Replies

Lot of wage and salary demands in the mid-nineteenth century were there?

There have always been wage and salary demands, non-seq. It's called "I will do X labor for the price Y"

Employers set the rates at what they wanted to pay, and if someone didn't want to work for that rate then they found someone who would.

Honestly, non-seq. Where are you getting this stuff? The AFL-CIO website? Employers do not arbitrarily "set the rates." Employer demands for labor, in intersection with employee supply of it, does.

And since the majority of people, North and south, East and West, earned their livings as farmers then they were under the same constraints as the southern exporter, weren't they?

Again, non-seq, your post reeks of ignorance. The southern farmers were for all practical purposes exporters as their wealth came from exports, which means they were indeed affected the same way. As for the north, its exports were less than a fourth of the nation's total and its small agricultural markets were INCLUDED on the list of protected goods under the Morrill Act.

They sold their goods at what the market would pay for it.

Yep, and when the market is screwed around with by a redistributionary protective tariff, the price taking exporters of southern agriculture get screwed in the pocketbooks.

So a tax on imports became a tax on anyone who was at the mercy of what the market would pay, which meant it hit virtually all consumers in all parts of the country equally.

Nice non-sequitur, non-seq. Your conclusion does not follow from its premise, nor does it have any basis in fact. To use a modern analogy, saying that the Morrill tariff hit everyone equally in 1860 is akin to saying that the income tax of today hits everyone equally. As you are no doubt aware, the south produced over 75% of the ENTIRE NATION'S exports in 1860. Economic law says that exporters, more than anyone else, are price takers at the world price and cannot pass the costs of a tariff on. That means they are hurt more than anyone else.

Now do a little math, non-seq. If 75% of exporters are in the south and 25% are in the north, who is going to get hit more by a tax that hurts exporters most of all?

Ah but if you actually read my post before jumping to the insults then you would have understood the point I was making. Leaving aside for a moment your ridiculous claim about employees setting labor rates, the gist of DiLusionals arguement seems to be that since southern plantation owners were at the mercy of what the market would pay for their goods then they were most susceptible to tariffs. I pointed out, and I can't see where you managed to refute it, that the overwhelming majority of the people in the country were in the same boat. The Northern wheat farmer did not set the price for his crop any more than the southern cotton farmer, and the fact that his crop was primarily used for domestic consumption is meaningless. Both were at the mercy of the market, without any way of passing on the tariff burden in the form of higher prices for their goods. Likewise the working class in all parts of the country were not able to demand higher wages for their labor just because of a higher tariff. So I fail to see where the tariff was a tax on exporters. It was a tax on everyone without the means to set their own prices, which means it hit equally North and south.