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.
Tim, can you provide a case from the record of the time, between February 25th and April 12th 1861, in which a vessel bound for a port within the United States, up the Mississippi (or down the river from the US) that paid the Confederate tariff?
BTW, the Provisional Congress of the Confederacy passed their first tariff on February 9, 1861 (essentially the same as the 1857 US Tariff then in effect). This imposed an ad valorem rate of 24% on most manufactured goods.
They modified this on February 18, exempting most food products, arms, ammunition, and gunpowder (very practical since they had a war in mind).
They modified it again March 15, lowering the rate on pig iron and other iron products to 15 percent.
As noted elsewhere, they had agents in place to collect it on all the RRs crossing the border by March 20, or said they did. I doubt they missed the Mississippi River as they established their cordon. What do you think?
John,
I still haven't found an instance of a ship on the Mississippi, but maybe this will help open your eyes:
From Harper's Weekly, March 30, 1861
CUSTOM-HOUSES ON THE FRONTIER.
A telegram dated Charleston, March 20, says: Measures have been taken by the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Memminger, to prevent the introduction of goods by the inland routes.
At all railway connections between the Confederate and Border States officers have been stationed to enforce the decrees and tariff regulations of the Confederate States.
Now if the Confederacy had already taken steps to enforce the regulations and laws on imports on all the RR connections across the NC-TN-AR line by March 20, 1861 I believe it is only reasonable to expect that they had done so on the biggest route of all, the Mississippi River. Do you somehow think otherwise? Please give us a define yes-or-no answer here.
Tim, I am sure that they put customs officers on the Mississippi (probably just south of Memphis, or at Vicksburg) to collect the Confederate tariff on US goods that were destined for the Confederacy. But US goods bound for Europe or elsewhere went on their merry way free of any tariff, in accordance with Confederate law.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Gee, John, you seem to have stopped short of reading the next paragraph here:
Sec. 9. (2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
Since every foreign country other than the US has already been eliminated by (1), just who do you think (2) is aimed at? Could this be a deliberate threat, already issued, against the slave states remaining in the Union? Can it be that the Confederacy was already taking action, just as I told you, and you just don't wish to see or acknowledge it? If you were in VA or MD, selling slaves to the Deep South in 1861, could you see this as anything but a threat to your livelihood? Doesn't this effectively say "Join us, or we can cut you off at any time"?
I see it requires the Confederate Congress to stop the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, and allows the Confederacy to prohibit slave trading between the USA and the CSA. Did they actually enact such a prohibition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Don't spend too much time avoiding the data here. I admit I appear to be wrong on the actual prohibition in the Constitution, but the threat is unmistakable. Surely you can now admit what the Confederacy was doing here, trying to exert pressure on the Upper South to get them to secede through this, can't you?
I have no doubt that this was on the minds of some. I doubt that it was seriously contemplated, however. The Deep South needed slaves as much as Virginia needed to sell them. But I will admit it was a theoretical possibility.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
PS: I was overly harsh with my post #15 in this thread. I disagree with you, but I do not wish to be disagreeable. Apologies. If you find a source showing that the Confederates imposed tariffs on goods on entering the Mississippi but destined for the US, I would be greatly endebted to you.
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
PS: I was overly harsh with my post #15 in this thread. I disagree with you, but I do not wish to be disagreeable. Apologies. If you find a source showing that the Confederates imposed tariffs on goods on entering the Mississippi but destined for the US, I would be greatly endebted to you.
A salute to an obvious gentleman.
On your request, you can appreciate that between the ratification of the CSA Constitution and the closing of the Mississippi to any commerce destined for the north (if my dementia hasn't progressed too far, was shortly after Lincoln's call for troops) left very little time for shipments to be off-loaded at New Orleans, assessed a tariff, and loaded onto north-bound steamers.
There may have been a few, there may have been none. How many, if any, seems to deviate from the main point: there would have been had circumstances not been compelled by the Sumter siezure.
Regards,
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
Au contraire, mon ami.
On January 26th, 1861, immediately after passing the ordinance of secession, “the people of the State of Louisiana recognized the right of free navigation of the Mississippi river and its tributaries by all friendly States bordering thereon. And we also recognize the right of egress and ingress of the mouth of the Mississippi by all friendly States and powers; and we do hereby declare our willingness to enter into any stipulation to guarantee the exercise of said rights.” (Official Journal of the Proceedings of the Convention of the State of Louisiana, (New Orleans, J. G. Nixon, 1861), pg. 18.)
By "free", what do you think they meant? They did not mean "free of charge". Since LA would benefit by charging tariffs on traffic through the Mississippi, I would expect they would want ships and goods to pass through -- but a new toll would be added.
Louisiana had already taken over the Customs facilities and functions at this point, including all money present when they made their move. This was the money financing the formation of the Confederacy in Montgomery for the most part, as well as paying for a number of new expenses in Louisiana (such as buying arms, etc.) Since the states of the upper Mississippi basin had formerly shared in the revenue collected at New Orleans and now do not, have they not ALREADY been effectively subjected to a new tax? Since they had never before had to pay tariffs on goods shipped to the seven seceding states, have they not already been subjected to a new tax?
PS: I was overly harsh with my post #15 in this thread. I disagree with you, but I do not wish to be disagreeable. Apologies. If you find a source showing that the Confederates imposed tariffs on goods on entering the Mississippi but destined for the US, I would be greatly endebted to you.
In 1860, there were approximately 237 million dollars worth of goods entering what would be the 11 Confederate states in 1861 that would be subject to the Confederate tariff. Of those, $200 million came from Northern states. Instead of being sent through duty-free, they would now be subjected to a tariff.
This was part of the argument the secessionists made in Virginia.
William Benning of Georgia was sent to address the Virginia secession convention. He argued that Virginia would become a manufacturing power by finding protection behind the Confederate tariff: “Why will not she take the place now held by New England and New York, and furnish to the South these goods?" (Note: some Virginians had been advocating a protective tariff at the state level since 1829. In 1860, Edmund Ruffin advocated a protective tariff to promote Virginia's industrial development at the expense of Northern states in his fictional Anticipations of the Future.)
Because of the Union blockade, Confederate tariff revenues only came to about $3.5 million dollars for the war. However, projecting the new Confederate tariffs onto a repeat of 1860 imports would yield $34 million. Assuming smuggling and inefficiency would have prevented that, one recent paper suggest they would have received about $25 million -- or $4.46/capita on every free resident of the Confederacy. (US tariff burden in 1860 was $53 million or $1.94/capita, but obviously based on a different population.)
On your request, you can appreciate that between the ratification of the CSA Constitution and the closing of the Mississippi to any commerce destined for the north (if my dementia hasn't progressed too far, was shortly after Lincoln's call for troops) left very little time for shipments to be off-loaded at New Orleans, assessed a tariff, and loaded onto north-bound steamers.
There may have been a few, there may have been none. How many, if any, seems to deviate from the main point: there would have been had circumstances not been compelled by the Sumter siezure.
The time frame is roughly from January when LA took over the Customs (and the cash) at New Orleans to mid-April. LA gave a large portion of this to support the initial set up of the Confederacy in Montgomery.
[quote=JohnTaylor]I see it requires the Confederate Congress to stop the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, and allows the Confederacy to prohibit slave trading between the USA and the CSA. Did they actually enact such a prohibition?{/quote]
John, it was being used as a lever to get the other states to seced with them. Four of them DID secede after Fort Sumter and there was never any need to apply it against them. Two more the South considered to have seceded, so no need to apply it there unless they wanted to get rid of that fiction. That leaves DE (with under 2000 slaves and under 600 slave owners) and MD (occupied by Union troops as Virginia was occupied by Confederate ones after April, 1861). Once war came, the trade was already cut off and there was no reason to pass such a law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
I have no doubt that this was on the minds of some. I doubt that it was seriously contemplated, however. The Deep South needed slaves as much as Virginia needed to sell them. But I will admit it was a theoretical possibility.
Amazingly different if you happen to be one of the people who's livelihood is threatened by this clause. This was obviously theoretical because it had not happened yet, but the people of the time considered it a serious possibility. The secessionists said and did a lot of things that we see today as obviously foolish or non-workable.
Tim, I am sure that they put customs officers on the Mississippi (probably just south of Memphis, or at Vicksburg) to collect the Confederate tariff on US goods that were destined for the Confederacy. But US goods bound for Europe or elsewhere went on their merry way free of any tariff, in accordance with Confederate law.
In passing, please note once again that the entire issue of whether the seceding states had any right to do this at all is very debatable, and was denied by the rest of the Union. If there is no "right of secession", this is all unconstitutional.
This, like your previous question about the rights of a foreign nation, is merely an attempt to assert an unproven theorem as a fact and argue from there. Nice if you can slip it past, but not at all representative of the real situation.
On your request, you can appreciate that between the ratification of the CSA Constitution and the closing of the Mississippi to any commerce destined for the north (if my dementia hasn't progressed too far, was shortly after Lincoln's call for troops) left very little time for shipments to be off-loaded at New Orleans, assessed a tariff, and loaded onto north-bound steamers.
There may have been a few, there may have been none. How many, if any, seems to deviate from the main point: there would have been had circumstances not been compelled by the Sumter siezure.
Ole, thanks for the kind words.
As for the tariffs, the Confederate law (signed Febrary 25th 1861) did not require off-loading at all. The captain of the vessel merely had to provide the Confederate customs agent a bill of lading, and post a bond that his cargo would not be unloaded while going up the river in Confederate territory. When he left the Confederacy, his bond was refunded. Old Northwest trade could have easily been continued as before under this system. Now, trade between the Old Northwest and the new Confederacy would have been taxed, but not the international trade.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
