Posted on 01/31/2004 11:18:21 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
DILORENZO IS ESSENTIALLY CORRECT that the tariff supplied ninety percent of federal revenue before the Civil War. For the thirty years from 1831 to 1860 it was eighty-four percent, but for the 1850s as a decade it was indeed ninety percent.
But the idea that the South paid about seventy-five percent of tariff revenues is totally absurd. DiLorenzo bases this on pages 26-27 of Charles Adams, When in the Course of Human Events, but Adams comes up with these figures out of thin air, and worse, appears to be measuring the South's share of exports, and then transposing that percentage to their share of dutiable imports. Exports, of course, are not subject to taxation and never have been, because such taxes are prohibited by Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution -- which Adams appears not to know. In any case, Adams claims that about eighty-two percent of exports from the U.S. were furnished by the South -- he cites no source for this, and it is in fact wrong -- the true figure was about sixty percent on the average, most of that cotton -- and then by a slight of hand claims that this proves the South paid a similarly disproportionate share of tariffs. But of course the tariffs were only on imports.
The idea that the South would pay a disproportionate share of import duties defies common sense as well as facts. The majority of imports from abroad entered ports in the Northeastern US, principally New York City. The importers paid duties at the customs houses in those cities. The free states had sixty-two percent of the US population in the 1850s and seventy-two percent of the free population. The standard of living was higher in the free states and the people of those states consumed more than their proportionate share of dutiable products, so a high proportion of tariff revenue (on both consumer and capital goods) was paid ultimately by the people of those states -- a fair guess would be that the North paid about seventy percent of tariff duties. There is no way to measure this precisely, for once the duties were paid no statis tics were kept on the final destination of dutiable products. But consider a few examples. There was a tariff on sugar, which benefited only sugar planters in Louisiana, but seventy percent of the sugar was consumed in the free states. There was a tariff on hemp, which benefited only the growers in Kentucky and Missouri, but the shipbuilding industry was almost entirely in the North, so Northern users of hemp paid a disproportionate amount of that tariff. There were duties on both raw wool and finished wool cloth, which of course benefited sheep farmers who were mostly in the North and woolen textile manufacturers who were almost entirely in the North, but it was Northern consumers who ultimately paid probably eighty percent of that tariff (woolen clothes were worn more in the North than the South, for obvious rea sons). Or take the tariff on iron -- it benefited mainly Northern manufacturers (though there was an iron indus try in the South as well), but sixty-five percent of the railroad mileage and seventy-five percent of the railroad rolling stock were in the North, which meant that Northern railroads (and their customers, indirectly) paid those proportions of the duties on iron for their rails, locomotives, and wheels. One can come up with many more examples.
SOURCE: North & South, January 2004, Vol. 7, Number 1, page 52
Perhaps McPherson gets his stats from Britain. Page 6 of my Duff Green link shows statistics from the London Economist for value of cargo imported to Britain. According to those figures, about 57% came from Southern ports. I suspect that the 57% figure does not reflect the origin of the cargo, but merely the last port from which the ships sailed. The American statistics that Duff Green cites give a more accurate picture of the origin of the cargo, one that is more consistent with the large shipments of cotton from the South.
That's a good guess. Of course we'll never know for certain since McPherson "comes up with these figures out of thin air" and "cites no source for this," so to speak ;-)
I found mention of Debow's when searching on the "cotton triangle" you mentioned on the other thread, but I hadn't found it. Thanks to your encouragement I kept looking and found the following in a Debow's article:
In Virginia, and in many southern States, the present laws act as bounty given to country merchants to make their purchases in the north; for in Virginia the foreign importer has to pay a license on his importation -- the jobber, if he is employed, another – and the retail merchant a third; whereas if the country merchants in this state purchases his goods from any of the northern cities, he will be exempt from all but one license tax – that to retail his goods. No license tax is required in the northern cities for the sale of imported merchandise, therefore it must be apparent to every person that the license tax in Virginia on foreign importations makes it the interest of her country merchants to make their purchases at the north instead of in the cities of Virginia, and that this unwise legislation must be changed if we ever expect to free ourselves from the thralldom of northern monopoly.I am aware that this measure will meet with opposition, because it will, to some extent, lessen the revenue received from merchants’ licenses, but this paltry loss of revenue sinks into insignificance when we reflect that it will increase our direct trade with Europe -- build up southern commerce, and save, as has been estimated by merchants of high intelligence, to the State of Virginia the annual sum of $1,500,000, paid for coastwise transportation – charges made by northern merchants – interest on goods delayed in northern customhouses, and the expense of re-shipping from northern ports.
Source: Southern Education and Industrial Development, by R. G. Morris, presented at the Southern Convention in Richmond, Virginia, 1856. Found in Debow’s Review, Agricultural, commercial, industrial progress and resources. Volume 20, Issue 5. (From the University of Michigan's "Making of America" web site)
As far as the 'evidence' provided in support, like:
woolen clothes were worn more in the North than the South, for obvious rea sons
I say:
He must mean those candy-asses in the Northeast, who I see on CNN whining every morning about 25° temps before I head out into the sub-zero to start the pickup.
LOL! I do have to admit that, being from Texas that those 25 degree temperatures are horrid. But I have an excuse - our winters down south consist of a week or two in January where it may go into the 20's at night and not much more. Yesterday was the first day above 40 in the DC region in what seems like a month. But you are right - all those yankees who have lived their entire lives north of the Hudson should be used to 25 degree daytime temps and have no legitimate basis for complaining (which they sure do a lot of for people who "love New York" so much). It all goes to prove that nothing good has ever come out of yankeeland, weather included.
It all goes to prove that nothing good has ever come out of yankeeland, weather included.
Careful there, the 8-10" of snow we're getting this afternoon and evening are courtesy of some warm air sent up from your neck of the woods (don't worry though, come springtime that warm air is greatly appreciated).
I found a non-Debow analysis of 1859 that put the figure at 71%, so it agrees in general. The figure came from: Southern Wealth and Northern Profits by Thomas Prentice Kettell. Published in 1860.
This source also broke down the distribution of imports to regions by consumption. For 1859, it calculates Southern consumption of imports as $106,000,000, Western consumption as $63,000,000, and Northern consumption of imports as $149,000,000. Kettell bases the split among regions on Treasury figures from 1856.
Kettell also estimates that the North sent $240,000,000 in domestic goods (protected by tariff no doubt) to the South in 1859, and that the South paid to the North some $63,000,000 in interest and brokerage.
Kettell notes that the summer crop in Massachusetts was granite and the winter crop was ice. He argues that the North could not support themselves based on their natural resources. The North contracted an importing debt each year that it paid off in part by profits made from transporting materials to the South and West. It also made profits on manufactured goods protected by tariff that it sold to the South.
True, but it only freezes because of the cold air (and everything else) that's already there, and it came from yankeeland ;-)
I heard up on the Mississippi River the saugers were committing suicide, but I naturally can't get out of family and work obligations long enough to make the two hour trip.
A channel cat on New Year's day??? Man, you must be quite a ways South compared to me. Our forktails are all laying in the bottom of the deepest hole they can find waiting until spring.
I know exactly what you mean. Superbowl Sunday the forecast was for 6-10" of snow overnight. Combine the two grocery crises into one, and the stores were jam-packed with everything but food!
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.