Replies

But what about imports, didn't Southern planters have to pay tariffs on the goods they imported to, for example, New York? No, not ever, because: 90%+ of all cotton was sold at the planter's gate, and/or Freight On Board in New Orleans (or other port). At most only 10% was shipped on consignment for sale by the planter in European ports like Liverpool, LeHavre or Amsterdam. This means that 90%+ of cotton arriving in Europe was not owned by Southern planters, but rather by American factors, cotton merchants, British & American merchant banks, brokers (financial & commodity), shipping & marine agents, import brokers, etc. Some then decided which European products to buy for the return shipment to New York. When imported goods arrived in New York the tariff was NOT paid by anyone. Instead, imported goods went into bonded warehouses where they sat -- sometimes for months or years -- until sold. Then and only then did the buyers pay Federal tariffs -- never the sellers, much less Southern cotton planters. That's why the whole narrative about how "the South" somehow "paid for" Federal tariff revenues is just nonsense. From beginning to end, exports of cotton and everything else the US produced circa 1860, was a national effort with national players, not just a regional effort with exclusively regional actors.

Several things here.

You overinflate the amount of cotton produced by large plantations because you ignore their role as bundlers/wholesalers. A large plantation owner would buy up all the cotton grown by the small/family farmers around him for a slightly discounted price and then bundle it with his own prior to arranging shipping for the cotton his plantation produced. This tends to wipe out the production of yeomen farmers and make it appear as though the plantations produced all of it - which was not the case. It was common practice for family farms to devote a decent percentage of their acreage to raise money for all the things they couldn't produce at home.

The Tariff of Abominations reduced Cotton purchases by a whopping 50% as English merchants could no longer afford to buy as much cotton since they could not exchange it for manufactured goods but instead had to pay hard cash for it. It simultaneously reduced profit margins because of the much higher tariffs imposed. Thus the price per bale of cotton was also reduced even while the cost of manufactured goods rose. It was economically ruinous to the Southern states which is what prompted the Nullification Crisis. This was not theoretical to Southerners. They had lived through it already and well understood what would happen.

Any of a number of newspapers on all sides, writers, politicians and tax experts have all attested that the Southern states did indeed pay the vast bulk of the Tariff. Its laughable that some PCer now thinks he knows better how the economy worked than the people who lived back then and saw it with their own eyes and in their own bank accounts.

FLT-bird: "You overinflate the amount of cotton produced by large plantations because you ignore their role as bundlers/wholesalers.
A large plantation owner would buy up all the cotton grown by the small/family farmers around him for a slightly discounted price and then bundle it with his own prior to arranging shipping for the cotton his plantation produced.
This tends to wipe out the production of yeomen farmers and make it appear as though the plantations produced all of it - which was not the case."

Sure, no doubt some of that is true.
However, Pareto's law of economics works in almost every circumstance -- 20% of producers make 80% of the product.
In 1860 there were roughly 300,000 cotton growing farms, of which 20% = 60,000 plantations with more than 25 slaves each.
These people were genuinely wealthy and lived lives envied by the other 80% of cotton growers who contributed relatively few bales -- <1 million of the 4.5 million standard 500 lb. bales produced in 1860.

FLT-bird: "Any of a number of newspapers on all sides, writers, politicians and tax experts have all attested that the Southern states did indeed pay the vast bulk of the Tariff.
Its laughable that some PCer now thinks he knows better how the economy worked than the people who lived back then and saw it with their own eyes and in their own bank accounts."

It was political propaganda then, just as it is today, since the "vast bulk of the Tariff" (90%) was paid in New York, Boston & Philadelphia.
Those tariffs were paid by Northern customers, not Southern planters.

What's true is that ~50% of 1860 US exports were cotton products, and that 90% of planters were paid for their produce at their property gates (by factors) or Freight On Board in New Orleans, or other ports (by British or Northern merchants).
Southern planters had nothing to do with selling their cotton in England or France and certainly did not buy foreign products for sale in New York, Boston & Philadelphia.
They absolutely did not pay tariffs on products sold to Northern customers out of bonded warehouses in New York, Boston & Philadelphia.