You were the one who claimed the British rates were lower than U.S. rates. You have nothing to back up your claim. Not at all surprising.*****
OK let’s try a little experiment. I’ll provide one quote saying the same.
“Fate has indeed taken a malignant pleasure in flouting the admirers of the United States. It is not merely that their hopes of its universal empire have been disappointed; the mortification has been much deeper than this. Every theory to which they paid special homage has been successively repudiated by their favorite statesmen. They were Apostles of Free Trade: America has established a tariff, compared to which our heaviest protection-tariff has been flimsy. She has become a land of passports, of conscriptions, of press censorship and post-office espionage; of bastilles and lettres de cachet [this was a letter that bore an official seal which authorized the imprisonment, without trial of any person named in the letter] There was little difference between the government of Mr. Lincoln and the government of Napoleon III. There was the form of a legislative assembly, where scarcely any dared to oppose for fear of the charge of treason.” the Quarterly Review in Britain
Lemme guess....bad source....biased....can’t be true....if true its irrelevant....or because - reasons......Lay the excuse on me. I’m waiting for it.
Of course you’ll try to brush under the rug the fact that you asked for a source and I gave you one.
You claim any tariff over 10% was illegal and that the higher rates, though unconstitutional, were allowed. You offer nothing to back up your claim. Not at all surprising.
It was a war measure. What about that do you not understand?
Note the line below about “no protective tariff was to be passed”
“The most remarkable features of the new instrument sprang from the purifying and reforming zeal of the delegates, who hoped to create a more guarded and virtuous government than that of Washington. The President was to hold office six years, and be ineligible for reelection. Expenditures were to be limited by a variety of careful provisions, and the President was given budgetary control over appropriations which Congress could break only by a two-thirds vote. Subordinate employees were protected against the forays of the spoils system. No bounties were ever to be paid out of the Treasury, no protective tariff was to be passed, and no post office deficit was to be permitted. The electoral college system was retained, but as a far-reaching innovation, Cabinet members were given seats in Congress for the discussion of departmental affairs. Some of these changes were unmistakable improvements, and the spirit behind all of them was an earnest desire to make government more honest and efficient.” (Nevins, The Emergence of Lincoln, p. 435)
Note how this Northern newspaper is pointing out that the maximum tariff rate in the CSA was to be 10 percent?
That either revenue from these duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed, the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up. We shall have no money to carry on the government, the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe....allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten percent which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York. The Railways would be supplied from the southern ports.” New York Evening Post March 12, 1861 article “What Shall be Done for a Revenue?”
Note how this one is saying something similar
On the very eve of war, March 18, 1861, the Boston Transcript wrote: “If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon the imports, no doubt the business of the chief Northern cities will be seriously injured thereby. The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union and that of the Confederated States, that the entire Northwest must find it to their advantage to purchase their imported goods at New Orleans rather than New York. In addition to this, the manufacturing interest of the country will suffer from the increased importations resulting from low duties….The…[government] would be false to all its obligations, if this state of things were not provided against.”
and another:
[demanding a blockade of Southern ports, because, if not] “a series of customs houses will be required on the vast inland border from the Atlantic to West Texas. Worse still, with no protective tariff, European goods will under-price Northern goods in Southern markets. Cotton for Northern mills will be charged an export tax. This will cripple the clothing industries and make British mills prosper. Finally, the great inland waterways, the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio Rivers, will be subject to Southern tolls.” The Philadelphia Press 18 March 1861
and this one:
December 1860, before any secession, the Chicago Daily Times foretold the disaster that Southern free ports would bring to Northern commerce: “In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwide trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow.”Chicago Daily Times Dec 1860
and this one:
On 18 March 1861, the Boston Transcript noted that while the Southern states had claimed to secede over the slavery issue, now “the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade....”
There’s much more but any honest reader will have long since gotten the point.
You claim a revenue tariff is defined at a maximum of 10%. You offer nothing to back up your claim. Not at all surprising.****
You have either read nothing from the period or you are simply being dishonest - not at all surprising.
Or you might just provide the tariff rates to prove your point.
It was a war measure. What about that do you not understand?
The war measures part. The constitutional definition of a 10% tariff part. I provided the Confederate tariff bill outlining 25% tariffs and 20% tariffs and 15% tariffs and nowhere identifying those as a war measure. All you have offered is your own unsupported claim.
Note the line below about “no protective tariff was to be passed”
So? Where does it say that any tariff about 10% is protective?
Note how this Northern newspaper is pointing out that the maximum tariff rate in the CSA was to be 10 percent?
I notice it was written two months before the Confederate Congress passed their tariff laws. So I guess they showed the newspaper to be wrong, didn't they? Maybe they hadn't read that editorial down in Richmond?
There’s much more but any honest reader will have long since gotten the point.
A label that nobody would ever apply to you. But what say you to this quote?
"I have no idea that the duties will be as low as 10 per cent. My own opinion is that we shall have as high duty as is now charged by the General Government at Washington. If that matter is regarded as important by this Convention, why the door is open for negotiation with us. We have but a provisional and temporary government so far. If it be found that Virginia requires more protection than this upon any particular article of manufacture let her come in the spirit of a sister, to our Congress and say, we want more protection upon this or that article, and she will, I have no doubt, receive it. She will be met in the most fraternal and complying spirit." That was a promise made by one of the secession commissioners to the Virginia secession convention.
You have either read nothing from the period or you are simply being dishonest - not at all surprising.
I've read a lot on the period. Had you read anything at all you would be able to answer my questions. You can't. Not at all surprising.