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.
The statement is made based on exhange of commodities. If this was, in fact, a regular practice, a case can be made for the cotton exporters' overburden. If such a case were made, I'd wonder why there wasn't a lot more screaming from them.
I confess to knowing little about international commerce and exchange practices. I don't know how often commodities were exchanged in place of monies, but I don't think it would matter much. The cash or commodities should equal in value. But, as I said, I'm out of my element here, perhaps I'm wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
As it is, most of the complaining was about old tariffs and protectionism.
Ole, I don't know how much louder they could have screamed. The majority of complaining was about old tariffs, that is true. The Tariff Act of 1846 lowered tariffs to most everyone's satisfaction, except for the protectionists. The Morrill Tariff that everyone discounts as not being of any importance is what caused the simmering issue to boil again. And, I do know the Democrats could have stayed in congress and voted it down, but for how long? The Southern states were being rooted out of power in government and realized that soon they couldn't protect themselves against such as the rising tariffs that the Republicans were determined to have.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
I confess to knowing little about international commerce and exchange practices. I don't know how often commodities were exchanged in place of monies, but I don't think it would matter much. The cash or commodities should equal in value. But, as I said, I'm out of my element here, perhaps I'm wrong.
I am out of my element as well, but I was hoping someone would clear up this technicality. One way or another, I'd like to see somewhat settled the idea that the south paid a disproportionate share of the import duties.
Quote:
Ole, I don't know how much louder they could have screamed. The majority of complaining was about old tariffs, that is true. The Tariff Act of 1846 lowered tariffs to most everyone's satisfaction, except for the protectionists. The Morrill Tariff that everyone discounts as not being of any importance is what caused the simmering issue to boil again. And, I do know the Democrats could have stayed in congress and voted it down, but for how long? The Southern states were being rooted out of power in government and realized that soon they couldn't protect themselves against such as the rising tariffs that the Republicans were determined to have.
Your last sentence, with some modification, meets entirely with my approval. I'd leave it at "were being rooted out of power." They didn't much like the idea that their control was leaving legitimately. Can't say as much for being unable to "protect themselves." The republicans were for selected protectionism, but their power was not such that they could put through another Tariff of Abominations. Lincoln admitted as much during the famous "I'm an old Whig...." conversation when he added that protective tariffs would have to wait until the majority saw the need for them.
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
I find your other statement puzzling, as you say the South now knew which pockets the tariff and taxes was going in. It is my contention that all knew 'which pockets' it was being placed in before the war and had no problem with it, as aptly shown in the two tariff threads on this board.
While this may have not been demonstrated to your satisfaction, I am sure what Ole meant, it had been demonstrated to his, as I am sure you understood.
The Southern states didn't know what, if any, of the tariffs collected by the Federal government would be spent in the South. As the CSA they knew exactly where the money was and could chose how to disburse it.
You are correct. I'm not convinced by the tariff thread here. I'm skeptical for a number of reasons.
1. I have no background in economics and I can't place all that is being left out of the equation, but it does seem like incomplete information to me. There is simply more to the big picture than tariff rates.
2. There was so much Southern opposition to the tariff prior to the war that one has to wonder why (if there was no imbalance) did the Southerners complain so.
3. South Carolina was so agitated over the "tariff of abominations" in 1832 (I think) that she called for nullification and threatened to secede and then in 1860 it seemed to be starting all over again with the Morrill as the first step.
4. Charles Dickens didn't have a dog in that fight, yet he was quoted in a London periodical, December 1862, "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."
London Times, November 7, 1861, stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".
There are more similar comments from non-partisan parties indicating the tariff was, indeed, a great concern to the South as well as the North. It was, after all, an estimated 90% of the federal revenue.
Lincoln didn't tell the South, we are comming after your slaves. He said we are comming after the duties if you don't collect and hand them over.
The Charleston Mercury, November 1860, "The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism."
This is just a few examples of many. No, I'm not at all convinced.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
I confess to knowing little about international commerce and exchange practices. I don't know how often commodities were exchanged in place of monies, but I don't think it would matter much. The cash or commodities should equal in value. But, as I said, I'm out of my element here, perhaps I'm wrong.
Whether foreign goods entered as exchange for cotton shipments instead of cash makes no difference when it comes to duties being charged to their entry. However, a direct exchange between European buyers and southern brokers you refer to suggests that such cargoes would ship directly between Europe and southern ports, not via NYC, and it has been shown, incoming tonnage and duties collected in these southern ports hardly amounted to beans. Such traffic in barter would have made up part of that small amount.
The Southern states didn't know what, if any, of the tariffs collected by the Federal government would be spent in the South.
According to the figures John Taylor has supplied in post #1 of the Expenditures thread, based on the years 1851-1860, the South had very good reason to believe that a disproportionately large share would continue to be spent on her in discrectionary spending as well as the fixed costs of federal government in her area. Fearing that suddenly no money would be appropriated by Congress to operations in the South is unfounded.
Quote:
1. I have no background in economics and I can't place all that is being left out of the equation, but it does seem like incomplete information to me. There is simply more to the big picture than tariff rates.
Well, at least we've gotten past the charges that the average tariff rate was tripled in 1861. Statements like that ARE about tariff rates.
Whether foreign goods entered as exchange for cotton shipments instead of cash makes no difference when it comes to duties being charged to their entry. However, a direct exchange between European buyers and southern brokers you refer to suggests that such cargoes would ship directly between Europe and southern ports, not via NYC, and it has been shown, incoming tonnage and duties collected in these southern ports hardly amounted to beans. Such traffic in barter would have made up part of that small amount.
Cedarstripper
I do not believe a commodities exchange between planters agents and overseas buyers would mean a ship loaded with goods sailing into Southern ports. Why should it? Southerners were not merchants, they were agriculturalists.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
I do not believe a commodities exchange between planters agents and overseas buyers would mean a ship loaded with goods sailing into Southern ports. Why should it? Southerners were not merchants, they were agriculturalists.
Rose:
This would be the method of accomplishing a commoditities exchange. Ships sailing to northern ports would not be exchanging commodities. Ergo, trading by exchanging commodities was unlikely. Make sense?
By the way, although relatively few, there were southern merchants.
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
Rose:
This would be the method of accomplishing a commoditities exchange. Ships sailing to northern ports would not be exchanging commodities. Ergo, trading by exchanging commodities was unlikely. Make sense?
The way I expect a commodities exchange to take place would be for the individual selling the cotton to accept goods from the foreign importer in lieu of cash. The cotton seller would most likely never see these goods as they would be sold by a broker or an agent to others wishing to buy such goods. The goods may even be split into smaller parcels and sold to more than one buyer.
My point was that the U.S. exporter could only sell the commodities for the market price after duties were subtracted. Thus a cotton grower was paying the cost of the import duties on merchandise equal to the value of his cotton export (causing him to pay duties on his exports in a sense).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
By the way, although relatively few, there were southern merchants.
Yes, I didn't mean "no merchants" in the literal sense, but there weren't enough merchants in the South to warrant many large shiploads of goods arriving into Southern ports. Southerners purchased goods, both imports and domestic, mostly from the North.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
Rose's post #68 brings up a question that's been nagging (not Rose - the question).
How did this import/export business work -- mechanically? It's reasonable to assume that a ship owner wanted to cross the pond with a capacity load. So the ship comes into a port and unloads its cargo. It then loads another for the return trip. If the incoming went to Boston, did the ship sail empty to a southern port to pick-up cotton? Was the cotton shipped north for transfer to outbound boats?
I'm aware that European ports in the Caribbean were often in the loop, but I can't get my aging brain around the mechanics of the procedure.
Any suggestions?
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
The way I expect a commodities exchange to take place would be for the individual selling the cotton to accept goods from the foreign importer in lieu of cash. The cotton seller would most likely never see these goods as they would be sold by a broker or an agent to others wishing to buy such goods. The goods may even be split into smaller parcels and sold to more than one buyer.
Dear Rose,
Can you provide any instances of where such a type of traffic would have occurred or why you think European goods and cotton were bought and sold this way? And in your above scenario, how is the cotton grower paid for his cotton in the end since his compensation is now tied up in dutiable goods sitting in Northern ports, presumably consigned to northern merchants.
Quote:
My point was that the U.S. exporter could only sell the commodities for the market price after duties were subtracted.
Big problem. This states that the duty was not included in the market price and was not passed on to the consumer. This is a departure from your earlier statements and a contradiction of the theory you advocate that the duty was passed on from consumer to employer till it reached the grower/exporter who could not pass it on. Can you reconcile this?
The cotton crop was sold or consigned to cotton factors, who may or may not have already had ownership of the crop as collateral for supplying the grower on credit throughout the year. This factor would sell the cotton in forward contracts to brokers or buyers, either domestic of foreign.
These factors would supply the grower thoughout the year either directly through his merchandise, or with credit, typically at around 10%-12%. Having sold the cotton at the best contract price, the factor's interest was in buying his supplies wherever he could get the best prices on articles that would sell best to his market. This source was not necessarily in England and France. Certainly the shelves of southern mercantiles contained a combination of foreign, northern and local goods.
Factors and merchants would place their orders with jobbers, often in the northern ports, who would ship their goods as needed.
Why did foreign goods typically not ship directly to southern ports? I contend that it was not because Southerners lacked the gene necessary to become merchants, and it matters none where the assorted merchant came from. Certainly what goods were sold there were distributed and sold by someone, and if they were in any great amounts, being supplied from warehouses in Charleston, Savanah, Mobile, New Orleans and Houston certainly would have beat Boston and New York. I contend the reason was that there was not enough concentration of market in most all southern ports to warrant a boatload of coffee, or of tea, or of silk manufactures. Better suited to their market were smaller packet cargoes of a mixture of goods, heavily of domestic origin. Since the Northeast did have the necessary concentration of market, the transportation lines, and was the source of so much of the domestic product, it makes perfect sense that she would evolve into the hub of US commerce.
Your argument rests on a two way street of southern cotton going to Europe and European goods coming to the US, and you conclude that ultimately, the cotton grower is responsible for most of this trade and the revenue generated from it. But I think you need to broaden your view to include domestic commerce and world commerce. If England is to buy $10 million in cotton, you say, she must sell the US, or more precisely, the South $10 million in her exports. Not true. A negative trade imbalance with the US may be more than offset by a positive trade imbalance with other countries (or British colonies). And the bulk of foreign goods imported into the US can be bought heavily in the North, using funds gotten by selling their agricultural and finished goods to the South. I don't mean to imply that this system is limited to three parties either. Add in the rest of surface of the Earth and I think you now have a more accurate picture of international and domestic commerce. And its one that fits nicely with the actual antebellum shipping and trade patterns.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
