[DiogenesLamp]

New York did not pay the tariff. Federal agents at the port simply collected it. My post was a response to Williams’ untrue and idiotic claim that southern ports collected 75% of tariffs.

There is a form of fallacy in which something minor is seized upon in order to misdirect attention from the larger point. That it wasn't Southern points that collected it may be an error, but it isn't consequential to the salient point.

Who was paying the tariffs?

Does it bother you at all that what he said is untrue?

If it is significant, and factually untrue, then yes, it bothers me. If it is a quibble, and factually untrue, it bothers me that people will attempt to use a minor mistake to derail the larger point. That is more deceitful than just making a minor mistake. That is more objectionable.

Most of what was imported thru NY was distributed to the rest of the country. The final purchaser actually paid the tariff, albeit indirectly, thru a higher price.

And there it is. So why bring up how much tariff money was collected by New York? Isn't that irrelevant to the bigger question? Who pays the cost of these Tarrifs? Out of who's pocket is coming the money to finance the FedGov?

The increase in price was exactly the same whether in south or north.

Which also ignores the larger point. Increases in import tariffs for people who don't import much doesn't constitute much of a burden on them compared to people who do. Does it?

You can raise my Luxury taxes to 100% for all I care, because I do not buy Luxury Items. Your point deliberately ignores the differences between on whom the burden falls, and on whom it does not.

What Walter was probably thinking about in his 75% number was the value of exports. For which the South did provide something along that percentage, mostly cotton.

But there is a huge gap between value of untaxed exports and amount of tariffs on imports.

One would presume that if Europeans were paying for exports with currency other than specie, then European products would have to be sold to buy back the European currency.

This would seem to me to make the necessity of balancing the trade deficits on the heads of the people collecting most of the European money in exchange for their products, i.e. the Southern States.

In other words, Imports have a corresponding relationship to exports, n'est pas?

[Sherman Logan]

OK. Let’s us be exceptionally generous of spirit and assume Williams was trying to say the South paid 75% of the tariffs as the ultimate consumers.

Do you have any evidence for this remarkable assertion?

The Union states contained about 21M free people, the CSA states roughly 6M free people. Slaves didn’t consume much of anything, more or less by definition.

Do you have a reason to believe the consumption of imported goods differed between the sections? That the South consumed vastly more than the 22% proportionate to their share of the population? Or that the eventual Union states consumed, and therefore paid the tariffs on, much less than the 78% proportionate to their population?

[DoodleDawg]

Which also ignores the larger point. Increases in import tariffs for people who don't import much doesn't constitute much of a burden on them compared to people who do. Does it?

No, it does not. So how could Williams claim that tariffs were the reason for the Southern rebellion?

In other words, Imports have a corresponding relationship to exports, n'est pas?

Non, elle ne le fait pas.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "In other words, Imports have a corresponding relationship to exports, n'est pas? "

So let us again review some basic historical facts:

1. In 1860, US cotton accounted for 75% of the world's production, hence the term "King Cotton", and that may be how Williams derived his number.

2. In the late 1850s, 40% of US cotton shipped from New Orleans, and of that, 85% went to Europeans, 15% to Northern US manufacturers.

3. Total US cotton in 1860 was about 5 million bales valued at nearly $200 million, a huge sum for that time.

4. Total US exports in 1860, including cotton, were around $400 million, so cotton was just under half.
   The 1860 surplus of US exports over imports was $61 million.
   So the US enjoyed a positive cash flow.

5. In 1860 total white population of 11 future Confederate states was 5.5 million, or 20% of total US whites.
   On average, these people were marginally better off than their Northern cousins, but only a small percent (3% = 165,000) were the wealthy plantation owners we see in Gone With the Wind.

6. There is no possible way -- and no evidence to support -- claims that these 165,000 wealthy plantation owners accounted for 75% or 50% or anything above say 25% of total US imports.

Therefore, claims that Lincoln was primarily driven by his need to protect Federal revenues from Southern states imports has no basis in fact.