Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DoodleDawg
Could have, but would they? Representatives to the Virginia Secession Convention promised tariffs as high as Virginia manufacturers wanted them to be. Yes they would. President Davis promised tariffs as low as their necessities would permit. The Confederate Constitution had a maximum 10% revenue tariff. They could have done that before the rebellion as well. Why didn't they? That industry had already concentrated in the Northeast. The most efficient investment for the Southern states at that time was in producing more cash crops. Of course had the North not been draining their pockets for generations with sectional partisan legislation, they'd have had more money to build up their industries. Read Rhett's address on the subject. Where they would have the tariff applied the moment they crossed into the U.S. So where is the advantage of landing them in the South again? Especially if they were taxed by the South before going to the U.S.? It would have been much harder and would have required a much greater enforcement effort. Read Sherman's comments to his own brother or any of several Northern newspaper editorials on the subject.
298 posted on 05/04/2019 7:32:10 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies ]


To: FLT-bird
Yes they would. President Davis promised tariffs as low as their necessities would permit.

Which could well have been as high as Virginia wanted it to be, if that was what was necessary to bring Virginia into the fold. That's what Henry Benning told the Virginia Secession Commission.

The Confederate Constitution had a maximum 10% revenue tariff.

Oh crap. No where in the Confederate Constitution does it say any such thing. In fact, when the Confederate Congress set tariffs in May 1861 some of them were as high as 25 percent.

That industry had already concentrated in the Northeast. The most efficient investment for the Southern states at that time was in producing more cash crops.

Wouldn't the same be true post independence? Wouldn't it still be financially beneficial to hire other people to ship their goods? Louis Wigfall told William Howard Russell, "We are an agrarian people; we are a primitive people. We have no cities - we don't want them. We have no literature - we don't need any yet. We have no press - we are glad of it…We have no commercial marine - no navy - we don't want them. We are better without them. Your ships carry our produce and you can protect your own vessels. As long as we have our rice, our sugar, our tobacco, and our cotton, we can command wealth to purchase all we want from those nations with which we are in amity, and to lay up money besides." So why wouldn't they continue to contract with Northern shippers if the price was right?

Of course had the North not been draining their pockets for generations with sectional partisan legislation, they'd have had more money to build up their industries.

Oh barf.

Read Rhett's address on the subject.

Read Alexander Stephens on the subject. According to him the North was subsidizing postal deliveries in the South alone to the tune of over $6 million a year. He also said that the North was responsible for over 75% of federal tariff revenue, regardless of what you and your buddy DiogenesLamp say.

It would have been much harder and would have required a much greater enforcement effort.

Again, complete crap. Goods travelling up the rivers could easily be identified and taxed the moment the boat hit U.S. territory.

366 posted on 05/04/2019 12:54:17 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson