The Walker Tariff of 1846

Status
Not open for further replies.

John Fenton

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Location
retired traveling
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)
you will have to provide the text that states this. according to wiki raw materials that came from the south and sent to the north were taxed. elsewhere i found it to mean raw materials from europe like iron were taxed. in any case it looks like the north paid the taxes although the south's cotton prices were affected negatively . any money spent on taxes reduced profits of the seller , raised the costs of the buyer, and left less money with which to do business.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
i have answered this, but have no problem repeating it.

"The Tariff, 1830-1860 Author(s): F. W. Taussig Source: The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Apr., 1888), pp. 314-346 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1879417"

"Tariff act of 1846"

"Tariff act of 1858"

the Walker Tariff (act of 1846), made all taxes (from the best of my understanding) "ad valorem duties". As stated in the referenced publication, cotton was taxed at 25 percent under schedule D from 1846 to 1857 and under schedule C at 24% after. Ad valorem is based on value. Conservative value of cotton sold in 1859 was 200,000,000.00. 25% percent of 200 million is actually 50 million but let's round down to 40 to be as conservative as possible. Altho it's extrapolated numbers, it's the most reliable amount i can find. feel free to provide alternative figures but at least do what i did and back it up with something. As i told another person, i am fluid in my beliefs...contradict what i stated with reliable evidence and i will modify my understanding with no problem.
Taussig examined the role of the tariff in promoting the expansion of the early American cotton textile industry. his studies suggested that the industry was well established by the 1830s and no longer needed tariff protection.
There were no Federal taxes on exports of cotton (or any other product). So far as I know, he never studied the hypothetical situation you suggest- taxing cotton exports.
I believe you have been misled and suggest that for a full understanding of Secretary Walker's tariff initiative, you read The Secretary of the Treasury's Annual Report for 1845.
 

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
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.
i never said exports out of the US...i said exports...at the time of the civil war moving product from one state to another is....exporting
 

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
This is not an example of exporting. Would you please post the part of the Tariff of 1828 you are referring to?
you already asked me...i already answered...and yes, exporting at the time of the civil war from state to state ...was exporting
 

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Taussig examined the role of the tariff in promoting the expansion of the early American cotton textile industry. his studies suggested that the industry was well established by the 1830s and no longer needed tariff protection.
There were no Federal taxes on exports of cotton (or any other product). So far as I know, he never studied the hypothetical situation you suggest- taxing cotton exports.
I believe you have been misled and suggest that for a full understanding of Secretary Walker's tariff initiative, you read The Secretary of the Treasury's Annual Report for 1845.
i didnt use a hypothetical. again, i never said "exports" out of the USA. any raw product exported north is taxed...this isnt my opinion. Since my views are based off of research...and not opinion...i will read the report you proffered
 

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
in any case it looks like the north paid the taxes although the south's cotton prices were affected negatively
if this is true...and it may well be. could you provide me with the evidence to back up your claim that the north, not the south, paid those taxes on cotton exports north. thanks...good debate by the way......
according to the source i provided i have a direct quote that clearly says the south paid those taxes...."The South was harmed directly by having to PAY (emphasis mine) 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."
 
Last edited:

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Interstate movements of material are not exports: Exports are defined as commodities, goods or services traded abroad.
today...yes.
i dont believe i am reading this wrong....tell me if ..in your opinion...they got it wrong. "The major goal of the tariff was to protect the North's industries by heavily taxing goods from Europe and the South. 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. ". i do believe it says "exported north"...these are not my words. and like you, i base my views on the best available information. I will rerad the report you referenced to correct my views accordingly...if needed.
 

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
today...yes.
i dont believe i am reading this wrong....tell me if ..in your opinion...they got it wrong. "The major goal of the tariff was to protect the North's industries by heavily taxing goods from Europe and the South. 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. ". i do believe it says "exported north"
 

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
you will have to provide the text that states this. according to wiki raw materials that came from the south and sent to the north were taxed. elsewhere i found it to mean raw materials from europe like iron were taxed. in any case it looks like the north paid the taxes although the south's cotton prices were affected negatively . any money spent on taxes reduced profits of the seller , raised the costs of the buyer, and left less money with which to do business.
ok, you said the north paid the taxes...without evidence...which is cool...everyone is entitled to an OPINION...however according to the source i provided i have a direct quote that clearly says the south paid those taxes...."The South was harmed directly by having to PAY (emphasis mine) higher prices on goods the region did not produce, AS WELL AS (emphasis mine) a 45% tax on the raw goods its producers exported to the North."
 
Last edited:

Patrick Sulley

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
i have repeatedly provided source material for my claims...as yet no one has provided source material to counter those claims. Like everyone here, i was not alive at the time. I am reliant on the best available source material. I dont guess. I dont opine unless backed up by research. I dont accept "you are just plain wrong" as an answer. if i am wrong provide evidence to counter the source material i reference
 
Last edited:

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
"The Tariff, 1830-1860 Author(s): F. W. Taussig Source: The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Apr., 1888), pp. 314-346 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1879417"
This source does not mention any tax on raw materials traded through interstate commerce, nor any exports. It is focused solely on protectionist tax policy- tariffs on imported goods.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Top