yes it does and yes it does mean a maximum of 10%. You are simply wrong.
Apparently a lot more than one guy since the Confederate tariff passed a few months later had rates as high as 25%.
As I said, the exigencies of war forced them to adopt a higher tariff
And that is defined where?
That was and is the standard definition
Yet you referenced it. In 1861 there was one or two packet lines that serviced only southern ports and one trans-Atlantic line that made the trip from Charleston to England to New York to Charleston. What did the Navigation Act do to impede them?
No I didn't.
Why? Why not just continue to contract their business to existing lines, be they British or U.S.? Starting from scratch would only increase shipping costs, would they not? Especially if the necessary expertise wasn't available in the South.
For the reasons I've already outlined. See previous post.
Maybe they should have. His opposition to Davis's policies on suspending habeas corpus, conscription, taxes, crazy interference in the war, and on and on were the reason for his leaving Richmond, and had more people listened to him then maybe the Confederacy wouldn't have been the police state is approached during the war.
So as I said, Stephens had no influence. You could have just admitted that and saved a lot of typing.
You guys are great at quoting newspaper editorials, which are nothing but opinion, and presenting them as fact. But then again the rest of posts y'all make aren't much different - opinion masquerading as fact.
They were the only media of the time. The opinions expressed in those editorials were very influential,
What says it says it means a maximum of 10%? Prove I'm wrong.
As I said, the exigencies of war forced them to adopt a higher tariff
But you claimed that their constitution only allowed for tariffs of a maximum of 10%. What clause of the Confederate constitution gave their congress the power to ignore their constitution?
That was and is the standard definition
Standard definition defined by what or who? Please provide a source to support your claim.
So as I said, Stephens had no influence. You could have just admitted that and saved a lot of typing.
But then I would be admitting something that is just not correct.