no offense...but your responses are non responsive.Thanks for your response.
In addition to raising revenues, the purpose of a protective tariff like those in the Tariff of 1846 is to limit imports of certain goods in order to stimulate domestic production. The tariff persuaded any American manufacturer tempted to use foreign cotton in its products to 'buy American'.
It is not surprising that Congressional opposition to the 1846 Tariff bill came from representatives of Northern, textile-producing states.
prior to the act of 1846 there was the tariff of abomination. "It set a 38% tax on 92% of all imported goods and a 45% tax on raw materials, such as tobacco and cotton" "The South was harmed directly by having to pay higher prices on goods the region did not produce (imports), as well as a 45% tax on the raw goods its producers exported to the North." (https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Tariff_of_Abominations). It appears that the 25% levied on cotton is not in fact an export out of the USA but rather export to northern states. I assume this is how it circumvents the prohibition stated in the constitution. If this is incorrect please explain how.The Export Clause, found in Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, directly states “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.” ... The Clause prohibits taxes and duties that are targeted at exports or imposed on goods during “the course of exportation.”
1) agreedLet's find common ground. I assert that:
- There were no Federal taxes on exports during the Antebellum.
- The Primary source of revenue for the Federal government was the tariff on imported goods.
- The Tariff of 1846 applied only to imports.
- The Tariff of 1846 generally reduced tax rates on imports.
- Southern opposition to high tariffs was largely because they reduced imports of European finished goods, thus reducing profits of European manufacturers and providing them less capital to spend on imports from the United States. Specifically, Southerners feared increased tariffs on finished textile imports because that diminished European demand for American cotton, lowering the market price of raw cotton. Southerners supported low import tax rates which assured a high, stable price for their cotton production.
- Because the Tariff of 1846 generally reduced tax rates, it was widely supported by Southerners.
What is your proof of all this "export duties" on cotton?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 exported 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?
the tax does not specify "imported" cotton. I believe it says "raw materials" tax. the southerners supported it because it went from 45 percent to 25 percent.Thanks for your response.
This excerpt makes it clear that the tax was a protective act, meant to protect American producers from foreign imports, including imported raw cotton.
The tax on imported cotton in the Tariff of 1846 was enthusiastically supported by Southerners.
i have answered this, but have no problem repeating it.What is your proof of all this "export duties" on cotton?
Well, no, that is not what the Constitution says.
Hmm. Looking at that, it appears you have not noticed that the State of South Carolina in their own Declaration of why they seceded did not mention anything at all except slavery.umm yeah they did. http://history.furman.edu/~benson/docs/SCaddress.htm, additionally, the north also realized that an anti slavery guy would not win the Presidential election on slavery alone as an issue:
"Newspaperman Horace Greeley described this strategy in a letter outlining the characteristics of a winnable campaign:
'I want to succeed this time, yet I know the country is not anti-Slavery.It will only swallow a little anti-slavery in a great deal of sweetening.An anti-slavery man per se cannot be elected; but a tariff, river and harbor, Pacific railroad, free homestead man may succeed although he is anti-slavery.'
The selection of Abraham Lincoln, an anti-slavery former congressman who described himself as an “old Henry Clay tariff whig,” almost perfectly fit Greeley’s prescription for the Republican ticket."
So, it can be argued that if Lincoln was not elected the south may not have seceded and he was elected on the strength of more his views on tariff's....or maybe less on his views but how people viewed his views
"New York harbor alone".... what do you think was being exported there?
Even when the Southern cotton bound for Europe didn't put in at the wharves of Sandy Hook or the East River, unloading and reloading, the combined income from interests, commissions, freight, insurance, and other profits took perhaps 40 cents into New York of every dollar paid for southern cotton.
"The record shows that ports with moderate quantities of outbound freight couldn't keep up with the New York competition. Remember, this is a triangle trade. Boston started a packet line in 1833 that, to secure outbound cargo, detoured to Charleston for cotton. But about the only other local commodity it could find to move to Europe was Bostonians. Since most passengers en route to England found little attraction in a layover in South Carolina, the lines failed.
As for the cotton ports themselves, they did not crave enough imports to justify packet lines until 1851, when New Orleans hosted one sailing to Liverpool. Yet New York by the mid-1850s could claim sixteen lines to Liverpool, three to London, three to Havre, two to Antwerp, and one each to Glasgow, Rotterdam, and Marseilles. Subsidized, it must be remembered, by the federal post office patronage boondogle.
U.S. foreign trade rose in value from $134 million in 1830 to $318 million in 1850. It would triple again in the 1850s. Between two-thirds and three-fourths of those imports entered through the port of New York. Which meant that any trading the South did, had to go through New York."
"any trading the South did, had to go through New York". This is where you get skewed figures from. altho cotton was not exported directly from New York...the exported cotton ships originated in New York.
Thanks for your response.i have found that "raw material" (as stated ion the act of 1846) was taxed and since a 25 percent tax on 200,000,000 dollars of raw material would far exceed import taxes...i disagree
There are no export taxes at all in the United States. If a tariff was charged on cotton, it was charged on the import of cotton from someplace outside the United States.actually, again, we didnt import cotton...we exported it....200,000,000 dollars of "raw material" cotton was taxed at 25 percent. which is more than all import taxes combined. It looks like cotton was taxed using a value tax...not an export tax. (ad valorem)
Yet the newly formed Confederacy DID have a tariff on some exports, completely opposite of the US constitution ban on taxing exportsThere are no export taxes at all in the United States. If a tariff was charged on cotton, it was charged on the import of cotton from someplace outside the United States.
Yes. The Confederate Constitution is generally the same as the US Constitution -- but one key difference in the Confederate Constitution was that it did allow the Confederate Congress to tax exports.Yet the newly formed Confederacy DID have a tariff on some exports, completely opposite of the US constitution ban on taxing exports
quite a few things have passed that have not been constitutionally legal.Hmm. Looking at that, it appears you have not noticed that the State of South Carolina in their own Declaration of why they seceded did not mention anything at all except slavery.
It also appears that you have a misunderstanding of Tariffs. Nothing that is exported is ever taxed. It never has been and is illegal to tax exports under the United States Constitution. Only imports can be taxed.
Again, I don't see where any of this has anything to do with the topic of the thread, the meaning of perpetual in the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. There are plenty of other threads that talk about Tariffs and such, so if you want to talk about that please find one of those and post your thoughts on that thread.
limit competition??? the USA produced 80% of the worlds cotton. there was not threat of competition.Thanks for your response.
That calculation is incorrect because it assumes a tax on exports. There was no such tax on exports. The figure you have used was intended to be applied to imports to limit any competition with American products.
please provide a source that shows the USA in competition with any other country for demand of cotton inside the USA.There are no export taxes at all in the United States. If a tariff was charged on cotton, it was charged on the import of cotton from someplace outside the United States.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|⋆B★G⋆ Walker, Leroy Pope||Biographies of the Civil War||3|
|Handguns Colt Walker stories and questions||Small Arms & Edged Weapons||13|
|⋆M★G⋆ Walker, William H. T.||Biographies of the Civil War||7|
|Man the Walker Tariff was named after||Southern Economy & Tariffs Promoted Disunion||1|