"We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched..."

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by trice

BTW, in case anyone is unaware, "paired-off" votes are arranged ahead of time by the people involved to make sure they have no effect on the outcome. Usually this means the Senators don't want to take a stand that could affect their re-election chances, or that they truly aren't sure what the best course would be.

Or they just can't be there for the vote, due to illness, or death in the family, or some other reason. Pairing off doesn't have to be moral weakness. It was just a gentleman's way of keeping his absence from having a negative impact on the vote.
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by ole

Consider that the $53MM was mostly tariff, and a tariff is a tax passed on to the purchasers of goods subject to tariff -- often expressed as an average per citizen by dividing that figure among 31 million. Now take the $25/34mm divided among 9 million people; do the math. How is that good?
Ole

If the 9 millions were paying 70-80% of the $53 million-

$37-42 million (and not getting an equal distribution of it to boot)

...and in the CSA are paying $25-34 million....and getting the full use of that amount for the cost of government, improvements, &c.

...then, yes, it would be a better deal.

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by trice

The 1861 vote is after 7 states had supposedly withdrawn; their Senators mostly resigned -- and if you assume they would have voted against it, their votes might have defeated the Morrill Tariff yet again.

Regards,
Tim

Sooner or later the South would have lost on the issue.

There were several changes in the Senate from 1860 to 1861-

* Two northern senators who voted against the tariff in 1860 lost their seats to pro-tariff candidates in the 1860 election.

* Oregon seated a pro-tariff senator (Baker) in late 1860.

* Breckinridge (VP and President of the Senate) would be replaced by Hamlin.
Hamlin would be able to cast any tie-breaking vote needed.

* Kansas would seat two Republicans in April 1861.

* Douglas (D-Ill.) who voted against the tariff in 1861...died later that year and was replaced by a Republican.


Changes-

.................................................. ........Anti-tariff..................Pro-tariff
Two anti-tariff senators lose seats..............-2................................+2
Baker of Oregon............................................ .............................+1
Kansas............................................ .........................................+2
Douglas........................................... ......-1................................+1

Net: +9 for the tariff

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by Battalion

If the 9 millions were paying 70-80% of the $53 million-

Originally Posted by Battalion

$37-42 million (and not getting an equal distribution of it to boot)

...and in the CSA are paying $25-34 million....and getting the full use of that amount for the cost of government, improvements, &c.

...then, yes, it would be a better deal.

A point made by Robert Barnwell Rhett in August 1860, in advocating secession.
The New York Times had said that since 90% of the tariffs were collected in the North, that the North paid 90% of the duties. Rhett corrected the fallacy.

“New York Times and the Mercury”
“Admitting that the people of the United States consume imported commodities in proportion to their population – the Northern States being eighteen millions, and the Southern States twelve millions – the Northern people pay only as three to two, or three-fifths of the taxes. Suppose the Southern people, with the Union dissolved, continue to be consumers of foreign commodities to the same extent as they now are, and that the same duties on them are collected – the revenue of the General Government being now eighty millions of dollars – the revenue of he South would be two-fifths – that is thirty-two millions of dollars. But this would by no means be the extent of her revenue. A duty on all Northern commodities, now entering the South free, but then taxed, must be added to her resources of revenue. The operation would be, Southern merchants would import foreign and Northern commodities into Southern cities, and pay the duties into a Southern treasury, to be expended in the South. We have no doubt that the Southern States united in a Southern Confederacy would support a government properly adequate to their protection for one half the amount of money now taken from them to support the General Government."
Charleston Mercury, 7 August 1860, pg. 1, col. 2.

“New York Times and the Mercury”
“Whether the North, in case the Union is dissolved, ‘would remain practically in possession of the revenues of the entire Republic’ (the United States), we leave our readers to judge after perusing our editorial of yesterday. In our judgement, as by a dissolution of the Union, the North would cease to import foreign commodities for the South, the revenue resulting form such importation would cease also. The duties on imports would be collected where the importations are made, and as these importations would necessarily be made in Southern ports, the duties would be paid and collected in Southern ports. Foreign commodities could not be imported into Northern ports for consumption in the South because they would pay a double duty – the duty exacted by the Northern Confederacy – and the duty in the Southern confederacy. Suppose the duty in both confederacies is twenty percent on English woollens; they pay twenty percent to enter New York, and when shipped from thence to Charleston, they would pay twenty percent more – being forty percent on the price of the woollens in Liverpool. The direct importer in Charleston would pay but one duty – the twenty percent exacted by the Southern Confederacy – and thus must undersell the importer from New York. The consequence must be that no foreign goods required for consumption in the Southern States, would enter a Northern port. They would enter Southern ports, and the duties on them would go into the Southern treasury. It is clear then, that the resources of the Southern States from taxes on importation for supporting their government, would be exactly commensurate to their consumption. These must be enormous, according to the Times, to meet the two dangers which would rise up to paralyze a Southern Confederacy. First, our four millions of serfs, and, second, the Northern States. It is a remarkable fact, that every insurrection of slavery in the South has been the work of white men, or the effects of the General Government. … That these agitation are to cease in the Union, no sane man can believe; whilst the intervention of Abolitionists, instigating our slaves to insurrection, arson and murder, is now, we suppose one of the ordinary operations of our union with the North.”
Charleston Mercury 8 August 1860, pg. 1, col. 2.

After secession, even if tariff rates staid the same (which they wouldn't), Southern duties would be set by the South, collected by the South, the money spent in the South (not on New England fishing bounties and internal improvements in Michigan), and the Northern monopoly on coastal shipping would be negated, and the Southern Confederacy could ship commodities via any ships they chose, whichever was cheapest.

Respectfully,
John Taylor

[ole]

If the 9 millions were paying 70-80% of the $53 million-

If is the big word here. That's saying that less than 30 percent of the population was paying at least 70 percent of the tariffs. As the tariff was certainly incorporated into the cost of goods sold to consumers, then less than 30 percent of the population was buying at least 70 percent of the imported goods.

Suppose the Southern people, with the Union dissolved, continue to be consumers of foreign commodities to the same extent as they now are, and that the same duties on them are collected – the revenue of the General Government being now eighty millions of dollars – the revenue of he South would be two-fifths – that is thirty-two millions of dollars.

The numbers seem to be at variance with what Battalion posted. Which are the more correct?
Ole

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by trice

Essentially what you are saying here is that European goods are fairly priced and Northern goods are not.

Actually, Tim, I am not drawing value judgments about the pricing (the Southern tax-payers of the era did, but I’m not). I mere stated that Northern products benefited from the effect of the tariff, whereas European imports in the Southern States were disadvantaged by it. I believe that the effect of the US tariff was to raise domestic prices, compared to imported competitors, and shift consumption from European products to American ones, taking money from American consumers and giving it to American producers in the process.

Originally Posted by trice

You are also saying that European supply is sufficient to make up for the loss of all Northern supply if freed from the tariff protection allowed Northern goods. But you offer no actual data to support your argument.

Tim, the topic of the thread was why Northerners insisted on retaining the Southern States against the will of the people of those States: they had an economic interest in retaining them. Now, if there were a Confederate tariff between Northern producers and Confederate consumers, clearly Northern business would be hurt by that. As for whether there was sufficient spare capacity in Europe to cover the shift in commerce once secession occurred, I am looking into the economic date I have and will get back to you. In general, I would say that pre-secession domestic US (i.e. post-tariff) price = European price + US tariff, or pretty darn close to it. Eliminate or reduce the tariff (through secession of a portion of the States, or through simple tariff reduction nationwide) and US producers are in trouble. In the mean time, I would merely assert that both Southern secessionists and Northern anti-secessionists believed that allowing the Southern to secede peacefully would hurt Northern business interests by shifting consumption from Northern manufacturers to European ones.

Originally Posted by trice

I don't actually know what the specific tariff rate was on manufactured cotton or woolen goods in 1860 -- do you? I do know the rates in the Tariff of 1857 declined over time

Really? Got a source for this? I know that tariff of 1833 did this, but I have never heard that the tariff of 1857 would do the same.

Originally Posted by trice

, that there were discounts for being carried in US flag ships,

only coffee, as far as I know.

Originally Posted by trice

and that the Confederate rate was scheduled to be 15% in 1861 (Starting August 31, IIRR) I have heard that the average US rate collected across all goods in 1860 was 18%.

I have never really understood where this “average rate” comes from. Is that merely the median of the various rates? Is the “average rate” weighted for the amount of revenue each rate generates?

Originally Posted by trice

One thing that means is that the total difference between Confederate and US rates on these goods might be 18%-15% = 3% or less, maybe 1.2% reduction if the 10% (?) ship discount vanishes. Do you really think that is going to send Confederate consumer prices down? Or do you think European prices will simply stay about the same?

Oh, they might indeed go up. It would depend on elasticities of supply and demand

Originally Posted by trice

Northern manufacturers might lower prices because of this new tariff -- but what makes you think they will lower it to offset the new 15% tariff completely? What makes you think they would be able to do so?

The efficient ones would cut their prices in order to try and compete against European products in the Confederate market. If no Northern business was able to become more efficient and cut their prices enough to compete in the Confederacy, then all Confederate consumption would be shifted to European producers. If those European producers were cranking out their products at max capacity, then prices would go up, in the short run. Then either prices would go up to the point that some Northern producers could compete, or the higher prices would induce more European manufacturers to go into what field we are talking about, or maybe Southerner would start producing some of the commodity in question for themselves.

Originally Posted by trice

Do you know what the relative prices of similar-quality products were in 1860? Assuming the Northern manufacturers really did need some or all of that protection (i.e., their cost-of-production was higher than Europeans) to compete, end price to Southern consumers (Northern price plus new tariff) might be higher, and the price of European goods might rise because of weaker competition.

You may be absolutely right about this scenario. The more likely impact of weaker competition is merely a shift from consumption of Northern products to consuming comparable European products. If the European producers can cope with the increased demand, then the pre-tariff price may not change at all, in which case, the effect of secession may be a reduction in price (the unchanged European price + smaller Confederate tariff). But let’s assume you’re right, and European producers do increase their pre-tariff price. They would know that if they increased their prices too much, they would leave the door open to Northern producers regaining a share of the Southern market, so there is a cap on how much that increase can be.

Originally Posted by trice

Unless and until you do the detail work here, you really have no idea what the impact of the change will be -- yet you assure us only one answer is possible. That is not believable, but many politicians with a vision do practice economics that way.

One point that is indisputable is that secession would interrupt the Northern producers’ relative domination of the Southern market, which is why they were desperate to suppress secession, which is, I believe, the point of the thread.
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by ole

If is the big word here. That's saying that less than 30 percent of the population was paying at least 70 percent of the tariffs. As the tariff was certainly incorporated into the cost of goods sold to consumers, then less than 30 percent of the population was buying at least 70 percent of the imported goods.The numbers seem to be at variance with what Battalion posted. Which are the more correct?
Ole

What do you think, Ole? I have made no secret of my view that the Southern people probably paid tariffs pretty close to the ratio of population (i.e. 3/5ths for the North, 2/5ths for the South), maybe more (if you take per capita income into account; I believe that Southern per capita income was higher than Northern, so they probably consumed more stuff, including imported stuff), but not the 75%-90% that was (and is) bandied about.
But that number was widely believe, North and South, before the war. People acted based on that understanding of the relationship.
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[Battalion]

..................................Value In Millions of Dollars

Mfg. Items Produced in the United States 1860
North...................................1,727
South.....................................155

Mfg. Items Consumed in the United States
Total Mfg. Items produced in the United States............1,882
Mfg. Items Exported.(less)................................... ........88
Mfg. Items Imported.......................................... ........267
Total Mfg. Items Consumed...................................2,061


Consumed by % of Population
North (70.9%)........................................... .............1,461
South (29.1%)........................................... ...............600

.................................................. .........................2,061

~~~


Value of Mfg. Items Produced in the North
and Sold in the South (Estimate).....................................240

~~~


Domestic Mfg. Items Consumed in the South:
Value of Northern Mfg. Items Sold South (Est.)..................240
Assuming the South uses all its Manufactured Items...........155

Sub-Total............................................. ......................395

Consumed in South According to % of Population................600

Deficit (600-395).............................................. ...........205

Total Mfg. Items Imported to US......................................267

~~~


Raw Materials Imported 86
(Consumed Proportionately)
North 61
South 25

~~~



Total Imports to the North (62 Mfg. + 61 Raw).................123 (34.8%)
Total Imports to the South (205 Mfg. + 25 Raw)...............230 (65.2%)


~

.................................................. ...US.............Northern Products.......................................... ..............
Mfg. Items....Produced....Exported...Consumed....Sold South...Sold North......Imports.......Total Mfg's Consumed
North.............1,727.........-88...........1,639........(-)240.........1,399.............62............1,461 (1,399+62)
South...............155............0.............1 55.......(+)240...............0............205.... .........600 (155+240+205)

These numbers assume that there are No Southern Exports and No Southern products sold North.

If there are any Southern exports or sales to the North...
...then the number of imports to the South increase...those to the North decrease.


~~~

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by trice

I don't actually know what the specific tariff rate was on manufactured cotton or woolen goods in 1860 -- do you?

The tariff rate for cotton manufactures in the US tarriff was 24%. The Confederate tariff of May 1861 on cotton manufactures was 15%. The Morrill tariff rate was more complicated. It used specific rates, not ad valorem rates, and these specifics increased depending on the quality of the cloth in question: "On all manufactures of cotton not bleached, colored, stained, painted, or printed, and not exceeding one hundred threads to the square inch, counting the warp and filling, and exceeding in weight five ounces per square yard, one cent per square yard; on finer or lighter goods of like description, not exceeding one hundred and forty threads to the square inch, counting the warp and filling, two cents per square yard; on goods of like description, exceeding one hundred and forty threads, and not exceeding two hundred threads to the square inch, counting the warp and filling, three cents per square yard; on like goods exceeding two hundred threads to the square inch, counting the warp and filling, four cents per square yard; on all goods embraced in the foregoing schedules, if bleached, there shall be levied, collected, and paid an additional duty of one-half of one cent per square yard; and if printed, painted, colored, or stained, there shall be levied, collected, and paid a duty of ten per centum in addition to the rates of duty provided in the foregoing schedules."

W. W. Boyce, spoke in the House of Representatives against the use of specific duties in February 1859. He said. "They are too convenient an instrument of the protective policy. While an ad valorem duty of fifty, sixty, seventy-five, or one hundred per cent for protection, would shock the justice of any fair-minded person, a specific duty of the same or greater amount, from its hidden character, would not excite attention. If the purpose be to give the greatest amount of protection in the most covert way, then specific duties are to be preferred." Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 35th Congress, 2nd Session Page 242 of 1692.

Boyce also showed, that, as of 1849, Blue drillings sold for 3¢/yard. That equates to a 33% tariff (assuming that drilling does not contain more than 100 threads per square inch; if it did, the rate was double that.
So, the tariff on cotton manufactures
under 1857…………Morrill……….Confederate tariffs:
24%…………………33%…………15%

1857: Wool had been in schedule C in the tariff of 1846. The Tariff of 1857 reduced the rate for Schedule+ C from 30% to 24%.

Morrill tariff: “Second: On woollen cloths, woollen shawls, and all manufactures of wool of every description, made wholly or in part of wool, not otherwise provided for, a duty of twelve cents per pound, and in addition thereto twenty-five per centum ad valorem.”

Confederate tariff charged 15%.

So, the tariff on woolen manufactures:
under 1857…………Morrill………………...Confederate tariffs:
24%…………………12¢ + 25%…………15%

Respectfully,
John Taylor

[unionblue]

Battalion,

One dollar and ninety-four cents.

$1.94 or one hundred and ninety-four pennies.

For one year.

For every person in the United States.

IF they imported something, not before.

So how does this add up in your opinion, facts and figures, charts and lists, why anyone would want to kill a brother, father, son, unlce, nephew, or even a perfect stranger for?

And please, PLEASE tell me, in any battle, skirmish, action, land or sea, where anyone, soldier, commander, free or slave, led the charge with the cry, "DOWN WITH THE TARIFF!" I will even accept a cry, if you can produce it, from a Northerner, ANY Northerner, which led his men into battle with the cry, "FOR THE TARIFF MEN!"

I await your research.
Unionblue