This is partially incorrect. The South did supply 75% of all the revenue for the Federal Government, but the vast bulk of this money was collected in New York, because the laws of the time had jiggered the import trade to make it flow through New York.
The fed used the ports to enforce the laws.
Yes they did. One of the reasons why the Trade went through New York was because of the Feds enforcing the trade laws at Southern ports meant there was no economic advantage to going to these ports. Charleston was an additional 800 miles further South, and the costs of doing business there were the same as that of New York. No ships were going to trade there because with the tariff's being exactly the same, there was no economic incentive for them to do so. There was a packet shipping industry (also ran from New York) that carried import goods from New York to the other ports in the South.
If the south had any hope of secession they had to control their ports and the collection of tariffs. The north obviously could not afford to permanently lose that revenue.
The loss of revenue to the Fed was one thing, but the loss of all that Southern export trade and the vast bulk of that European import trade would have utterly wrecked the financial interests of the North Eastern power corridor that backed Lincoln for the Presidency. (The same F***ing power corridor that controls Washington DC today. The media is their pet enforcer.)
New York would have lost an immediate 100 million dollars a year in Trade, and the Southern ports would have immediately gained that 100 million dollars in trade. This capitalization would have financed Southern industry that would have directly competed with that in the North.
The north via tariffs engaged in economic oppression of the south. Slavery was just one narrative that both sides manipulated to sway support their way.
This is exactly right. It was an ad hoc justification for the North Eastern robber Barons smashing their economic competition in the South. It was propaganda to cover up the fact that the war was a war over money.
Its amazing that the “honest” liberal icons of the past recognized the oppression of the south by the “North Eastern power corridor” eg. Joan Baez. I wonder when these icons will be banned and torn down.
Great mini-lecture (sincerely said), thank you.
What about the interplay between the south’s dependence on exports and the north’s ability to place tariffs on imports? With rising northern industries, tariffs were also starting to be viewed as a protectionist scheme and not just simply a revenue source. Since the exchange of goods and capital must ultimately balance any hindrance on imports, especially protective tariffs, to the US would be followed by a decline in exports from the US.
Do you think the situation was similar in some ways to a trade war with Japan as a prelude to a hot war with Japan?
Dr. Williams has written some columns expressing that opinion.