Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 8th, 2018, 03:51 PM   #1
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 168
Civil War antebellum - Specific prices of imports to South with tariffs


I was investigating the claim, not trying to argue for it. I don't want controversy, so I'll just delete the OP and want this thread closed.

Last edited by nakamichi; July 8th, 2018 at 04:10 PM.
nakamichi is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 8th, 2018, 04:00 PM   #2
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Dispargum
Posts: 2,491

You're going to stir up controversy by saying that tariffs contributed to the war. In the 1830s, tariffs were a contentious issue between the North and South. By the 1850s, tariffs had largely receded from the national consciousness - mostly because the South was very successful at reducing them. In 1860, there were Northerners who wanted to increase the tariff, but there was little national support for such a policy.


The Walker Tariff of 1846 was about 25%. In 1857 the average tariff was lowered to about 18%. Earlier tariffs had been as high as 45%. For a product valued at $1.00 while still on the ship, the Walker Tariff levied a 25 cent tax on that product. If the full tax could be passed on to the customer, the tariff raised the price to $1.25. This is the price coming off of the ship. The product might be bought and sold several times before reaching the end consumer. Final retail price paid by the end consumer would be much higher. Even a 25% tariff was a small portion of the final retail price.

Last edited by Chlodio; July 8th, 2018 at 04:11 PM.
Chlodio is offline  
Old July 8th, 2018, 04:06 PM   #3
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 168

Deleted

Last edited by nakamichi; July 8th, 2018 at 04:09 PM.
nakamichi is offline  
Old July 8th, 2018, 04:47 PM   #4
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Here
Posts: 4,321
Blog Entries: 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by nakamichi View Post
I was investigating the claim, not trying to argue for it. I don't want controversy, so I'll just delete the OP and want this thread closed.
You shouldn't take it like that, you have a right to ask the question. However, we have been through this discussion numerous times on this forum and you can read one of the previous threads if you want to see the answers you will inevitably get by asking the question yet again.

But one thing I will offer is that you should be more careful about the articles you read on the internet. The one you quoted was written by someone who understands little about the war. For instance, let's look at this statement from the article which has nothing to do with what started the war...

Quote:
Despite the advantages the Confederacy had in well-trained officers and dedication to a cause, it was inevitable that the Union would win the war.
First, the best of supposedly well-trained Confederate officers were trained at West Point as were the best of the Union generals. And officers from both sides fought with distinction in the Mexican-American War. The idea of better trained Confederate generals is a myth. In fact, only a small number can be praised for their command skills.

Second, Confederate soldiers were no more committed to their cause than Union soldiers. In fact, the Confederacy had to rely more on conscription than did the Union.

Third, I don't know of one serious Civil War historian who maintains that Union victory was "inevitable." In fact, several have shown how Confederate victory could have been possible.

So the article you are reading was written by someone who does not know what he is talking about. if you want to know what happened in the war, it is best to read real Civil War scholars. Reading non-cited internet articles written by unknown writers is a waste of your time.
Jax Historian is offline  
Old July 8th, 2018, 05:48 PM   #5
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 168

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jax Historian View Post
You shouldn't take it like that, you have a right to ask the question. However, we have been through this discussion numerous times on this forum and you can read one of the previous threads if you want to see the answers you will inevitably get by asking the question yet again.

But one thing I will offer is that you should be more careful about the articles you read on the internet. The one you quoted was written by someone who understands little about the war. For instance, let's look at this statement from the article which has nothing to do with what started the war...



First, the best of supposedly well-trained Confederate officers were trained at West Point as were the best of the Union generals. And officers from both sides fought with distinction in the Mexican-American War. The idea of better trained Confederate generals is a myth. In fact, only a small number can be praised for their command skills.

Second, Confederate soldiers were no more committed to their cause than Union soldiers. In fact, the Confederacy had to rely more on conscription than did the Union.

Third, I don't know of one serious Civil War historian who maintains that Union victory was "inevitable." In fact, several have shown how Confederate victory could have been possible.

So the article you are reading was written by someone who does not know what he is talking about. if you want to know what happened in the war, it is best to read real Civil War scholars. Reading non-cited internet articles written by unknown writers is a waste of your time.
Oh, OK. I think I understand the confusion, and I'm at fault for not giving more context. The article was not cited as evidence that tariffs contributed to the war. I heard the tariff argument around 20 years ago, and I referenced it to show that people still discuss it. You guys already know this, so referencing it period was not a good idea. Sorry.

I was not asking/arguing did 'tariffs help instigate the War, yes or no?' I wanted an idea of specific numbers on specific products, for a project I'm doing with little to do with American history. I already checked out some old threads, but didn't see tariffs discussed as specific as I needed.

Did the 18% given by Chlodio contribute to ALL imports from England? I'm specifically interested in textiles and footwear. If the answer is 'yes', I can handle the rest.
nakamichi is offline  
Old July 8th, 2018, 06:14 PM   #6
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 168

And to clarify, I'm only researching whatever tariffs were in effect circa 1861.
nakamichi is offline  
Old July 8th, 2018, 07:07 PM   #7
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: Virginia
Posts: 564

Try this:

history.furman.edu/benson/hst41/show/tariff1857.htm

30% duty on MACARONI! Now that's something to secede about!

Last edited by Dentatus; July 8th, 2018 at 07:34 PM.
Dentatus is offline  
Old July 8th, 2018, 07:37 PM   #8
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 168

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dentatus View Post
Try this:

history.furman.edu/benson/hst41/show/tariff1857.htm

30% duty on MACARONI! Now that's something to secede about!
WOW!

I think this is exactly what I need!

Thank you, but sorry to trouble you guys. American history is not my thing.
nakamichi is offline  
Old July 8th, 2018, 07:53 PM   #9
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Algeria
Posts: 168

Hm.

But I could still use a price comparison, or two, on an identical product made domestically vs imported.
nakamichi is offline  
Old July 9th, 2018, 12:10 AM   #10
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Here
Posts: 4,321
Blog Entries: 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by nakamichi View Post
I was not asking/arguing did 'tariffs help instigate the War, yes or no?' I wanted an idea of specific numbers on specific products, for a project I'm doing with little to do with American history. I already checked out some old threads, but didn't see tariffs discussed as specific as I needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nakamichi View Post
And to clarify, I'm only researching whatever tariffs were in effect circa 1861.
I'm not sure what kind of project you are doing that has little to do with American history that needs 1861 U.S. tariffs, but since you said you are looking for 1861 tariffs, maybe you should know that a new, higher tariff was passed in March 1861, so the 1857 numbers Dentatus gave you may not be what you are looking for. You may what to look for the 1861 numbers instead?

Last edited by Jax Historian; July 9th, 2018 at 12:13 AM.
Jax Historian is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
antebellum, civil, imports, prices, south, specific, tariffs, war



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Difference Between the Upper and Lower South during Antebellum Era aspie3000 American History 5 July 16th, 2017 11:03 AM
How did cotton planters in the antebellum South restore potassium to the soil? grey fox American History 3 July 12th, 2017 02:28 PM
Freedmen in the Antebellum South Tenebrous American History 20 October 17th, 2014 01:37 PM
Vote buying and planter control in the antebellum south betgo American History 16 June 20th, 2014 05:22 AM
The Antebellum South Elias the Good American History 7 June 3rd, 2011 04:11 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.