The Walker Tariff of 1846

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Status
Not open for further replies.

lurid

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
638
so the republican party platform was not to raise tariffs? and that is not a grievance? really? Your own chart betrays your logic. From 1860 to the mid late 1860's the tariffs spiked. This was not a result of war and recovering cost or paying for costs of war...this tariff was debated since 1857 when there was no war....and was what the Republican/whig platform was about. Lincoln was a Henry Clay Whig.....it wasnt even a secret what they were planning to do if they won. It's ok to change your opinion and not "lose" a debate...it's just adjusting your perception some. it's OK. When i had poor information on export taxes...i listened...researched more...and changed my perspective..it didnt mean anything expect i had bad info. i survived.
I won this so-called debate like 5 days ago, from that time on it's been school for you. We are not talking about 1860 to the mid late 1860s, we are talking about the purported unfair tariffs that the Walker Tariff exposed as an extraordinary fallacy. Yes, it was debated since 1857, and if you would have read it correctly you would have been shocked beyond belief until you were consternated that the Tariff of 1857 lowered rates by 15-25% from the already low Walker Tariff.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,948
the South, unlike the North, was dependent on foreign trade for the majority of its income. Southerners earned most of their money by selling cotton and tobacco to foreigners. Europe, Britain much more than the other nations, purchased the lion's share of southern cotton.


The high tariffs imposed on U.S. imports severely diminished European ability to earn dollars by exporting their goods to us. A large portion of the revenues from sales of their goods to us would not go into European pockets but to the U.S. Treasury instead. The Europeans would have fewer dollars left over with which to buy our agricultural products. With fewer dollars in European pockets available for the purchase of cotton, the price of cotton must plunge in order to meet the reduced amount of money available in the market for its purchase. The South, therefore, liked low import tax rates because the low import taxes meant that foreigners had more money left over to bid for cotton. Under low tariff rates, high cotton prices would be a sure thing.


The example of the transactions of a British supercargo in the New York port makes the mathematics come alive for easy understanding. There are two examples, one without a tariff and one with the tariff.


In the first example, with free trade (that is, without a tariff), a ship from Liverpool, England, ties up at the wharf in New York. The supercargo, that is, the ship's officer who has charge of the cargo and its sale and purchase, watches while his ship is unloaded. Cranes lift bundles of bar iron and packages of woolen fabric from the hold and over the sides of the ship, depositing them on the dock. From there they are carried into the warehouse. The warehouseman pays the supercargo for the merchandise the sum $10,000.


The supercargo takes the money and walks over to the cotton exchange. He says, "Gentlemen, I will take $10,000 worth of cotton for my return trip to Liverpool."


The cotton broker says, "Sir, demand is heavy and cotton is at 35 cents per pound." "For $10,000 I can give you 28,857 pounds of cotton. That will be about fifty-eight 500-pound bales." "Do you have room in your hold, Sir?"


"Yes. I will take it all," says the supercargo. "Load up my ship." The cotton is loaded on board and the captain sails on the morning tide out of the harbor back to Liverpool with the load of cotton destined for the British cotton mills.


Then the United States government imposes a forty-percent tariff on iron and woolen fabric.


On its next trip, the ship from Liverpool again ties up at the wharf in New York. Bundles of bar iron and packages of woolen fabric again are unloaded from the hold to the dock and are carried into the warehouse. The warehouseman pays the supercargo $10,000 for the merchandise.


Now the supercargo must go to the U.S. Customs office and pay the customs officer forty-percent of the money, $4,000. He is left with only six-thousand dollars in his wallet.


Arriving at the cotton exchange, he says to the cotton broker, "I'm sorry, Sir, but your government has taken away a large share of the proceeds from the iron and woolens. Now I only have $6,000 left to give you for a load of cotton."


The cotton broker is anguished, because his normal percentage commission will yield less money for him than before. He cannot say, simply, "I'm sorry, but I will just have to sell it to someone else." He already knows that every other foreign buyer is in the same situation. The tariff has cut into their income in the same way.


The broker knows that he cannot just withhold the cotton. He can't let it sit in the warehouse, especially when there is no prospect of better business conditions tomorrow. He must sell the cotton for whatever money there is in the market to purchase it. The price of the cotton must decline accordingly. Now, the price of that fifty-eight bales of cotton has declined to $6,000 or twenty-one cents per pound. It is a forty-percent reduction in cotton revenue.


The planter's loss of cotton income is immediate and devastating.


The downward-sloping line on the scatter chart is the single most important fact to learn with respect to the cause of the U.S. Civil War.
This appears to be some form of fiction.
 

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
I won this so-called debate like 5 days ago, from that time on it's been school for you. We are not talking about 1860 to the mid late 1860s,
i have no idea how you measure victory if you think you "won". Yes we are talking about the tariffs (well you may not be in order to distract from a weak debate effort) in 1860 and beyond. These were what prompted a civil war. They were exactly what the free traders of the south worried about...debated against...and ended up fighting to be free of.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
That relates to nothing I have ever said and appears to be some concept of yours that you are claiming I believe.
this is absolutely what you are talking about...you said that the economics of free trade only benefited only a narrow field of individuals and not the entire country "Even where you can imagine this limited example matching a real transaction chain, it can only be for a very small/inexperienced/underfunded or just-plain-bad trader. As a description of international trade on a macro scale it is worthless" I can provide a letter to Lincoln that identifies "a very small/inexperienced/underfunded or just-plain-bad trader"s that conspired to split into two this country under the guise of slavery for the purpose of free trade to benefit " a very small/inexperienced/underfunded or just-plain-bad trader"s.
 
Last edited:

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
The problem with your free trade argument is that it only benefited a small amount of people because the south only had one real commodity to trade and that was cotton. If you can understand the difference of microeconomics and macroeconomics you can see that free trade inhibited macroeconomics and fueled microeconomics.
"Free trade increases prosperity for Americans—and the citizens of all participating nations—by allowing consumers to buy more, better-quality products at lower costs. It drives economic growth, enhanced efficiency, increased innovation, and the greater fairness that accompanies a rules-based system.
  • A country that has an absolute advantage in producing all goods still stands to benefit from trade with other countries, since the basis of the gains for trade is comparative advantage, not absolute advantage.
  • It is not possible for an individual or country to have a comparative advantage in all goods. There will be some other individual or country that can produce some things at lower opportunity costs.
  • "Self-sufficiency" is not necessarily a trait to be strived for in the global economy. Individuals or nations who try to produce everything for themselves are likely to end up poorer than those that engage in specialization and trade.
of course you have to know what "absolute advantage", "comparative advantage" and "specialized advantage" (cotton and tobacco) means to fully understand how free trade benefits macroeconomics...do you?
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
17,375
Location
los angeles ca
What? ummm no. close to 40 million of the 53 million of taxes collected in 1860 came directly from duties on EXPORTED cotton.

the tariff tax of 1846 (which lasted thru 1857) put a 25 percent tax on "raw material" cotton...schedule D....moved to schedule C after 1857 at 24 percent
there is 500 pounds per bale of cotton.
cotton sold for 10 to 12.5 cent per pound.
let's round down (to give benefit of doubt) to 50 dollars per bale.
Roughly 3 to 4 million bales were exported per year in the years leading up to the Civil war.
50 dollars per bale times 3 to 4 million bales exported equals roughly 200 million dollars exported per year
25% duty or tax on that between 1846/57 or 24 percent from 1858/60 is roughly rounded down (again for the benefit of doubt) to 40 million of the 53 million the federal government took in.....just in slave labor cotton alone...
so no....most taxes taken in were not from imports.
i wonder why the north didnt want the southern states to seceded?
Per the US Constitution exports can not be taxed.
Leftyhunter
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
17,375
Location
los angeles ca
well, the federal income in 1859 was 91 percent ad valorem duties. 87 percent of exported goods were made up of cotton. Cotton 87 percent of 91 percent of federal income is a pretty good motivator for the North to not allow secession.
So far in eleven plus years on CWT not one poster can quantify how much money the average white Southern family actually spent on tariffs. Keep in mind that in the 19th Century there was no federal or state income tax or sales tax. Not one poster has yet identified what imported items were so critical to white Southerners that is was worth sacrificing their son's and husband's to save money over.
Leftyhunter
 

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
So far in eleven plus years on CWT not one poster can quantify how much money the average white Southern family actually spent on tariffs
So far in eleven plus years on CWT not one poster can quantify how much money the average northern family actually spent on tariffs.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

GwilymT

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
948
Location
Pittsburgh
So far in eleven plus years on CWT not one poster can quantify how much money the average northern family actually spent on tariffs.
This is true... however, no CWT posters claim that northern families sent their son’s to war due to onerous tariffs. Several CWT posters would have us all believe that the southern slave states seceded and went to war because they thought that tariffs were too high. If one is going to take the position that southern slave states went to war over the tariff then it is on them to show that the tariffs were so unbelievably unfair and penalizing that it was a point worth fighting and dying over.
 

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
This is true... however, no CWT posters claim that northern families sent their son’s to war due to onerous tariffs
no but southerners believed that northern families sent their sons to war to force onerous tariffs on southerners....Lincoln even said he would go to war over tariffs in his first inaugural address.
 
Last edited:

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
If one is going to take the position that southern slave states went to war over the tariff then it is on them to show that the tariffs were so unbelievably unfair and penalizing that it was a point worth fighting and dying over.
no, not necessarily....wars are not only fought to keep from losing money but are also fought (in this case) to enforce tariff collection...as stated by the commander in chief Abe Lincoln in his first inaugural address. Wars are not always offensive...they are sometimes defensive.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
17,375
Location
los angeles ca
So far in eleven plus years on CWT not one poster can quantify how much money the average northern family actually spent on tariffs.
Which is completely irrelevant to this thread. You are arguing that the tariffs were a major cause of the ACW. Unless someone one can provide some hard data there is no way to prove the assertion that somehow the ACW was caused by tariffs imposed on the South.
Leftyhunter
 

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
560
Which is completely irrelevant to this thread. You are arguing that the tariffs were a major cause of the ACW. Unless someone one can provide some hard data there is no way to prove the assertion that somehow the ACW was caused by tariffs imposed on the South.
Leftyhunter
tariffs were a major reason for war. in Lincoln's first inaugural address it was one of HIS reasons for war...slavery was not, however
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
17,375
Location
los angeles ca
tariffs were a major reason for war. in Lincoln's first inaugural address it was one of HIS reasons for war...slavery was not, however
We really need some hard data to support the assertion that tariffs were a major reason for the ACW. Tariffs in 1861 were at a historical low.
We have so far no idea what the average tariff burden was for a white Southern family.
We have no idea what exact imported items were so vital to the well being of Southern whites.
Leftyhunter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top