Why wasn't secession about tariffs?

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
17,045
Location
los angeles ca
Wow, you sure do ask a lot of questions! J.R. Anderson may have wanted protective tariffs but unfortunately the Confederate Government outlawed such tariffs in their Constitution. The CSA were free trade advocates and opposed protectionism. The southern states had borne heavy costs before the Civil War from tariffs that protected northern manufacturing at their expense. The southern economy depended on the exportation of agricultural commodities and imported almost all the goods it consumed, either from abroad or from Northern states. Tariffs drastically raised the cost of goods in the Southern states.
Except the Confederacy imposed their own tariffs as the war progressed and restricted non military imports or at least attempted to do so.
Also it's not true that the South opposed tariffs. I already pointed out there were Tariffs on sugar, rice and tobacco all of which tariffs were supported by Southern businesses interests.
Leftyhunter
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,916
Wow, you sure do ask a lot of questions! J.R. Anderson may have wanted protective tariffs but unfortunately the Confederate Government outlawed such tariffs in their Constitution. The CSA were free trade advocates and opposed protectionism. The southern states had borne heavy costs before the Civil War from tariffs that protected northern manufacturing at their expense. The southern economy depended on the exportation of agricultural commodities and imported almost all the goods it consumed, either from abroad or from Northern states. Tariffs drastically raised the cost of goods in the Southern states.
Before Ft. Sumter, the Confederate government offered promises of a protective tariff as inducements to Virginia to try to get the state to secede from the Union. They promised to make Virginia "the New England of the Confederacy" in their attempt to get the state to secede. Confederate politicians were plenty willing to forget about that little matter in the Constitution to get Virginia to secede.

In addition, one of the first things the Confederate government did was to pass a tariff. That tariff taxed more goods than the US tariff did (rates were lower, but far more types of goods were taxed). Also, since goods from "the North" would now be taxed, southern citizens could only expect higher overall prices. While this was going on, the street-corners, sidewalks, lobbies and saloons of Montgomery were flooded with lobbyists, all trying to get protection for their own interests or the interests of clients.

There is a great deal of hypocrisy involved in southern claims that they were opposed to protectionist tariffs.

Still, I note the deafening silence on the questions I asked. Once again, no one seems to have any data to support the pre-Civil War claims of "the South" that they were actually being abused on the tariff. If you actually have some, please present it. If not, please say so.
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,774
Location
Georgia
Except the Confederacy imposed their own tariffs as the war progressed and restricted non military imports or at least attempted to do so.
Also it's not true that the South opposed tariffs. I already pointed out there were Tariffs on sugar, rice and tobacco all of which tariffs were supported by Southern businesses interests.
Leftyhunter
I never stated that the South opposed all tariffs. There were however, opposed to the type of protective tariffs mentioned in their Constitution which prohibited "any duties or taxes on importation from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry."
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,916
This is from Modernizing a Slave Economy: The Economic Vision of the Confederate Nation by John Majewski:

1571260244305.png


So here we have southern protectionism described. Apparently a good number of tariff protectionists in Virginia, enough that the Confederate government tried to bribe them into secession with a protective tariff.
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
17,045
Location
los angeles ca
I never stated that the South opposed all tariffs. There were however, opposed to the type of protective tariffs mentioned in their Constitution which prohibited "any duties or taxes on importation from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry."
It does seem a bit hypocritical to support tariffs favoring Southern vs Northern interests. If one is truly for free trade then it needs to be across the board.
We still have no data to support the argument tariffs were truly a significant financial burden to the average Southern white family.
We also know the Confederacy did support tariffs on consumer goods during the ACW.
Leftyhunter
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,774
Location
Georgia
This is from Modernizing a Slave Economy: The Economic Vision of the Confederate Nation by John Majewski:

View attachment 329799

So here we have southern protectionism described. Apparently a good number of tariff protectionists in Virginia, enough that the Confederate government tried to bribe them into secession with a protective tariff.
Thanks for your comments but the Confederate Government didn't need to bribe Virginia into secession because Lincoln's Proclamation Calling for troops resulted in their decision to secede eventually. In addition, the tariff that you are referring to is described as being a revenue tariff and not solely a protective tariff in nature. The CSA Constitution did not prohibit revenue tariffs but it did prohibit purely protective tariffs.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,916
Thanks for your comments but the Confederate Government didn't need to bribe Virginia into secession because Lincoln's Proclamation Calling for troops resulted in their decision to secede eventually.
Please stop trying so hard to avoid acknowledging simple facts. As I said, the Confederate government offered Virginia protective tariffs as an incentive to secede before Ft. Sumter. This is fact -- and clearly the Confederate government thought they did need to do so.

In addition, the tariff that you are referring to is described as being a revenue tariff and not solely a protective tariff in nature. The CSA Constitution did not prohibit revenue tariffs but it did prohibit purely protective tariffs.
Another good place to look for information on the Confederate tariff and Virginia: Imagining "A Great Manufacturing Empire": Virginia and the Possibilities of a Confederate Tariff, Carlander, Jay and Majewski, John D.,
Civil War History - Volume 49, Number 4, December 2003, pp. 334-352

The following is once again from Modernizing a Slave Economy: The Economic Vision of the Confederate Nation by John Majewski:

1571275019622.png


Essentially this means the Confederacy can institute a "protective tariff" simply by calling it a "revenue tariff". This is just a political flim-flam to get around the law.

Yet once again, I see not a single bit of actual evidence to support the ***claim*** that "the South" was being abused on tariffs. If you have some, please present it. If you have none, please say so.
 
Last edited:

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,774
Location
Georgia
Please stop trying so hard to avoid acknowledging simple facts. As I said, the Confederate government offered Virginia protective tariffs as an incentive to secede before Ft. Sumter. This is fact -- and clearly the Confederate government thought they did need to do so.



Another good place to look for information on the Confederate tariff and Virginia: Imagining "A Great Manufacturing Empire": Virginia and the Possibilities of a Confederate Tariff, Carlander, Jay and Majewski, John D.,
Civil War History - Volume 49, Number 4, December 2003, pp. 334-352

The following is once again from Modernizing a Slave Economy: The Economic Vision of the Confederate Nation by John Majewski:

View attachment 329847

Essentially this means the Confederacy can institute a "protective tariff" simply by calling it a "revenue tariff". This is just a political flim-flam to get around the law.

Yet once again, I see not a single bit of actual evidence to support the ***claim*** that "the South" was being abused on tariffs. If you have some, please present it. If you have none, please say so.
Sorry, but I wasn't trying to deny the CSA may have given Virginia a tariff offer. I was just saying that since Virginia had decided to secede as a result of Lincoln's Proclamation, the tariff offer wasn't really needed but thanks for your comments anyway. In terms of evidence
of tariff abuse, I have already posted information about how tariffs raised the cost of goods in the southern states because their economy depended on the export of agricultural commodities and the import of manufactured goods. These are principles of international economics so maybe you should go back and read them again.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,916
Sorry, but I wasn't trying to deny the CSA may have given Virginia a tariff offer. I was just saying that since Virginia had decided to secede as a result of Lincoln's Proclamation, the tariff offer wasn't really needed but thanks for your comments anyway.
So please present any actual evidence you have to show that the ***claim*** that "the South" was actually being treated unfairly by the tariff was real and true. There is no need to present the rhetoric of the times unless it includes actual facts. Everyone understands that this was a talking point for "the South" in secession. No one wants to dig in and present actual evidence of the ***claim*** being true.

I would think that this evidence would have come out after 160 years if the ***claim*** was true. The fact that no one can show it tends to say that the ***claim*** was an empty one.

In terms of evidence of tariff abuse, I have already posted information about how tariffs raised the cost of goods in the southern states because their economy depended on the export of agricultural commodities and the import of manufactured goods. These are principles of international economics so maybe you should go back and read them again.
I understand how economics work. What you are pointing to here is just normal trade economics and ignores a great many other factors. It is not evidence of "the South" being abused on tariffs.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,774
Location
Georgia
So please present any actual evidence you have to show that the ***claim*** that "the South" was actually being treated unfairly by the tariff was real and true. There is no need to present the rhetoric of the times unless it includes actual facts. Everyone understands that this was a talking point for "the South" in secession. No one wants to dig in and present actual evidence of the ***claim*** being true.

I would think that this evidence would have come out after 160 years if the ***claim*** was true. The fact that no one can show it tends to say that the ***claim*** was an empty one.



I understand how economics work. What you are pointing to here is just normal trade economics and ignores a great many other factors. It is not evidence of "the South" being abused on tariffs.
I may have mentioned Thomas P. Kettell before but his book in 1856 titled Southern Wealth and Northern Profits provides an excellent analysis of the economies of both the northern and southern states before the Civil War. Kettell was a political economist, magazine editor and author from Boston who enjoyed a great degree of prominence before the Civil War. He presented an array of statistics in his book and discussed the economic advantages that existed in the north and the federal tariff inequity. On pages 126-127 of his book he states: "From the earliest period of the government the federal revenues have been derived from duties on goods imported. The duties have not been levied with a single view to revenue, but have been so adjusted as to afford the largest protection to Northern manufactures. In other words, to tax the consumers of goods West and South for the support of Eastern manufactures. The amount of customs so collected in the past 70 years reaches 1100 millions of dollars, a large portion of which was disbursed at the North. This sum has been paid mostly by the South and West into the federal treasury, on goods imported. The sum of these may be 20 per cent, of the quantity home manufactured, and the value of which has been increased in the ratio of the duty. If, however, it is assumed that the home-made goods have been enhanced in value only to the extent of the customs revenue, then the Eastern manufacturers have obtained 1100 millions of dollars as tribute from the South and West. That large sum has been taken from agricultural industry and added to manufacturing industry. The fisheries of the Eastern States drew $5,000,000 as bounties paid to those engaged in them, out of the federal treasury, to the date of the abolition of those bounties. The North enjoyed a monopoly of the carrying trade, foreign vessels being excluded. These, and other circumstances drew the surplus capital from the agriculturist into the coffers of the manufacturer. The accumulation of capital thus brought about, became invested in stocks, banks, insurance companies, all of which drew large profits on credits granted to the other sections."

J. L. M. Curry was a U.S. Congressman from Alabama who delivered a speech "The Perils and Duty of the South" in Nov. 1860 in which he also discussed the economies of the north and south. He references Thomas Kettell in his speech but he also presents other sources in regards to the inequity of the federal tariff.

In his speech, Mr. Curry stated : "In this connection it may be pertinent to examine into the operations of the Federal Government, and of northern connection, and ascertain how much the South is annually drained and depleted by what is paid to the North. The facts prove that the southern States have been to the North as the conquered province were to Rome, when the tributes exacted from them were sufficient to defray the whole expenses of the Government. A report of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1838 shows that, in the five years, 1833-'37, out of $102,000,000 of expenditure, only $37,000,000 were in the slave States; yet, during the same years, they paid $90,000,000 of duties to $17,500,000 paid by the free States. The amount of customs collected, says Kettell, in the past seventy years, reaches eleven hundred millions of dollars, a large portion of which was disbursed at the North. Bounties to fisheries have amounted to over $13,000,000, and have been paid mostly to Maine and Massachusetts. Like unjust inequalities are exhibited in the appropriation of public lands, in the light-house system, in the collection of customs, in the internal improvement system, in the erection of court and custom houses, and hospitals and post offices. An intelligent writer says, that the heads of federal expenditure show that while the South has paid seven-ninths of the taxes, the North has had seven-ninths of their disbursements. The North furnishes, in great degree, our carriers, importers, merchants, bankers, brokers, and insurers. One of the ablest statisticians and political economists in America, Mr. Kettell, a northern man, estimates the annual amount of means sent North by southern owners and producers, as the sum of their dealing with the North, at $462,560,394. The South furnishes six-sevenths of the freight for the shipping of the country, while the North supplies one-seventh. The South pays $36,000,000 per annum to the shipping interest for the transportation of the products of slave labor. "All the profitable branches of freighting, brokering, selling, banking, insurance, &c., that grow out of southern products, are enjoyed in New York. The profits that importers, manufacturers, bankers, factors, jobbers, warehousemen, carmen, and every branch of industry connected with merchandizing, realize, from the mass of goods that pass through northern cities, are paid by southern consumers." The same careful authority approximates the annual load which southern industry, dependent on southern labor, is required to carry, at $231,500,000, and distributes among bounties to fishermen, customs, importers, manufacturers, shippers, agents, travellers, &c. It is this North grown rich from the earnings of slave labor, dependent for its prosperity and profits upon southern wealth, that has placed Lincoln and them that "hate us to rule over us." "
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,916
I may have mentioned Thomas P. Kettell before but his book in 1856 titled Southern Wealth and Northern Profits provides an excellent analysis of the economies of both the northern and southern states before the Civil War. Kettell was a political economist, magazine editor and author from Boston who enjoyed a great degree of prominence before the Civil War. He presented an array of statistics in his book and discussed the economic advantages that existed in the north and the federal tariff inequity. On pages 126-127 of his book he states: "From the earliest period of the government the federal revenues have been derived from duties on goods imported. The duties have not been levied with a single view to revenue, but have been so adjusted as to afford the largest protection to Northern manufactures. In other words, to tax the consumers of goods West and South for the support of Eastern manufactures. The amount of customs so collected in the past 70 years reaches 1100 millions of dollars, a large portion of which was disbursed at the North. This sum has been paid mostly by the South and West into the federal treasury, on goods imported. The sum of these may be 20 per cent, of the quantity home manufactured, and the value of which has been increased in the ratio of the duty. If, however, it is assumed that the home-made goods have been enhanced in value only to the extent of the customs revenue, then the Eastern manufacturers have obtained 1100 millions of dollars as tribute from the South and West. That large sum has been taken from agricultural industry and added to manufacturing industry. The fisheries of the Eastern States drew $5,000,000 as bounties paid to those engaged in them, out of the federal treasury, to the date of the abolition of those bounties. The North enjoyed a monopoly of the carrying trade, foreign vessels being excluded. These, and other circumstances drew the surplus capital from the agriculturist into the coffers of the manufacturer. The accumulation of capital thus brought about, became invested in stocks, banks, insurance companies, all of which drew large profits on credits granted to the other sections."

J. L. M. Curry was a U.S. Congressman from Alabama who delivered a speech "The Perils and Duty of the South" in Nov. 1860 in which he also discussed the economies of the north and south. He references Thomas Kettell in his speech but he also presents other sources in regards to the inequity of the federal tariff.

In his speech, Mr. Curry stated : "In this connection it may be pertinent to examine into the operations of the Federal Government, and of northern connection, and ascertain how much the South is annually drained and depleted by what is paid to the North. The facts prove that the southern States have been to the North as the conquered province were to Rome, when the tributes exacted from them were sufficient to defray the whole expenses of the Government. A report of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1838 shows that, in the five years, 1833-'37, out of $102,000,000 of expenditure, only $37,000,000 were in the slave States; yet, during the same years, they paid $90,000,000 of duties to $17,500,000 paid by the free States. The amount of customs collected, says Kettell, in the past seventy years, reaches eleven hundred millions of dollars, a large portion of which was disbursed at the North. Bounties to fisheries have amounted to over $13,000,000, and have been paid mostly to Maine and Massachusetts. Like unjust inequalities are exhibited in the appropriation of public lands, in the light-house system, in the collection of customs, in the internal improvement system, in the erection of court and custom houses, and hospitals and post offices. An intelligent writer says, that the heads of federal expenditure show that while the South has paid seven-ninths of the taxes, the North has had seven-ninths of their disbursements. The North furnishes, in great degree, our carriers, importers, merchants, bankers, brokers, and insurers. One of the ablest statisticians and political economists in America, Mr. Kettell, a northern man, estimates the annual amount of means sent North by southern owners and producers, as the sum of their dealing with the North, at $462,560,394. The South furnishes six-sevenths of the freight for the shipping of the country, while the North supplies one-seventh. The South pays $36,000,000 per annum to the shipping interest for the transportation of the products of slave labor. "All the profitable branches of freighting, brokering, selling, banking, insurance, &c., that grow out of southern products, are enjoyed in New York. The profits that importers, manufacturers, bankers, factors, jobbers, warehousemen, carmen, and every branch of industry connected with merchandizing, realize, from the mass of goods that pass through northern cities, are paid by southern consumers." The same careful authority approximates the annual load which southern industry, dependent on southern labor, is required to carry, at $231,500,000, and distributes among bounties to fishermen, customs, importers, manufacturers, shippers, agents, travellers, &c. It is this North grown rich from the earnings of slave labor, dependent for its prosperity and profits upon southern wealth, that has placed Lincoln and them that "hate us to rule over us." "
Everyone who bought goods that were subject to a tariff were treated exactly the same. How is any of this an "abuse" of "the South"? Do they receive any benefits that are not being accounted for here? If "the South" wants the tariff to be lower, how are they proposing the government will replace the revenue lost?
 

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
107
Wow, you sure do ask a lot of questions! J.R. Anderson may have wanted protective tariffs but unfortunately the Confederate Government outlawed such tariffs in their Constitution. The CSA were free trade advocates and opposed protectionism. The southern states had borne heavy costs before the Civil War from tariffs that protected northern manufacturing at their expense. The southern economy depended on the exportation of agricultural commodities and imported almost all the goods it consumed, either from abroad or from Northern states. Tariffs drastically raised the cost of goods in the Southern states.
However, Mr. Potomac Pride, this confuses me the most. How exactly the Confederate Government outlawed 'protective' tariffs? What was the difference between normal 'tariffs' and 'protective tariffs'? The Tariff Act approved by the Confederate Government on May 21, 1861 shows that many items that were produced in the South were still taxed. For instance, sugar was still taxed under the Confederate law. How exactly this wasn't a protective tariff? And let's not forget about a fact that the Confederacy not only had import duties, but also export duties. Mr. Potomac Pride, I honestly don't understand why the Southern plantation owners thought they were better off under the Confederate government than the US government if it was not for slavery.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
17,045
Location
los angeles ca
I may have mentioned Thomas P. Kettell before but his book in 1856 titled Southern Wealth and Northern Profits provides an excellent analysis of the economies of both the northern and southern states before the Civil War. Kettell was a political economist, magazine editor and author from Boston who enjoyed a great degree of prominence before the Civil War. He presented an array of statistics in his book and discussed the economic advantages that existed in the north and the federal tariff inequity. On pages 126-127 of his book he states: "From the earliest period of the government the federal revenues have been derived from duties on goods imported. The duties have not been levied with a single view to revenue, but have been so adjusted as to afford the largest protection to Northern manufactures. In other words, to tax the consumers of goods West and South for the support of Eastern manufactures. The amount of customs so collected in the past 70 years reaches 1100 millions of dollars, a large portion of which was disbursed at the North. This sum has been paid mostly by the South and West into the federal treasury, on goods imported. The sum of these may be 20 per cent, of the quantity home manufactured, and the value of which has been increased in the ratio of the duty. If, however, it is assumed that the home-made goods have been enhanced in value only to the extent of the customs revenue, then the Eastern manufacturers have obtained 1100 millions of dollars as tribute from the South and West. That large sum has been taken from agricultural industry and added to manufacturing industry. The fisheries of the Eastern States drew $5,000,000 as bounties paid to those engaged in them, out of the federal treasury, to the date of the abolition of those bounties. The North enjoyed a monopoly of the carrying trade, foreign vessels being excluded. These, and other circumstances drew the surplus capital from the agriculturist into the coffers of the manufacturer. The accumulation of capital thus brought about, became invested in stocks, banks, insurance companies, all of which drew large profits on credits granted to the other sections."

J. L. M. Curry was a U.S. Congressman from Alabama who delivered a speech "The Perils and Duty of the South" in Nov. 1860 in which he also discussed the economies of the north and south. He references Thomas Kettell in his speech but he also presents other sources in regards to the inequity of the federal tariff.

In his speech, Mr. Curry stated : "In this connection it may be pertinent to examine into the operations of the Federal Government, and of northern connection, and ascertain how much the South is annually drained and depleted by what is paid to the North. The facts prove that the southern States have been to the North as the conquered province were to Rome, when the tributes exacted from them were sufficient to defray the whole expenses of the Government. A report of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1838 shows that, in the five years, 1833-'37, out of $102,000,000 of expenditure, only $37,000,000 were in the slave States; yet, during the same years, they paid $90,000,000 of duties to $17,500,000 paid by the free States. The amount of customs collected, says Kettell, in the past seventy years, reaches eleven hundred millions of dollars, a large portion of which was disbursed at the North. Bounties to fisheries have amounted to over $13,000,000, and have been paid mostly to Maine and Massachusetts. Like unjust inequalities are exhibited in the appropriation of public lands, in the light-house system, in the collection of customs, in the internal improvement system, in the erection of court and custom houses, and hospitals and post offices. An intelligent writer says, that the heads of federal expenditure show that while the South has paid seven-ninths of the taxes, the North has had seven-ninths of their disbursements. The North furnishes, in great degree, our carriers, importers, merchants, bankers, brokers, and insurers. One of the ablest statisticians and political economists in America, Mr. Kettell, a northern man, estimates the annual amount of means sent North by southern owners and producers, as the sum of their dealing with the North, at $462,560,394. The South furnishes six-sevenths of the freight for the shipping of the country, while the North supplies one-seventh. The South pays $36,000,000 per annum to the shipping interest for the transportation of the products of slave labor. "All the profitable branches of freighting, brokering, selling, banking, insurance, &c., that grow out of southern products, are enjoyed in New York. The profits that importers, manufacturers, bankers, factors, jobbers, warehousemen, carmen, and every branch of industry connected with merchandizing, realize, from the mass of goods that pass through northern cities, are paid by southern consumers." The same careful authority approximates the annual load which southern industry, dependent on southern labor, is required to carry, at $231,500,000, and distributes among bounties to fishermen, customs, importers, manufacturers, shippers, agents, travellers, &c. It is this North grown rich from the earnings of slave labor, dependent for its prosperity and profits upon southern wealth, that has placed Lincoln and them that "hate us to rule over us." "
Not sure how a quarter of the US population pays 7/9 the of the tariffs with forty percent of the Southern population is enslaved and many of the white population is composed of subsistence farmers.
Something doesn't add up.
Leftyhunter
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,774
Location
Georgia
Everyone who bought goods that were subject to a tariff were treated exactly the same. How is any of this an "abuse" of "the South"? Do they receive any benefits that are not being accounted for here? If "the South" wants the tariff to be lower, how are they proposing the government will replace the revenue lost?
The southern states were mainly concerned about the protective tariffs that were in place. These protective tariffs were in existence to protect northern manufacturers from foreign competition but they did not benefit the south. The south suffered from protective tariffs on manufactured goods because they had a very small manufacturing base and depended on the importation of goods from outside the region. In many cases, the south would import the manufactured goods they needed from overseas which would raise the cost of the goods due to the tariffs that were in place. The economy of the southern states was based on agriculture and they exported the majority of their agricultural products. It has long been understood by trade analysts that import tariffs impose a disproportionate burden on export dependent regions such as the south. A tariff is effectively a tax on exported goods as well. In the book International Economics by Brown & Hogendorn, the authors discuss this issue. The authors remark that tariffs cause the price of certain goods to rise but exporters are unable to pass the costs on because they have to sell their items at market prices and swallow the costs. International economists call this the "pass through effect" of a tariff. Finally, tariffs create another burden because foreign producers earn less profit as a result of a tariff that is imposed. As a result, they will have less money to spend on exports in order to balance the decrease in imports. It is for these reasons that the southern states were opposed to protectionist tariffs because of the undue burden it put on their economy.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,916
The southern states were mainly concerned about the protective tariffs that were in place. These protective tariffs were in existence to protect northern manufacturers from foreign competition but they did not benefit the south. The south suffered from protective tariffs on manufactured goods because they had a very small manufacturing base and depended on the importation of goods from outside the region. In many cases, the south would import the manufactured goods they needed from overseas which would raise the cost of the goods due to the tariffs that were in place. The economy of the southern states was based on agriculture and they exported the majority of their agricultural products. It has long been understood by trade analysts that import tariffs impose a disproportionate burden on export dependent regions such as the south. A tariff is effectively a tax on exported goods as well. In the book International Economics by Brown & Hogendorn, the authors discuss this issue. The authors remark that tariffs cause the price of certain goods to rise but exporters are unable to pass the costs on because they have to sell their items at market prices and swallow the costs. International economists call this the "pass through effect" of a tariff. Finally, tariffs create another burden because foreign producers earn less profit as a result of a tariff that is imposed. As a result, they will have less money to spend on exports in order to balance the decrease in imports. It is for these reasons that the southern states were opposed to protectionist tariffs because of the undue burden it put on their economy.
So was "the South" concerned with the tariff on sugar that was making Louisiana planters rich? "The South" produced about 1/3rd of US sugar consumption, essentially all of it in southeastern Louisiana (about 1300 plantations averaging 75 slaves each, although the average was close to 100 slaves near the Mississippi River where the bigger plantations were). There was a 30% ad valorem tariff on sugar imports. By your logic, this is an outrageous protective tariff that is abusing all of the rest of the country in favor of a few rich Louisiana planters.

I understand how tariffs and economics work. The description in your post is very abstract and does not deal with the ***claim*** these complaints from "the South" make. I have asked you repeatedly to show evidence that "the South" was actually being abused on tariffs. You have shown none.

As I have also pointed out repeatedly, "the South" seems to want to pay nothing at all -- but they do want all the benefits they can grab from the Federal government. If they want to lower tariffs, they need to come up with new taxes on themselves to pay what is needed. Can you find a single example of "the South" proposing to pay in a different way so that the tariff can be lowered? I have not seen one.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,774
Location
Georgia
The description of the tariff is based on principles of economics that are accepted by international trade economists. The book that I mentioned, International Economics, has even been used as a college textbook. In my other posts, I provided original sources from the period that discussed the inequity of the federal tariff system. As the historical evidence shows, the federal tariff had been a source of controversy in the south years before the Civil War even began. For instance, the Tariff of Abominations in 1828 was vehemently opposed by the southern states and eventually led to the Nullification Crisis in S. Carolina.
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,774
Location
Georgia
However, Mr. Potomac Pride, this confuses me the most. How exactly the Confederate Government outlawed 'protective' tariffs? What was the difference between normal 'tariffs' and 'protective tariffs'? The Tariff Act approved by the Confederate Government on May 21, 1861 shows that many items that were produced in the South were still taxed. For instance, sugar was still taxed under the Confederate law. How exactly this wasn't a protective tariff? And let's not forget about a fact that the Confederacy not only had import duties, but also export duties. Mr. Potomac Pride, I honestly don't understand why the Southern plantation owners thought they were better off under the Confederate government than the US government if it was not for slavery.
Thanks for your comments but you don't have to call me Mister. The CSA outlawed protective tariffs in their Constitution which prohibited "any duties or taxes on importation from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry." There are two types of tariffs which are the revenue and the protective tariff. The revenue tariff is a tax on imported goods to raise government revenue and a protective tariff is used to restrict foreign imports. The plantation owners considered themselves to be better off under the CSA because they were free trade advocates. The renowned historian Kenneth Stampp wrote "A low tariff was to be the Confederacy's chief device for emancipating its planters and merchants from northern exploitation. And the tariff therefore became the challenge which, more than anything else, crystallized sentiment among Yankee businessmen in favor of applying force against the South." Source: And the War Came: The North and the Secession Crisis, 1860-1861, page 231 by Kenneth Stampp. The late Professor Stampp wrote numerous books and articles on the Civil War. He also received the Lincoln Prize and the American Historical Association's Award for Scholarly Distinction for his lifetime contributions to Civil War studies.
 

lurid

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
578
From an economic standpoint tariffs were never a concern, no matter what anyone claims. Tariffs were at an all-time low the 3 decades prior to the CW, so how can anyone claim tariffs were a concern?

Average_Tariff_Rates_in_USA_(1821-2016).png
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

lurid

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
578
To confirm my theory, the southern voting record clearly shows that southerner's did not oppose a tariffs in 1857, three short years prior to secession.

1857 Tariff House Vote.jpg
 

GwilymT

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
920
Location
Pittsburgh
Thanks for your comments but you don't have to call me Mister. The CSA outlawed protective tariffs in their Constitution which prohibited "any duties or taxes on importation from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry." There are two types of tariffs which are the revenue and the protective tariff. The revenue tariff is a tax on imported goods to raise government revenue and a protective tariff is used to restrict foreign imports. The plantation owners considered themselves to be better off under the CSA because they were free trade advocates. The renowned historian Kenneth Stampp wrote "A low tariff was to be the Confederacy's chief device for emancipating its planters and merchants from northern exploitation. And the tariff therefore became the challenge which, more than anything else, crystallized sentiment among Yankee businessmen in favor of applying force against the South." Source: And the War Came: The North and the Secession Crisis, 1860-1861, page 231 by Kenneth Stampp. The late Professor Stampp wrote numerous books and articles on the Civil War. He also received the Lincoln Prize and the American Historical Association's Award for Scholarly Distinction for his lifetime contributions to Civil War studies.
Stampp is discussing Northern motivations for going to war in this work and this passage if I recall correctly, not discussing southern reasons for secession- which he continually argued was slavery.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top