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?
Your commentary is yours....not factual.