|
thompsonx -> RE: Robert E. Lee Day (1/26/2008 12:50:20 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer
OK memory failedme as to the direction of the tariffs Northern proposed Tariffs were proposed and put in place on goods imported from europe (the prefered partner for many Southern markets) But the effect was much the same.
The other critical economic issue that divided the North from the South was that of tariffs. Tariffs were taxes placed on imported goods, the money from which would go to the government. Throughout the antebellum period, whenever the federal government wanted to raise tariffs, Southern Congressmen generally opposed it and Northern Congressmen generally supported it. Southerners generally favored low tariffs because this kept the cost of imported goods low, which was important in the South's import-oriented economy. Southern planters and farmers were concerned that high tariffs might make their European trading partners, primarily the British, raise prices on manufactured goods imported by the South in order to maintain a profit on trade.
In the North, however, high tariffs were viewed favorably because such tariffs would make imported goods more expensive. That way, goods produced in the North would seem relatively cheap, and Americans would want to buy American goods instead of European items. Since tariffs would protect domestic industry from foreign competition, business interests and others influenced politicians to support high tariffs.
Americans in the West were divided on the issue. In the Southwest, where cotton was a primary commodity, people generally promoted low tariffs. In the Northwest and parts of Kentucky, where hemp (used for baling cotton) was a big crop, people supported high tariffs.
http://www.historycentral.com/civilwar/AMERICA/Economics.html
They already were passed Morrill Tariffs 1861 that replaced the far less protectionist 1857 tariffs.
When looked at these tariffs were far disproportionate in effect by region.
Northern Manufacturing benifits boosting their economy, Southern Agriculture loses proftitability.
Additional Tax based reasons cited in history
As industry in the North expanded it looked towards southern markets, rich with cash from the lucrative agricultural business, to buy the North's manufactured goods. However, it was often cheaper for the South to purchase the goods abroad. In order to "protect" the northern industries Jackson slapped a tariff on many of the imported goods that could be manufactured in the North. When South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification in November 1832, refusing to collect the tariff and threatening to withdraw from the Union, Jackson ordered federal troops to Charleston. A secession crisis was averted when Congress revised the Tariff of Abominations in February 1833.
http://ngeorgia.com/history/why.html
So the fear that the Federal Government was using taxes to protect the Industrial North to the detriment of the Agrarian South have a sound basis historicly (afterall it had happened just 30 some years earlier) and it was happening again when the Morrell Tarrifs came in 1861.
Archer:
Taxes and tariffs are a prerogative of the federal government granted to the fed by the constitution. Since this discussion is about how the civil war was fought over the question of "states rights" this is a bit of a red hearing,don't you think?
thompson
|
|
|
|
