You said: “And I submit that...”
Why speculate when the truth is staring you in the face. The transatlantic trade capacity of British vessels was already in direct competition with Union ships.
Didn’t you know that Northern and British shippers had been fighting over the Southern trade market for decades? Why do you think the Federal government had been used to hurt the British?
At the time of the articles, British shipping was already replacing them. That is written all over the editorials I gave....didn’t read them or ignoring them?
Double tax....how?
You can see that traders were already shipping North...the editorial was complaining about the low tariffs on these goods in early 1861. If you read you will learn. That is if you want to.
The government could not build enough barriers to stop the trade. Even if they did, Kansas and Missouri were about to become wealthy trade centers. Boston and New York would not have that.
Why not pay attention to what they were saying instead of what you would like to think they should have said?
Are you that biased?
And U.S. ships competed with British vessels. Why should that change?
Didn’t you know that Northern and British shippers had been fighting over the Southern trade market for decades? Why do you think the Federal government had been used to hurt the British?
If you say so. So why wouldn't it continue? Northern shippers had handled cotton exports before, along with European shippers. Why should that change?
At the time of the articles, British shipping was already replacing them. That is written all over the editorials I gave....didn’t read them or ignoring them?
And editorials are never, ever wrong. Are they?
Double tax....how?
You posted this from an editorial, "Our merchants have capital enough to justify them in making their purchases in Europe, and shipping to New Orleans, and in that city, because of the difference in the tariff, goods can be bought cheaper than in New York." So if merchants purchase their goods in New Orleans, after the cheaper Confederate tariff has been levied, and then bring them to New York or St. Louis or wherever then those goods would be subject to the U.S. tariff as well. Double taxation - once in the Confederacy and once in the U.S.
You can see that traders were already shipping North...the editorial was complaining about the low tariffs on these goods in early 1861. If you read you will learn. That is if you want to.
But only if I keep my eyes closed to reality. If the U.S. has a 20% tariff and the Confederacy had a 10% tariff then you claim goods for U.S. consumers would flow to the South. But goods destined for U.S. consumers would pay the U.S. tariff the moment they entered the U.S. regardless of where they come from Europe or from South Carolina. So if they are taxed in Charleston and taxed again in New York then that's a 30% tariff instead of the 20% it would get by going straight to New York. Sending imports to the Confederacy first makes zero sense.
The government could not build enough barriers to stop the trade.
Why not? The trade routes are limited. Either into one of the coastal ports or up the Mississippi. How hard is it to control that?
Even if they did, Kansas and Missouri were about to become wealthy trade centers. Boston and New York would not have that.
Not necessarily. They may have increased in their collections but the chances of them overtaking east coast cities like New York or Boston would be slim, and at best decades away.
Why not pay attention to what they were saying instead of what you would like to think they should have said?
You may accept them unquestioningly, buy I realize newspaper editorials for what they are, opinion and not necessarily fact.
Are you that biased?
Aren't you?
Are you that biased?
Unfortunately yes. They do not want to believe what we are telling them. It upheaves their entire moral outlook on the war, and the role their ancestors played in it.
Unfortunately the evidence indicates it is the truth. The Union invasion of the South was not about "preserving the Union" it was about preserving protectionist trade policies for the Northern States. It was about preserving the dominance of New York in the wealth and power.
I have come to realize that if people look around, the descendants of these people and their elite social groups are still doing the exact same thing today. Their power has simply gotten stronger since 1861.
The liberal dominance of the media is a prime example of what I am talking about. Liberal media financially benefits those businesses in collusion with the government in terms of siphoning dollars out of the taxpayers.
Ever wonder why any sane American would be opposed to cutting spending and balancing the budget? The entire Media was against it going all the way back to 1980. They have *ALWAYS* been opposed to reducing spending. Why? Because the people holding their leash get rich off of government spending, just as their predecessors got rich off of Union protectionist policies which heavily favored New York.
Same enemy, different century.
Our pro-Confederates are somewhat, ah, confused on this subject.
They talked about "Navigation Acts" as if Northerners had prevented Southerners from owning & operating ships to transport Southern cotton to markets.
Of course, those Navigation Acts did nothing of the sort, but they did effectively penalize any foreign ships, including British, for transporting American made goods.
Such extra taxes could presumably be discontinued under a Confederacy, but as DoodleDawg points out, those goods would still be heavily taxed once transported into Union states.
And since Union states accounted for 80% of potential American customers, it's most unlikely that shippers would wish to pay duties twice -- once in the Confederacy and again to the Union -- for any products intended for North Americans.
PeaRidge: "At the time of the articles, British shipping was already replacing them.
That is written all over the editorials I gave....didn’t read them or ignoring them?"
Sure, it makes sense that such things could happen, however, none of the quotes I've seen posted on this thread speak of British ships as having already replaced US carriers in any significant amount.
PeaRidge: "You can see that traders were already shipping North...the editorial was complaining about the low tariffs on these goods in early 1861."
Iirc, that particular quote spoke of goods arriving in St. Louis having paid no tariffs in New Orleans.
But we know the Confederacy soon enough passed its own tariff law and began collecting revenues.
Confederate tariffs were approximately the same as US tariffs pre-Morrill.
So goods received in the Confederacy for transshipment to the Union would have to pay tariffs twice.
That would not work so well.
And since 80% of white Americans lived in the Union, we could well expect 80% of international shipping to find ports in the North.
Thus yet again making nonsense of DiogenesLamp's economic hypotheses.