The Walker Tariff of 1846

[WJC]

limit competition??? the USA produced 80% of the worlds cotton. there was not threat of competition.

Thanks for your response.
As responsible businessmen, Southern planters were sensitive not just to the current competition, but to possible future competition. As a result, they were supportive of any efforts to impose or maintain protectionist policies that provided a barrier to the entry of foreign raw cotton.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

the tariff of 1828 had a 45 percent tax on raw material cotton........why in gods name would anyone lower it to 25% if it was to protect against competition? the answer, it wasnt. this was a raw material tax and it was on southern slave cotton. even if i didnt already source and provide more proof for than against, it's just common sense.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

Thanks for your response.
As responsible businessmen, Southern planters were sensitive not just to the current competition, but to possible future competition. As a result, they were supportive of any efforts to impose or maintain protectionist policies that provided a barrier to the entry of foreign raw cotton.

then they would not have voted to lower it from the 1828 tariff act of 45% to 25%. This is common sense.

 

[trice]

please provide a source that shows the USA in competition with any other country for demand of cotton inside the USA.

Why? You are the one talking about this - not me. If you think exports of US cotton were taxed, provide your own supporting evidence. Do you have any at all? If so, please provide it, or simply say you have none.

It is simply illegal in the United States of America to tax exports from the States.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

Thanks for your response.
As responsible businessmen, Southern planters were sensitive not just to the current competition, but to possible future competition. As a result, they were supportive of any efforts to impose or maintain protectionist policies that provided a barrier to the entry of foreign raw cotton.

can you provide any source for your assumption? or is it just that...an assumption?

 

[Patrick Sulley]

Why? You are the one talking about this - not me. If you think exports of US cotton were taxed, provide your own supporting evidence. Do you have any at all? If so, please provide it, or simply say you have none.

It is simply illegal in the United States of America to tax exports from the States.

ummm, you responded to my post. i source my evidence of taxes levied against southern cotton.....but here goes again
"The Tariff of 1828 was a protective tariff passed by the Congress of the United States on May 19, 1828, designed to protect industry in the Northern United States. Created during the presidency of John Quincy Adams and enacted during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, it was labeled the "Tariff of Abominations" by its Southern detractors because of the effects it had on the Southern economy. It set a 38% tax on 92% of all imported goods and a 45% tax on raw materials, such as tobacco and cotton, two of the South's strongest commodities." "The major goal of the tariff was to protect the North's industries by heavily taxing goods from Europe AND the South." AND "The South was harmed directly by having to pay higher prices on goods the region did not produce, as well as a 45% tax on the raw goods its producers exported to the North." THE TARIFF OF 1846 Didnt remove the tax on raw cotton shipped north but lowered it to 25%.

been sourced AGAIN... now either source the proof that the USA had competition or admit you dont have any

 

[trice]

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.

quite a few things have passed that have not been constitutionally legal.

There have been attempts to try to get around the prohibition in the Constitution against passing taxes on exports with various arcane schemes and misdirection -- and the Supreme Court has declared every single one of them illegal.

I assume that, since you provide no actual evidence of a tax on the export of cotton, you have no support for your claim. Is this correct?

 

[Patrick Sulley]

ummm, you responded to my post. i source my evidence of taxes levied against southern cotton.
it is not...however illegal to tax a sell....it's called an excise tax, additionally i have re posted my sources but for what ever reason the moderator has not permitted them thru. good to have friends that have your back...i guess.

 

[trice]

ummm, you responded to my post. i source my evidence of taxes levied against southern cotton.

Which doesn't seem to prove any such thing ever happened.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

Which doesn't seem to prove any such thing ever happened.

it expressly states the tariff of 1828 taxed exported cotton from the south to the north...then that tariff was replaced but the tax was not removed..merely lowered. who can you say "which doesnt seem to prove such a thing happened...when it SAYS IT HAPPENED verbatim

 

[Patrick Sulley]

There have been attempts to try to get around the prohibition in the Constitution against passing taxes on exports with various arcane schemes and misdirection -- and the Supreme Court has declared every single one of them illegal.

I assume that, since you provide no actual evidence of a tax on the export of cotton, you have no support for your claim. Is this correct?

did the Supreme court rule the tariff of 1828 illegal? no. it taxed EXPORTED cotton at 45%. the cotton was exported north but exported just the same. then the Walker Tariff lowered...not removed the tax. the supreme court didnt rule that one "illegal" either

 

[WJC]

quite a few things have passed that have not been constitutionally legal.

That may well be, but no one at the time or since has claimed that the Walker Tariff in any way violated our Constitution.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

Which doesn't seem to prove any such thing ever happened.

additional source material...http://www.american-historama.org/1801-1828-evolution/tariff-of-abominations.htm

summary and Definition of the 1828 Tariff of Abominations
Summary and Definition: The Tariff of Abominations was the name given by its southern opponents to the Tariff of 1828, which was passed by Congress on May 19, 1828. The controversial 1828 Tariff of Abominations was designed to protect American industry from cheaper British commodities. Opposition to the rise of taxes on raw materials, like cotton and tobacco, in the South led to the Nullification Crisis.

 

[trice]

ummm, you responded to my post. i source my evidence of taxes levied against southern cotton.
it is not...however illegal to tax a sell....it's called an excise tax

Assuming you have meant post #45 for me you are simply wrong here. Politicians have tried to get around the prohibition on export taxes by using an excise tax and the Supreme Court has denied them.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

Assuming you have meant post #45 for me you are simply wrong here. Politicians have tried to get around the prohibition on export taxes by using an excise tax and the Supreme Court has denied them.

the first supreme court decision on excise tax came in 1894

 

[WJC]

then they would not have voted to lower it from the 1828 tariff act of 45% to 25%. This is common sense.

Thanks for your response.
Compromise. There were more immediate concerns: as I mentioned earlier, tariffs on European imports reduced profits of European manufacturers, providing them less capital to spend on imports from the United States.
Southerners feared increased tariffs on finished textile imports would lower European demand for American cotton and adversely affect the market price of raw cotton.

 

[Patrick Sulley]

Thanks for your response.
Compromise. There were more immediate concerns: as I mentioned earlier, tariffs on European imports reduced profits of European manufacturers, providing them less capital to spend on imports from the United States.
Southerners feared increased tariffs on finished textile imports would lower European demand for American cotton and adversely affect the market price of raw cotton.

i provided proof positive that the tax in question was on southern cotton not imported cotton. you will not let it thru however. thats fine. you and i both now know what the tax really is...since you are the one i am debating...i dont need to evidence to be seen by anyone other than you. There would be no reason to vote for a reduction of taxes on imported cotton...but a world of importance to vote to lower from 45 to 25 percent taxes if it was on domestic cotton

 

[unionblue]

please provide a source that shows the USA in competition with any other country for demand of cotton inside the USA.

There was no tariff on any exports from the United States, only on imports from other foreign countries. I don't know how much simpler it can be said.

Patrick, you are flat-out wrong on this one.

And remember, it was the South that pushed the tariff method of funding the federal government vice a plan for a head tax or any other plan that involved a population count. They didn't want their slaves to be counted under such a tax plan.

 

[trice]

did the Supreme court rule the tariff of 1828 illegal? no. it taxed EXPORTED cotton at 45%. the cotton was exported north but exported just the same. then the Walker Tariff lowered...not removed the tax. the supreme court didnt rule that one "illegal" either

This is not an example of exporting. Would you please post the part of the Tariff of 1828 you are referring to?

 

[trice]

the first supreme court decision on excise tax came in 1894

What Supreme Court decision are you referring to here and what does it have to do with exports?