Replies

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. This is not consistent with the Confederate Constitution. Ergo, I doubt your account. 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. Oh yes it does. Tariff for Revenue. That means a maximum of 10%. Only the exigencies of war caused them to raise tariffs above that rate. Wouldn't the same be true post independence? Wouldn't it still be financially beneficial to hire other people to ship their goods? No. The whole reason for the Navigation acts was to ensure a large enough merchant marine to have that available in case of war. Had it been pure economic considerations, the 13 colonies would have just relied on British shipping. The CSA would have adopted its own navigation acts for the same reason and that industry would have grown up in the South to support the need for shipping. 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? For the reasons I outlined above and Wigfall was just just one guy. Many people who were far more influential including Rhett had very different views. Oh barf. I know the truth hurts you. 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. Why? Stephens was not influential and was powerless. Rhett was the Father of Secession and was far more influential. Several others agreed with Rhett. Almost all of the tax experts who have looked at this say the South was furnishing the vast majority of the exports and the Northern Newspapers and the Foreign Newspapers as well as Southern newspapers all said so too. Again, complete crap. Goods travelling up the rivers could easily be identified and taxed the moment the boat hit U.S. territory. Again BS. 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 till our pockets were touched." New York Times March 30, 1861 That either revenue from these duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed, the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up. We shall have no money to carry on the government, the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe....allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten percent which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York. The Railways would be supplied from the southern ports." New York Evening Post March 12, 1861 article "What Shall be Done for a Revenue?" …To Northern manufacturers a free-trade South spelled ruin. Imports would be diverted from Baltimore, New York, and Boston where they faced the Morrill Tariff to Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans where they would enter duty-free. Western states would use tariff-free Southern ports to bring in goods from Europe. So would many Northerners. On the very eve of war, March 18, 1861, the Boston Transcript wrote: If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon the imports, no doubt the business of the chief Northern cities will be seriously injured thereby. The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union and that of the Confederated States, that the entire Northwest must find it to their advantage to purchase their imported goods at New Orleans rather than New York. In addition to this, the manufacturing interest of the country will suffer from the increased importations resulting from low duties….The…[government] would be false to all its obligations, if this state of things were not provided against. [demanding a blockade of Southern ports, because, if not] "a series of customs houses will be required on the vast inland border from the Atlantic to West Texas. Worse still, with no protective tariff, European goods will under-price Northern goods in Southern markets. Cotton for Northern mills will be charged an export tax. This will cripple the clothing industries and make British mills prosper. Finally, the great inland waterways, the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio Rivers, will be subject to Southern tolls." The Philadelphia Press 18 March 1861 On 18 March 1861, the Boston Transcript noted that while the Southern states had claimed to secede over the slavery issue, now "the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." [the North relied on money from tariffs] “so even if the Southern states be allowed to depart in peace, the first question will be revenue. Now if the South have free trade, how can you collect revenues in eastern cities? Freight from New Orleans, to St. Louis, Chicago, Louisville, Cincinnati and even Pittsburgh, would be about the same as by rail from New York and imported at New Orleans having no duties to pay, would undersell the East if they had to pay duties. Therefore if the South make good their confederation and their plan, The Northern Confederacy must do likewise or blockade. Then comes the question of foreign nations. So look on it in any view, I see no result but war and consequent change in the form of government. William Tecumseh Sherman in a letter to his brother Senator John Sherman 1861. This goes on and on. They all disagree with you.