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.
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 trice
Maybe, but, even if the war hadn't broken out, since the Confederate Congress was obliged to pass laws to interdict the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, and the Deep South strongly felt they needed additional slaves, it is difficult to imagine the circumstances in which the Confederacy would have outlawed the importation of Virginia slaves. Not much of a lever, if you ask me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
That may be, but this wasn't one of them. The Confederacy wasn't very likely at all to enact a prohibition against importation of slaves from the slaves States of the US. 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
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.
Tim, the way the tariff would work would be a little different from the way you are describing it. In the US under the tariff of 1857, some American-made commodities are protected. Using an example I used in a previous post (high grade wool), the post-tariff US price on imported wool would be $1.25. Under the Morrill Tariff, it would be $1.37. Now, here is the interesting part. The cost of US-made high grade wool would also increase until it was at (or just shy of) $1.25 (under the 1857 tariff) or $1.37 under Morrill. That is why you enact protective tariffs, to increase demand for domestic commodities. Since in the short run, the domestically-manufactured supply somewhat fixed, prices for domestic items goes up. Eventually, attracted by higher profits, more American assets are devoted to the suddenly more lucrative industry, and supply eventually increases. Depending on the level of the tariff, the amount of the world supply that the US consumes. the price may be inelastic, the domestic price may never go down. Anyway, the fact that the Confederate consumer was no longer in the US market would mean that US products would now be subject to a tariff, whereas, formerly they weren't. But, and here is the point, products from other countries would be cheaper. Using the high grade wool yarn example, British yarn would no longer cost on $1.25 as it did under the tariff of 1857 (of $1.37 under Morrill), now, the Confederate consumer would pay $1.16 per pound, so, as far as he is concerned, it is a tax cut. Note that this only works if there is a suitable imported substitute. If the US producers were the world's only producers, then secession would mean a price increase for the Confederate consumer. I am unaware of any commodity for which the US was the world's only, or event the world's most significant, producer, except cotton. 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
Maybe, but, even if the war hadn't broken out, since the Confederate Congress was obliged to pass laws to interdict the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, and the Deep South strongly felt they needed additional slaves, it is difficult to imagine the circumstances in which the Confederacy would have outlawed the importation of Virginia slaves. Not much of a lever, if you ask me.
The necessary legislation was passed in February of 1861, vetoed by Jefferson Davis (his first veto of many) over an objectionable clause and passed again with changes as pointed to by Davis.
What Davis had objected to, BTW, was an interesting clause that would allow the Confederate government to sell as slaves in certain circumstances people who had been illegally imported for sale as slaves. This was regarded by Davis as an attempt to bring the slave trade in by the backdoor and an invitation to corruption; he thought it unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
That may be, but this wasn't one of them. The Confederacy wasn't very likely at all to enact a prohibition against importation of slaves from the slaves States of the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Why not? As I have noted, they did many things that make little sense to us. For example, they instituted a self-imposed embargo on shipment of cotton in 1861 in order to put pressure on England and France. Looking back, this is seen as dumb: there was a huge surplus in European warehouses after the run of record cotton crops in the late 1850s and 1860, so no pressure would be generated for a long time, and the South needed the income to fight the war. Yet they did it, no matter what we think of their actions!
They had different ideas about their place in the world, and they showed themselves time and again to be very poor at the business of compromise. They insisted on having their own way, and they believed in pressure as the means of getting what they wanted. So they offered states like Virginia carrots on one hand (intimations that Virginia could be the next great manufacturing center, etc.) and veiled threats on the other.
If you want to say they were inept in what they did, I'll agree. But please do not try to maintain they were not threatening the Upper South when they did it.
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
John, do you know how far upriver deep-draft ocean vessels could safely travel on the Mississippi River in 1861? At what times of year they could make the trip? Do you think the statement in the Confederate Tariff act represents a fiction or a reality?
IIRR, It was regarded as quite impressive that Farragut attempted to take his fleet to Vicksburg in May of 1862, and he rapidly retreated after his failure there because he believed his ships might be stranded there by the Summer by a falling river.
In all likelihood, any goods coming through the port at New Orleans would be unloaded and transhipped either on barges or riverboats. Ocean-going ships would not be making that voyage upriver. That is how the trade was carried on before the Civil War.
In all likelihood, any goods coming through the port at New Orleans would be unloaded and transhipped either on barges or riverboats. Ocean-going ships would not be making that voyage upriver. That is how the trade was carried on before the Civil War.
Thanks, Tim. You explained what I had assumed (apparently erroneously) that everyone knew: you didn't take ocean-going freighters up the Mississippi at any time of year. In the January to April period, the river would have begun to rise toward the beginning of March, reaching its peak, on average, in late March. But the Mississippi changed from day to day all year long. It was possible but imprudent to move anything other than river-craft upstream from New Orleans.
Farragut knew the limitations posed by that implacable and unforgiving river, and prudently left Dodge.
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
In all likelihood, any goods coming through the port at New Orleans would be unloaded and transhipped either on barges or riverboats. Ocean-going ships would not be making that voyage upriver. That is how the trade was carried on before the Civil War.
With one big difference. The Warehousing Act of 1846 allowed merchants/shippers to deposit cargo into a bonded warehouse and leave it there without paying the duty for up to one year. This enabled the merchant to find a buyer, get his payment, pay the duty before withdrawing it. This arrangement greatly facilitated international shipping by easing the financing of duty payment. I am not sure if the Confederate duty allowed anything similar, but I will check. I think you are correct, however, that a sea-going vessel will probably not make the trip to Memphis at all, or at least for much of the year.
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
Tim, the way the tariff would work would be a little different from the way you are describing it. In the US under the tariff of 1857, some American-made commodities are protected. Using an example I used in a previous post (high grade wool), the post-tariff US price on imported wool would be $1.25. Under the Morrill Tariff, it would be $1.37. Now, here is the interesting part. The cost of US-made high grade wool would also increase until it was at (or just shy of) $1.25 (under the 1857 tariff) or $1.37 under Morrill. That is why you enact protective tariffs, to increase demand for domestic commodities. Since in the short run, the domestically-manufactured supply somewhat fixed, prices for domestic items goes up. Eventually, attracted by higher profits, more American assets are devoted to the suddenly more lucrative industry, and supply eventually increases. Depending on the level of the tariff, the amount of the world supply that the US consumes. the price may be inelastic, the domestic price may never go down. Anyway, the fact that the Confederate consumer was no longer in the US market would mean that US products would now be subject to a tariff, whereas, formerly they weren't. But, and here is the point, products from other countries would be cheaper. Using the high grade wool yarn example, British yarn would no longer cost on $1.25 as it did under the tariff of 1857 (of $1.37 under Morrill), now, the Confederate consumer would pay $1.16 per pound, so, as far as he is concerned, it is a tax cut. Note that this only works if there is a suitable imported substitute. If the US producers were the world's only producers, then secession would mean a price increase for the Confederate consumer. I am unaware of any commodity for which the US was the world's only, or event the world's most significant, producer, except cotton.
Confederate Imports in 1860 and Confederate Revenue Projects for 1861 in millions of dollars.Item Imports from NorthImports from WorldTotalConfederate Tariff Rate 1861Projected Revenue from Tariff, 1861Canned, Smoked Fish303150.45Coffee0101000.00Sugar, Brown033200.60Molasses011200.20Salt01100.00Tea404100.40Soap and Candles606150.90Paper 707151.05Cotton Woven Goods271542156.30Woolen Goods 34135155.25Ready-Made Clothing24024153.60Hosiery404150.60Hats707151.05Shoes30030154.50Linen Goods415150.75Furniture101150.15Carpeting404150.45Musical Instruments202150.30Cast Iron Stoves 11011151.65Farm Implements404150.60Nails and Spikes 202150.30Bar, Sheet, and RR Iron8311151.65Pig Iron606150.90Cigars 022250.50Silk Goods12012151.80Total2003723733.95
Source is an academic paper called Imagining 'A Great Manufacturing Empire:' Virginia and the pPossibilities of a Confederate Tariff by
Jay Carlander (UCSB) and John Majewski (UCSB)
No one has said that the North was the only source of goods here; you have introduced that issue as a strawman to knock down. What I think is that the people of the Confederacy would now be paying a tariff on goods they had not previously paid a tariff on and that that this would be a substantial amount per person. Even on King Cotton, at the peak the South was only about 7/8ths of the worldwide supply.
Now the world (really England, France, and maybe some German states) might have started competing for some of that $200 million of business.
Wow. That chart looked Ok in the editor, came out really bad after posting. Sorry about that.
Tim, I have read Carlander and Majewski.
How do you think that a tariff like the 1857 tariff impacts international trade? Do you deny that it raises domestic prices? Do you deny that it causes some consumers to switch from consuming foreign goods (pre-tariff) to consuming domestic products (or substitutes)?
The impact of any tariff will depend on the elasticity of demand (and possibly the elesticity of supply) for that commodity. Let me give you an example (not a civil war example, but the principles are the same. If the US government imposed a 400% tariff in insulin used by diabetics, the amount consumed would not drop very much, and the incidence of the tariff would be mostly on consumers. If you pass a 400% tariff on coffee, a lot of people would switch to tea, or some other product, so the incidence of the tariff is consumption society decides to forego. The elasticity of demand determines a lot about who pays for the tariff. And the US share of the world market goes a long way in determining the elasticity of demand.
The people of the South would be paying a lower tariff after independence from the US, and would pay lower post-tariff prices, since they would be freed from the 1857 (and later, the Morrill tariff). If the only suppliers of the goods they consumed was the US, then you would be right. Which American-made commodities do you think fit that bill? No comment on that?
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
If the only suppliers of the goods they consumed was the US, then you would be right. Which American-made commodities do you think fit that bill?
The south, although a major producer of sugar, had but little capacity to refine it. They had but little capacity to turn their wealth of cotton into fabric or thread; ditto, wool. The non-cotton agricultural enterprises were unable to feed the entire population, let alone their animals -- and not mentioning at all the inability to transport such as they did have throughout the south. They would have had to import many, many things from abroad. And what do you suppose the price of refined sugar would become if it didn't come from the north? You got it -- exactly what the north would have charged for it, or as much more as they could get away with by trading on the hatred of the north.
The south was more dependent on northern manufacture or imports than their leaders lead them to believe.
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
With one big difference. The Warehousing Act of 1846 allowed merchants/shippers to deposit cargo into a bonded warehouse and leave it there without paying the duty for up to one year. This enabled the merchant to find a buyer, get his payment, pay the duty before withdrawing it. This arrangement greatly facilitated international shipping by easing the financing of duty payment. I am not sure if the Confederate duty allowed anything similar, but I will check.
Why do you see that as a difference? What you are saying is that the payment of the duty is delayed -- a common practice even today for international as well as internal trade. For example, if you visit the Jack Daniels distillery in TN, the hills around it are covered with bonded warehouses filled with whiskey aging in casks. The company has not yet paid the Federal tax on the whiskey inside, and does pay it when the whiskey is removed from the warehouse and shipped. There were 22 warehouses when I was there IIRR -- and I discovered at the end of the tour that the distillery was located in a dry county (about 1989; I think they changed it after I passed through).
But the point of the warehouse is that payment of the tariff is only delayed. Any goods coming through still are subject to the tariff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
I think you are correct, however, that a sea-going vessel will probably not make the trip to Memphis at all, or at least for much of the year.
It would be extremely difficult for an ocean-going ship to go much beyond Baton Rouge, LA and most would simply stop to unload at New Orleans. Even then, many would probably be using tugs to get to New Orleans.
For some it would be simply impossible. No sailing ship would make this trip upriver. Many ocean steamships would have great difficulty with the current, particularly in flood times, and might find "Full steam ahead" meant they were going backwards if they were underpowered. In addition, what you need on a river like the Mississippi is a flat-bottomed riverboat or barge and decidely not a deep-hulled keel-based ship as ocean vessels are.
For those that could, the voyage would be an accountant's nightmare. The large chance of being damaged, the possibility of being marooned for three months or so in the river, the added time and expense of a journey of some 800 miles just to get to Memphis -- things like this would make a voyage upriver economically disastrous.
Above Memphis, you have no chance of moving a large, deep-draft ocean-going vessel even at the best of times. Farragut might have been able to get his ships there -- but he was working with powerful naval vessels with large crews, totally different than your average merchantman. Even if he got there, he would have had to immediately turn around to get back to LA before the river fell for June-July-August.
It was possible to get a shallow-draft oceangoing vessel down the river. One such warship was actually built in Pittsburgh and brought down to the Gulf before the Civil War (the Alligator?) via the Ohio-Mississippi route. But that is a very different thing than going up the river, and was a special case where lots of labor and resources were available to get the job done.
There was a time when political pressure created a Navy Yard in Memphis. This was one of the political boondoggles of the day. The idea was that the West of that day wasn't getting its' "fair share" of the naval spending going largely to New England, and that a naval yard 800 miles up the Mississippi would be safe from the British fleet. Between 1845 and 1854, a million dollars was poured into this fiasco and then it was closed, still unfinished. The only thing that came of it was a ropewalk factory, but the quality of hemp from the area was so poor 2/3rds was rejected and that was abandoned. The only one in the Navy who seems to have wanted it was a young Lt. Mathew Maury; otherwise the Navy was against it. Heck, the Navy didn't even want a base in New Orleans, thinking Pennsacola sufficient, but another $100,000 was spent there.
Hmm. Come to think of it, the Memphis Navy Yard looks like a clear example of waste and special-interest payments to appease Western, primarily slave-owning, politicians/businessmen in KY/TN/MO. Yet we don't see any Northern states threatening secession over the issue as the South did over issues like the Fishing Bounties (which brought much more benefit to the nation as a whole). Maybe they understood it for what it was: politics as usual, logrolling for votes to get other issues through.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
