Nonsense. It was a sop to foreign powers. If the CSA regime legalized the international slave trade -- as many secessionists wanted -- there would have been no chance of getting foreign recognition.
It was also a present Virginians and other Southeasterners who had slaves but not much to do with them over Southwesterners who had land but wanted more slaves. The Deep South was committed to the Confederacy. Keeping the international slave trade closed could help win support from Virginians who weren't committed to secession but would benefit from higher prices for slaves.
Would slavery have ended without the international slave trade? Why? The international slave trade had been illegal for decades by the time the Civil War started, and slavery was striving.
And the coup d grace is the stat about where all the Fed money was coming from - tariffs supplied by southern ports. Of the 90% of operating cash, 75% of that cash was coming from the South.
Nonsense on stilts. As is explained here over and over again, Southern states got money from exporting cotton and used it to buy things from Northerners. We know that cotton was the major part of America's exports. But we don't know that cotton growers were the major consumers of foreign goods. Big city factories and stores almost certainly bought more foreign goods -- and hence paid more in tariffs -- than plantation owners, who weren't all that large a part of the population and could only consume so much.
” Southern states got money from exporting cotton and used it to buy things from Northerners. We know that cotton was the major part of America’s exports. But we don’t know that cotton growers were the major consumers of foreign goods. Big city factories and stores almost certainly bought more foreign goods — and hence paid more in tariffs — than plantation owners, who weren’t all that large a part of the population and could only consume so much. “
Southern states bought finished products from the north primarily - overwhelmingly. They paid excise taxes in buying back goods made with the raw materials they paid tariffs on in the first place - taxed twice.
The north had it good - they had unequal representation in the House, and back then Senators were elected by state legislatures. Tyranny of the majority was in full effect.
I find the idea more credible that they were imposing a deliberate monopoly so that they themselves could reap the benefit of it. By banning importation, they grab the market for their own supply.
It's about money, and probably nothing else.
As is explained here over and over again,
I would say it's repeated "over and over again", but not explained. Argumentum ad nauseum is a standard tactic for those trying to justify the Union Invasion.
Southern states got money from exporting cotton and used it to buy things from Northerners. We know that cotton was the major part of America's exports. But we don't know that cotton growers were the major consumers of foreign goods.
I assume you have some passing familiarity with math? Pray tell how Southern exports make up the bulk of financial exchanges with Europe in the one direction, but not the other?
Would you have us believe that the Southern States shipped out exports while the Northern States collected the money for them and used it to buy European products?
What were the Northern States doing to acquire European currency to pay for European exports?
The Europe/US equation seems out of balance. How do you square that circle?