Posted on 04/08/2018 3:39:59 PM PDT by iowamark
Tariffs are ultimately paid by those buying the goods at retail. How could the South, with a population of freemen less than half the North, possibly be more economically subjugated, and yet rich enough to pay more tariffs for goods, at the same time?
Wow, I never heard that dodge before.
What are you claiming is a “dodge”?
Tariffs are ultimately paid by those buying the goods at retail. How could the South, with a population of freemen less than half the North, possibly be more economically subjugated, and yet rich enough to pay more tariffs for goods, at the same time?
Tariffs are paid for by the owners of the goods. The goods brought back were sold on the open market to anybody. They could be undercut on price though once they had had to pay the high tariffs and they would lose market share.
I agree that testing metal against metal is the best way to keep your blade sharp. Unfortunately you’re sparring with someone who brought a golf club to a knife fight. He’s spouting the same insipid myths over and over and over and over. There’s nothing to be learned from him.
So Southern businesspeople were stupid is what you’re saying.
So Southern businesspeople were stupid is what you’re saying.
No I’m saying high tariffs will drive up your retail prices which will allow your competitors who do not have to pay those tariffs to undercut you on price.
Duh.
“The Southern states WERE being economically exploited.”
You might want to rethink that.
“Studies of the past few decades, however, have seriously questioned the old assumption of a markedly inferior Southern economy in the pre-war years...
Southern white per capita income exceeded the national average and compared favorably with that of the Northeast. The West South Central region exceeded the Northeast in per capita income in 1840, even considering the slaves as part of the population...
Revising Easterlin’s data, Stanley Engerman found a higher rate of growth of Southern per capita income over Northern between 1840 and 1860, 1.6 percent versus 1.3 percent if slaves are counted in the population. 1.8 percent versus 1.3 percent if only the free population is considered...
The study, however, that gives the hammer blow to the idea that the antebellum South was poor, or even had wealth inequality greatly exceeding that of the North, is Lee Soltow’s Men and Wealth in the United States, 1850 – 1870. Basing his study primarily on “spin samples” of the 1850, 1860, and 1870 censuses, but also buttressed by the published census data, Soltow gives some startling statistics which confirm the wealth of the antebellum South.”
Was the South Poor Before the War?
By William Cawthon
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/was-the-south-poor-before-the-war/
So then you’re saying they were stupid to engage in importing instead of other opportunities to reinvest their profits. Or not importing goods that were still competitive despite higher prices, like foreign luxury cars are today. By the way, I’m working on the research that’s going to disprove this whole contention that you and DiogenesLamp push on how importing and exporting was actually done, but it’s going to take a while. So you’ve got that to look forward to.
“The Southern states WERE being economically exploited.”
You might want to rethink that.
You can’t be getting screwed or get a bad deal if you are rich? You can’t be still fairly well off but not nearly as well off as you would be if you weren’t getting screwed?
Of course you can. The South was doing most of the exporting. Had they been independent, they would have been far wealthier.
So then you’re saying they were stupid to engage in importing instead of other opportunities to reinvest their profits. Or not importing goods that were still competitive despite higher prices, like foreign luxury cars are today. By the way, I’m working on the research that’s going to disprove this whole contention that you and DiogenesLamp push on how importing and exporting was actually done, but it’s going to take a while. So you’ve got that to look forward to.
No I’m saying you are absolutely DESPERATE to have something....anything to throw at Southerners so you are trying all kinds of desperate ploys here.
Good luck with your research. You might as well search for Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster though because that is exactly how exporting and importing were done at that time so you’re not going to find what you’re looking for.
We shall see....
You are deliberately swapping premises here. When the South wanted the Federal Government to accept it's responsibility, it expected it to do so. This is like expecting a police man to confront criminals. It's his job, isn't it? Well it was the Fed Gov's job in those days.
(Like securing the border is the Fed Gov's job nowadays.)
I already did, and obviously you didn't read it.
Explain again how you make this leap?
Leap? That imports are in payment for exports? It's not a "leap", it's just basic economics. The Europeans won't give us stuff, but they will trade their stuff for our stuff. Unless one is running a trade deficit, Trade must roughly balance. Therefore, Imports must equal Exports over time.
I'm surprised that I have to explain the basic economics of trade to a Republican.
Shipping Warehousing Insurance Losses not covered by insurance Sales commissions for brokers contracting with foreign buyers Interests to pay investors
All of which would have to be paid by Southern interests instead of Northern ones if New York were cut out of the deal.
I suspect it is not worth my trouble to enlighten you on any of this, because I have noticed a pattern with you. No matter what I show you, if you can't rebut it, you just dismiss or ignore it, but for kicks and grins, let's look at some of your items.
"Shipping."
You keep telling me that the navigation act of 1817 had no detrimental effect on the South, and I keep telling you it was very significant. It effectively forced the South to hire only New York shippers to handle their cargoes. The South could have hired foreign ships and crews at much cheaper prices, but the Navigation act of 1817 made it ruinously expensive to do so, plus the use of Foreign Ships and crews to carry traffic between US ports was strictly forbidden, and would have caused the entire cargo to be seized if it was discovered.
The North Eastern shipping companies priced their services at just below what it would cost for the South to hire foreign ships or crews, after paying all the fines. The South would have seen an immediate reduction in shipping costs by getting out from under the Navigation act of 1817.
Warehousing
Insurance
Losses not covered by insurance
All of these things the South could have done for itself, and would have with independence. Warehousing was already being built in Charleston after the secession. Newspaper accounts of the period indicate a massive building boom had started at the time, especially in the area of Warehousing.
The business men in the North that handled this sort of business were looking at the South with grave concern about the future of their businesses. They saw Southern independence as a grave financial threat to themselves.
Your post is too long. I’m not going to read it.
If your argument is "because one side advocated it, it was okay for the other side to do it.", then that is a stupid argument. It was not okay for either side to do it.
Imports are payment for exports. Is that such a hard concept to grasp? They must be roughly equal over time. There will be slight variation from year to year, but so long as a trade deficit does not occur, the imports will roughly equal the exports. Close enough anyway.
Second, how much would you estimate that investment in new warehouses, ships and trains, as well as continuous operating costs of the same, plus additional insurance, unremembursed losses, commissions, etc. that Northerners carried before 1861 would cut into that 40% off the gross that Southern financial interests hoped to reap from cutting out the middleman?
There must be profit in those industries, else New York wouldn't have had such industries. With the South creating it's own versions of those industries, that profit would have been made by them. With an additional 40% in revenue pumping through their economy, (plus eliminating the costs of the US Federal Tariffs) they would have been able to finance their own startup costs.
New York was very much aware of the threat.
The predicament in which both the government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over....If the manufacturer at Manchester (England) can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage....if the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers. Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty free. The process is perfectly simple. The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North. We now see whither our tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated power of the State or Federal Government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad. WE WERE DIVIDED AND CONFUSED UNTIL OUR POCKETS WERE TOUCHED."
New York Times March 30, 1861
Southern independence was a horrific financial threat to the Northern States that had built their industries on the belief that they would be handling most of the trade from Europe.
But they would have you believe it was a moral issue that prompted them to invade.
I think the South had just grown tired of being part of a Union that did not benefit them.
So your argument is that Anderson didn't know what he was talking about?
But Anderson surrendered after just 34 hours and so Lincoln's plan to resupply Fort Sumter came to naught.
Wells had sent him authorization to surrender. Sumter D@mn near blew up when a fire was licking the timbers outside of their powder storage. You think he should have held out longer? You make insinuations about him being conflicted because he was a Kentuckian? Wasn't Lincoln from Kentucky? Didn't Kentucky remain a Union state?
I am utterly shocked that you are seemingly unaware that exports pay for imports. So let me explain it to you.
Exports are how people get money to pay for imports. Trade must balance, or someone is giving away stuff for free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.