‘’HISTORY’’, my Journey

[General Zod]

So what about China. Well, by your speak, North was importing stuff, making it expensive for South to import - but South could buy from North. What is the problem? Just the normal trade war? So the South was forced to 'buy american'? Habeas Corpus that you make such a big deal of - so just let the enemy roam freely in your country - yet you gripe about al the Chinese & terrorists roaming freely in your country. Seems like you are against what the North did but for what the US is doing now.

Jesus Christ it's like explaining it to a toddler. So you figure a trade war between regions WITHIN THE SAME COUNTRY is perfectly normal? And it's not "by my speak", this is historical fact that you're simply ignorant of - apparently willfully. If you can't comprehend the simple concept of how importing and exporting works in an economy, then you really have nothing to contribute to any discussion. Let's break it down in small words, and hopefully I won't have to get the crayons out.

The South's economy was built on trading agricultural goods for raw materials. Traders from England and Europe offered quality goods at competitive prices, and were willing to pay a premium for Southern goods. Ships pull in to ports like Charlseton or New Orleans or Galveston, offload their goods, trade for Southern goods, everyone is happy and has what they need to turn a tidy profit for in-demand items, and the ship leaves.

Now the North imposes nearly 30% tariffs on imports to southern ports. This means the Eurpoean traders can only buy 70% of what they were buying before, and will only be able to sell 70% of what they sold before, so they're going to go to northern ports and trade for different items, as the North had no cotton or other goods the South provided.

Sending southern goods to northern ports for trade required sending them via railroad at a premium, plus paying northern traders to sell the products...which easily added up to that 30% or more, plus cutting into the profits along with way in shipping costs (enriching the railroad barons - your "shipping magnates" who I suppose are only evil in the south?) and further eroding the Southern economy. The only winner here was the railroad companies and the northern port operators.

So by what you've said, you think the south should have been perfectly happy to be screwed over by northern interests, enriching the already filthy rich railroad barons of the north, and should have just embraced the poverty that was offered with a grateful "thank you"?

Yes, your yankee origin is showing itself quite clearly.

Also, I love how you're responses are to the thread in general while specifically addressing my replies, rather than quoting. Are you hoping I won't notice to answer you?

 

[popper]

FYI

Tariff of 1842 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tariffs and the American Civil War - Essential Civil War Curriculum

www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com

Walker tariff - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Best I can tell, real 'history'.
So a trade war? Look at who passed what.
Zod posted tariff war was on IMPORTS, not exports! I see NO evidence in the tax docs supporting special rates for the South. Of course Gov works different than what is law. I'm not supporting either side. Zod can keep his opinion. Just trying to get factual history out in the open. Don't make claims you cannot support.

 

[General Zod]

FYI

Tariff of 1842 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tariffs and the American Civil War - Essential Civil War Curriculum

www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com

Walker tariff - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Best I can tell, real 'history'.
So a trade war? Look at who passed what.
Zod posted tariff war was on IMPORTS, not exports! I see NO evidence in the tax docs supporting special rates for the South. Of course Gov works different than what is law. I'm not supporting either side. Zod can keep his opinion. Just trying to get factual history out in the open. Don't make claims you cannot support.

I've been trying to tell you tariffs are placed on imports and not exports since yesterday, but you refuse to actually read what I'm saying. Nobody places a tax on exports. Why would they do that?

As to the rest, Google the phrase "Tariff of Abominations". Then you can "see evidence" supporting the impact it had on the south. Now I'll admit right here I was incorrect in saying there were higher rates in the South - my mistake. HOWEVER...the high tariffs - up to 45% - were put in place to protect Northern industry and had the effect of penalizing anyone who wasn't part of that industry, particularly agricultural interests and particularly in the South. So while the tariffs were enacted across the board, the effect they had benefitted industrial interests in the north and basically screwed everyone else. And it still led to lower revenues and to forcing southern businesses to use Northern railroads (at high prices) to ship their goods to the North where middlemen (who took a huge cut of the profits) would sell them making it even hard to break even.

From your own second source:

"Protective tariffs also tended to disproportionately penalize some sectors of the domestic economy while benefitting others, prompting charge that they created an unequally administered and even regressive tax system. Merchants who were involved in the existing trade with Europe saw the potential loss of their livelihood, both in the induced decline of shipped goods and the risk that foreign powers would retaliate against American exports with protective tariffs of their own. The agriculture-heavy export industry faced similar threats from abroad as well as the burdens of what economists now call the symmetry effects of the tariff—since exporters must sell their goods at an international market price, they lose the ability to pass through some of the costs of the tariff to their buyers even as they must absorb higher domestic prices for their own consumption."

A later passage from that same source:

"Protective tariffs also tended to disproportionately penalize some sectors of the domestic economy while benefitting others, prompting charge that they created an unequally administered and even regressive tax system. Merchants who were involved in the existing trade with Europe saw the potential loss of their livelihood, both in the induced decline of shipped goods and the risk that foreign powers would retaliate against American exports with protective tariffs of their own. The agriculture-heavy export industry faced similar threats from abroad as well as the burdens of what economists now call the symmetry effects of the tariff—since exporters must sell their goods at an international market price, they lose the ability to pass through some of the costs of the tariff to their buyers even as they must absorb higher domestic prices for their own consumption."

These tariffs also guaranteed that, once the Civil War did come around, Britain was inclined to support and supply the Confederacy because of the animosity the tariffs had created in them toward the US federal government.

So, thanks for providing links to prove my point. I will apologize, however, if my tone became insulting toward you. I was frustrated with your refusal to understand the detrimental effect the tariffs had to the entire economy outside Northern industrialists and their interests. And I still don't understand how you think trade with China is in any way relevant.

 

[popper]

Tariffs effect both imports and exports. Bring a ship in with goods, pay tariff, supposed to RAISE goods cost on both ends. Don't want to send it back empty. I think you missed the part that US was running out of $ before tariff increased. Most funding by tariff, not taxes. At any rate the effect on South business would be minimal, just shipping north. At that time south east was growing crop for export! Breadbasket was what we call the middle east. Textile and tobacco for export is all you do? Your problem.
Again, just a rich man's power struggle that started a war. Just like US and China. Check balance of trade.

 

[General Zod]

Tariffs effect both imports and exports. Bring a ship in with goods, pay tariff, supposed to RAISE goods cost on both ends. Don't want to send it back empty. I think you missed the part that US was running out of $ before tariff increased. Most funding by tariff, not taxes. At any rate the effect on South business would be minimal, just shipping north. At that time south east was growing crop for export! Breadbasket was what we call the middle east. Textile and tobacco for export is all you do? Your problem.
Again, just a rich man's power struggle that started a war. Just like US and China. Check balance of trade.

And you continue to miss the point that the effect on the South was not minimal. It was a serious point of contention for over three decades, and had a serous detrimental effect on the economies of the South, the West, and quite a few sectors in the North...but the industrialists who bankrolled the politicians benefited so it remained.

And while tariffs have an effect on both imports and exports, they are levied on imports. The way they affect exports is by reducing the amount of capital available to pay for those exported goods, and by triggering retaliatory tariffs at the receiving end for those exports.

 

[msharley]

May I say a word?

The South was trading cotton to England in exchange for rails, locomotives, and other "heavy goods"...at a much lower price than was offered by our fledgling steel industry.

The US steel industry (first recipient of corporate welfare in the US)...wanted/desired a MONOPOLY on on Steel and Rail Road Supplies...

had no interest in cotton ..which England needed for its maritime interest.

For those that are not aware, the "great" Iron, Steel & Railroad Magnates were (or soon would be) inter married with the Bankers (come to Pgh, I can take you to the tombs....all inscribed in STONE which was married to whom, and when)

After the "Civil War"....the Bankers were given free reign to pillage the South...

Carry on...

To the oligarchs go the spoils...(history books are written by the winners)

 

[Axxe55]

May I say a word?

The South was trading cotton to England in exchange for rails, locomotives, and other "heavy goods"...at a much lower price than was offered by our fledgling steel industry.

The US steel industry (first recipient of corporate welfare in the US)...wanted/desired a MONOPOLY on on Steel and Rail Road Supplies...

had no interest in cotton ..which England needed for its maritime interest.

For those that are not aware, the "great" Iron, Steel & Railroad Magnates were (or soon would be) inter married with the Bankers (come to Pgh, I can take you to the tombs....all inscribed in STONE which was married to whom, and when)

After the "Civil War"....the Bankers were given free reign to pillage the South...

Carry on...

To the oligarchs go the spoils...(history books are written by the winners)

EXACTLY!

 

[glenbo]

And you continue to miss the point that the effect on the South was not minimal. It was a serious point of contention for over three decades, and had a serous detrimental effect on the economies of the South, the West, and quite a few sectors in the North...but the industrialists who bankrolled the politicians benefited so it remained.

And while tariffs have an effect on both imports and exports, they are levied on imports. The way they affect exports is by reducing the amount of capital available to pay for those exported goods, and by triggering retaliatory tariffs at the receiving end for those exports.

Break out the crayons.

 

[leVieux]

<>

My o/p was not intended to start technical arguments; but rather to point out the massive inaccuracies in what we had been officially taught in schools.

As one professional Historian, a “full Professor’, commented:

“If you think our “news” is biased, our written histories are MUCH WORSE !”

Carry-on,

leVieux

<>

 

[popper]

FYI the tariff structure and I was surprised by the tonnage in and out of South.
Also gives the categories of tariffs. Pretty much spells out manufactured clothing items and food stuffs highest tax, raw goods lowest.

The United States tariffs of 1846 and 1857, with an introduction, showing the changes that have been made in the U.S. tariffs from 1789 to 1856, and the Tariff ...

My guess, South mostly missed out the change from ag to manufacturing, i.e. plantation owners couldn't give up or change (cheap labor!). Felt 'left out'. Tonnage shows South imported as much as North. NY port had almost 2M tons - largest. And cargo owner paid the tax. Maybe it wasn't the tariff but the price charged to the South? Or the amount available to the South? Also shows the Fed funds collected!
Zod - not a problem, just trying to get some factual info out. We start with a hypothesis and attempt to prove or disprove it.
Before the war, west was mostly populated by North, after a lot of south. Yes, after the war a lot of 'carpet baggers' moved in Same as for Indian territory and Ok (plains) after the depression. Human nature.

 

[General Zod]

My guess, South mostly missed out the change from ag to manufacturing, i.e. plantation owners couldn't give up or change (cheap labor!).

The South was, and is, a mostly agrarian economy. Back then even more so. They didn't "miss out", the South simply didn't completely restructure their entire economy to match the North. Just like Texas in the 1860s had an economy mostly based on farming and ranching, not on manufacturing. What had always been the basis of their economy remained so, and the tariffs penalized them while favoring Northern production.

The raw materials and resources for a 19th century industrial base simply weren't as available in the South...including the vast coal deposits to run it all.

 

[popper]

You still haven't explained how an ag economy is hurt by import tariff. Your claim Yankee politicians hurt the south by tariff. HOW?
The claim that the House had more North rep. to spend more Fed $ in the north is the only real answer. Aka big cities have more political clout than rural area. Same as now, nothing changed. Let's turn the tables, control Gov spending by rural area. Does that improve the overall economy of the country? I say no and wouldn't help the country if the South had won. Yu can only grow so much tobaccos, cotton and pine.
Similar to the school financing battle in Texas, rural against voucher system. Will any of it help educate our young? Nope just who gets to spend more of the tax $.
Speaking of taxes, as 50% of the US employment gets paid by taxes, 10% min Fed. 6% min sales, 5$ min property = 21% min tax on every family in US. Chew on that for a while as it is more important than a civil war argument.

 

[General Zod]

You still haven't explained how an ag economy is hurt by import tariff. Your claim Yankee politicians hurt the south by tariff. HOW?

I've attempted to explain it to you at least three times.

Ag economy makes money by selling ag products, yes? That's generally how it works.

Traders who wish to sell raw materials and products not produced by the ag economy get as much money for their goods in the ports as they can, yes? And when a tariff cuts the profit they can make on those goods by 30% or more, it severely cuts the amount those traders have to purchase goods so they can ship them back to their home market, right?

Ag economy products have to sell for lower prices to said traders so they can load their ships up and take those products to market. Of, if they're sold at the same prices, the traders will buy less (as they don't have unlimited funds - they have the profit they made on their last cargo minus repairs and provisions and pay for the crew)...and the leftover product will simply rot on the docks and go to waste. This adversely affects the ag economy. In northern ports, the products traded had a much larger profit margin so the effect on the steel barons and all the industrial products was smaller, as they could afford to adjust their prices more freely.

Meanwhile, the railroad barons in the North, knowing the South is over the barrel, will kindly step in and ship those ag products to northern markets...and it'll just cost them, oh, say 30% or more of the product's value. Oh, and you'll need to pay the middlemen who'll sell it. Should only be another 10% or so...

And BTW, all of this did adversely affect the consumers in the North, but they were never a priority and were not the driving force of the economy up there. The northern industrialists cornering the market and building monopolies was the priority, and their businesses drove the economy.

This is about as simple as I can make it.