1. So what? Since PeaRidge clings to his claim that the south accounted for almost all the demand for imports to begin with then what good would a free trade zone have done her? Where would these goods be bound for if there was no demand for them in the North in 1860 to begin with? Wouldn't all the south be doing is subsidizing the lifestyle of her wealthiest individuals at the expense of her poorer ones?
2. If the south did establish a free trade zone then what would prevent the North from slapping a tariff on goods imported from the confederacy? Tariffs are designed to protect domestic industry. Why would the North be any less inclined to use them against the south as they were to use them on imports from Europe? Had the south tried to funnel goods to the North there were only a few ways to get them there. Putting customs posts across the Mississippi and along the few rail lines that ran North and south, and collecting duties would have been a piece of cake.
So what would your vaunted 'free trade zone' confederacy have done for you?
More Red Herrings, Non?
The market was your own backyard. Low tariff goods would now compete with Northern manufactured goods, effectively competing with business owners who would have war instead of competition.
Your opinion in 2001.
Fact of 1861
"All aspects of commerce will collapse, from iron and steel to woolens, clothing, and garment manufacturing; every shopkeeper will close his doors, as all kinds of goods from Britain and France will flood Northern markets. The whole country will be given up to an immense system of smuggling."
This was common talk of Spring of 1861. It shows that it was common knowledge that Northern products were artifically inflated and priced higher than imports. It shows that Southern consumers prefered European products. It shows that high tariffs were supporting the entire North. It shows that the "highly successful Northern manufacturing" network was being subsidized by the government laws, and the government being subsidized by taxes on slave labor products. Any moral superiority there?
Let's think about that. (Which you might have been well-advised to do before posting.)
Who would pay this tariff? Northerners not Southerners. What would be its effect? Southern goods (cotton goods in particular) would have been scarcer and more costly in the North. Southern sales lost as a result could probably be made up in Europe where the purchasing power of revenue from sales would have increased greatly due to Southerners no longer having to pay the exhorbitant tariff on goods purchased and imported from Europe. If the South sold more in Europe and and less in the North they would also buy more in Europe and less in the North. The North was far more dependent on markets in the South than the South was on markets in the North.
All in all, I don't think "slapping a tariff" on goods imported from the South would have been a very smart move for the North.
Here is why. The North was trying to establish itself as an industrial power. As such it was in competition with Europe, not the South, whose economy was primarily agricultural, not industrial. Far from needing to protect itself from Southern competion, the North was dependent upon the South for agricultural goods (particularly cotton and tobacco) and as a market for its industrial products.
A tariff on Southern imports would have hurt the North more than it helped it.
Don't forget the Ohio, the Wabash, the Missouri, the Susquehanna, the Delaware, the Allegheny, the Illinois, and hundreds of other tributaries.
That about covers water, but what about 2200 miles of borders? And that only covers trade routes with the North. What about the 1000 mile border with the West? Piece of cake Non?