Replies

"The end consumer pays the costs of tariffs"

That was discussed in several articles. One stated:

"[I]t should be considered that because some supplies from overseas were landed in New York and then carried south, southerners as final consumers indirectly paid bigger than 8% portion of tariffs (by no mean 75-80%)."

And that was supported by excerpts from 1857 and 1861.

Another article noted:

"If there's a more esoteric argument that says somehow the South ultimately bought 80% of those goods and therefore experienced the markup that came from them being taxes, I haven't seen it, but it would be interesting to read and parse."

The article also noted that the alleged burden of paying the cost of tariffs was not included in the secession declarations.

Thus there is no reason to accept your cavalierly dismissing the contents, including additional references, of the various linked articles I proved earlier.

That was discussed in several articles. One stated:

"[I]t should be considered that because some supplies from overseas were landed in New York and then carried south, southerners as final consumers indirectly paid bigger than 8% portion of tariffs (by no mean 75-80%)."

And where do they get this conclusion from? My argument is much simpler. 75%-83% of all European imports were payment for Southern exports.

New York intercepted the shipping (because of the Navigation act of 1817 and because the North East totally controlled the shipping industry) and they collected the tariffs, added up their highly inflated shipping costs, banking fees, insurance and warehousing costs (all set higher than the market rates because they had a monopoly due to Washington policy and subsidies) and what was left over got sent to the actual owners of the profits in the South.

And that was supported by excerpts from 1857 and 1861.

It is a conclusion in which they haven't shown their math. Show me the math.

Another article noted:

"If there's a more esoteric argument that says somehow the South ultimately bought 80% of those goods and therefore experienced the markup that came from them being taxes, I haven't seen it, but it would be interesting to read and parse."

I don't know why you posted that. The author says he hasn't seen proof, and this does not mean there is no proof. I've seen the proof.

The article also noted that the alleged burden of paying the cost of tariffs was not included in the secession declarations.

All the more reason you should not be paying attention to the people who are trying to whitewash the discussion. Yes, it was discussed in the secession declarations.

This one always gets ignored because it doesn't say what people want to believe.

Thus there is no reason to accept your cavalierly dismissing the contents, including additional references, of the various linked articles I proved earlier.

I didn't ask you to accept it. I asked you to look at the evidence. The evidence is simple. The South produced 75-83% of all export value. The imports were their return payment for their exports. Trade must balance, and if the South has earned 75-83% of the total European money to pay for those exports, those imports belong to the people in the South who produced the money.

Now the whole system is made confusing by the fact that the protectionist policies of Washington heavily favored the North, and they put such taxes on the imports of any European product that was like that manufactured in the North, that it was cheaper for the South to buy the Northern manufactured items than it was to buy the European manufactured items and pay the large taxes on them.

It ended up being an unnatural "triangle trade" in which the Europeans sold to the North, the North Sold to the South, and the South sold to Europe, with the trade between the North and the South being the unnatural part of the Triangle.

From the South's point of view, the purchase of Northern goods at artificially inflated prices versus the purchase of cheaper and higher quality European manufactured goods, was not a good deal for them, but because the laws were jiggered to favor this sort of protectionist policies for Northern industries, the South didn't have much of a choice.