(11-07-2018, 10:10 PM)mikesez Wrote: (11-07-2018, 07:45 PM)Predator Wrote: There was nothing equal about how the tariffs worked.
The initial idea was that the tariffs would create a self sufficient internal market that would be beneficial to both regions, but the reality turned out to be the north didn't have the industrial capacity to make this a mutually beneficial relationship. The truth is the motivation behind the tariffs changed from beneficial to exploitative.
Due to the fact that the north didn't have industrial capacity for the south's raw materials or to provide an adequate amount of manufactured goods, Britain remained the south's largest trading partner. Since the south was by far the largest importer and exporter of goods, they took on a very inequitable burden in regards to tariffs.
Over time, unscrupulous northern lawmakers learned that tariffs could be used artificially drive off international demand for the south's raw materials forcing them to sell to northern manufacturers at below international market prices and also to drive up the price of imported manufactured goods thus opening up the market for the north's higher priced goods. These tariffs also caused Britain to look for cheaper alternatives and was a factor in them taking over India for it's ability to grow cotton which further reduced demand and pushed down prices. Even after this inequity became apparent, northern lawmakers continued to push these tariffs and even reversed attempts to lower the tariff burden in order to line their and their constituency's pockets to the south's dismay.
Even though the bulk of the tariff income was earned in the south, the bulk of that income was spent developing the north. The need for water power, which is why early industrialization happened in northern cities, became a non factor with the development of steam power. Yet the northern controlled legislature continued to spend the bulk of the money developing industries and infrastructure benefiting solely the north leaving the south undeveloped and reliant on their antiquated slave economy further stirring animosity. So it can be said the north actually perpetuated the institution of slavery in the south.
As far as the whites who controlled politics being the only ones affected by tariffs could not be further from the truth. Most whites in the south were either non slave holding farmers, farm hands, or worked in raw material producing industries. These tariffs, by lowering the prices of what they produced, decreased the wages and earnings of the average southerner while increasing the cost of manufactured goods they needed at the same time. So in reality, the average white person in the south was hit hardest by the double whammy of tariffs and this fact was not lost on the average southerner.
Why didn't the South just set up its own textile factories?
Because they didn't have the infrastructure to make that feasible, and the tariff money they were most responsible for paying was being used to build that infrastructure in the north for northern interests.
Fast forward 50 years when the infrastructure is finally in place, the efficiency of textile mills being in the south ran the northern mills out of business.
The tariffs weren't being used for the good of the nation, they were being used for regional self interest. If national interest were at heart, then the infrastructure and investment would have happened in the south where non slave labor was cheapest and raw material was abundant easily accessible. It was these very qualities that in later years allowed the south to dominate the global textile market.
But it was sectionalism and northern greed that prevented the south from developing a viable economy that wasn't so dependent on slavery. If these steps had been taken in the years preceding the war, it would have given the south a viable out from a fading institution. Unfortunately, this didn't happen and the south was stuck with the choice of slavery or economic destitution.
We now have 600k deaths to remind us of what happens when sectional interests are put ahead of whats most beneficial for the nation.
