

...we are assuming that ALL Southern goods are handled by Northern merchants and shippers
........which is not the case......(we are also assuming they get a 40% share which may be an exaggeration)........

The next question is- How much was handled by Southern merchants and shippers?

10%?

15%?

Let's say $40 million (Comparable to the amount imported) -
$40,000,000.........South
$198,419,670........Southern export shipped by North
- 79,367,868.........(-40% of southern export "earned" by North)
$159,051,802..............southern wealth from exports

$77,367,070..........total northern export
+79,367,868..........(+40% of southern export "earned" by North)
$156,734,938..............northern wealth from exports

South....50.4%
North.....49.6%

Originally Posted by cedar

It also needs to be noted that the export figures you use for the eleven states that would become the confederacy are not what is being listed in the table by Duff Green and the New York newspaper. The FY1861 export figures he uses for "the South" include all states that produced "southern products", not just the ones who seceded. Indeed it certainly was the hope of many secessionists that all slave states and everything from Indiana to the Pacific would join the confederacy, but we need to draw a line, and that line seems to have been drawn with the states that actually did secede.

Cedarstripper

That can be revised......add KY, MO, DE, MD

[cedarstripper]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Neil, I've refrained from playing the tariff numbers game, you can make numbers say just about anything you wish them to say as has been demonstrated.

I disagree. Like in any other type of debate, they can be used incorrectly, incompletely, and out of context. For example, when a passage from Marx's article (where he is giving the opinions of the London press in order to rebut them) is used as his own, it is easy to show that is incorrect without question. Such is the case with the speech given by Jabez L.M. Curry which you earlier referred to, and his claim of the South paying $90 million to the North's $17.5 million in tariff revenues.

Joseph Eros wrote a post in another forum showing that Jabez Curry misused the figures from his source. With Mr. Eros' permission, I will paste a portion (as it is rather long) of his post here which he emailed to me. Please keep in mind that the "where tariffs are paid does not indicate where they are consumed" argument is not in play here, as Curry's claim of the South's contribution to the Treasury is based on a Treasury report of Customs collections.


"....Curry states that "[a] report of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1838 shows that, in the five years 1833-37, out of $102,000,000 of expenditure, only $37,000,000 were in the slave States; yet, during the same years, they paid $90,000,000 of duties to $17,500,000 paid by the free States." [p. 50]

Since Curry's claim only covers 1833 through 1837, it is hard to see why [Charles]Adams thinks it describes tariffs in the 1840s. More importantly, though, Curry's numbers on "duties" (whatever exactly he means by that) are simply incorrect. They bear no relation to the report he cites, and I doubt Curry ever looked at the report himself.

Curry's source may be found by looking at the list of items from the Treasury in Poore's _Descriptive Catalog of the Government Publications of the United States_, which covers 1774 through 1881. The only report which matches his description is the "Report on Public Receipts and Expenditures", July 9, 1838, Ex. Docs., No. 460, 25th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. XI pt. 1. I copied this document at the West Virginia University library.

Annex A of the report (pp. 1-8) is a list of the amount collected by the federal government in each state and territory, in each year 1833 through 1837. Each state has listings as needed for customs, land sales, and miscellaneous. There are also some items which appear in only one state (like the awards under convention in New York and the Chickasaw lands in Mississippi). The report lists treasury note sales in 1837 as revenue (instead of as borrowing), but other than that its revenue totals agree with the numbers later printed in Historical Statistics of the United States

In totaling up the report's numbers, I have included the territories of Florida and Wisconsin with the slave and free states, respectively.

Since New Jersey had only recently passed its gradual emancipation law at this time, and still had over a thousand slaves, it is conceivable that Curry counted New Jersey as a slave state. To avoid any possible undercounting of collections from slave states, my totals count New Jersey among the slave states.

The overall totals are as follows (millions of unadjusted dollars):

Free states (-NJ): Customs $86.04
Free states (-NJ): Misc $0.27
Free states (-NJ): Lands $30.78
NY: Awards under convention $5.26
PA: Cents coined at the Mint $0.10
PA: Dividends Bank U.S. $1.51
PA: Sales bank stock, bonds $1.96


Slave states (+NJ): Customs $13.03
Slave states (+NJ): Misc $0.19
Slave states (+NJ): Lands $24.22
KY: Dividend on canal stock $0.08
MS: Chickasaw lands $2.42
DC: customs $0.14
Received into the Treasury at Washington for lands $0.24
Miscellaneous items not applicable to any State $0.71
Treasury notes $2.99
Overall total: $169.94 million (counting $2.99 million in treasury notes)

The overall revenue breakdown for these years is around 59% customs, 35% land sales, and 6% all other. So taking tariff revenue as a proxy for all federal revenues is a serious error.

There is simply no way to reconcile these numbers with Curry's claim that southern states "paid $90,000,000 of duties to $17,500,000 paid by the free States." First, it's not clear how to arrive at $107.5 million in duties." Land sales (including Chickasaw lands in Mississippi), compensation paid to the USA under the treaty with France, and treasury notes cannot be plausibly described as "duties." Subtracting these items leaves $104 million, close to Curry's total (this still includes some items which I would argue are not really "duties," like dividends from the Bank of the United States).

This $104 million was collected overwhelmingly in the free states. Even counting New Jersey as a "southern" state and including "duties" collected in DC with those collected in slave states, the $104 million in "duties" came overwhelmingly from the north: $89.9 million collected in the free states versus $14.2 million from slave states.

The "$90,000,000 of duties" supposedly collected in the southern states are nowhere to be found. Adding up all revenues including land sales and treasury notes, from all slave areas including DC, yields a total of $44 million, less than half what Curry says.

Curry's numbers on spending are not quite as far off as his claims about revenue, but they're still dubious. Curry states that "out of $102,000,000 of expenditure, only $37,000,000 were in the slave States." The report actually shows $121.8 million in spending over five years. Removing spending in DC leaves a total of $102.8 million, most likely the source of Curry's figure. That breaks down to $62.9 million in the free states (not including New Jersey) and $39.7 million in slave states (or $40 million counting New Jersey as a slave state), plus $19 million in DC. So although Curry's number for spending in the slave states is only a bit low ($37 million instead of $39.7 million), he significantly underestimates total spending. And by leaving out federal spending in DC, which was a slave territory surrounded by two slave states, he further understates federal spending in areas where slavery was legal.

There is no reason to take the 80% claim seriously, and those who cite it only hurt their own credibility."

Joseph Eros

[emphasis mine]

Mr. Eros also sent me the revenues and spending numbers from the 1838 US Treasury report in excel format, although I wouldn't know how to make them accessible here.

Cedarstripper

[Battalion]

Challenge to Cedarstripper (and others of the North) who claim that the tariff was NOT an unfair burden on the South -

Find Northern opinion from the 1860s that agrees with you.

[cedarstripper]

Originally Posted by Battalion

.....Even using your numbers the South still has a significant share (45%) in the total value of goods exported....

Even using MY numbers? They're not MY numbers. They are the numbers you presented. It's just that there is no sense to be made from your calculations, as you didn't bother to explain what they were or where they came from.

The rest is an excercize in empty supposition. My point is, simply because a product is grown in the South, it cannot be said that the export value of that product belongs entirely to the South. It only multiplies the inaccuracy to continue to rely on such things. Furthermore, you cannot use exports alone to determine the ability to buy imports. Proportion of exports does not equal proportion of GNP.

That can be revised......add KY, MO, DE, MD

Then revise it before you offer it. You are trying to use these figures to support your argument. Isn't it your burden to use them correctly? And when you add their value to the Union, don't forget to subtract it from the South Eleven.

Cedarstripper

[cedarstripper]

Originally Posted by Battalion

Challenge to Cedarstripper (and others of the North) who claim that the tariff was NOT an unfair burden on the South -

Find Northern opinion from the 1860s that agrees with you.

Challenge to Battalion. Your claim was that the South paid the majority of the tariff collections. Support that claim or say Uncle.

Cedarstripper