MHO Home   Forum Home   Help   Register   Login
 
 
Welcome to MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.
You are not signed in.
The current time is: 12/14/2017 9:43:39 PM
 American Civil War Politics (Unmoderated)    
AuthorMessage
john hayward
Allenstown, NH, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal
Posts: 146

The tariff of 1842
Posted on: 4/15/2017 8:24:15 PM
Don't know much on this topic but it seems that this had some support in the South. Newspapers in Savannah Ga and in NC were talking about industrial growth and Robert Toombs came out in support of it. Of course SC was fully against it. It did help revive the National economy. Did the the exports of cotton go up after 1842?

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 553

Re: The tariff of 1842
Posted on: 4/25/2017 8:23:07 PM
John,

It was a Whig policy and as a Whig Toombs supported it as temporary policy to create jobs in the North. That there was Southern support ends up being part of the argument fore secession using the perspective that the South would support policy to help the North in times of need no matter if it hurt their economy. It isn't so much the amount exported as the price gotten for the exported cotton. There is more than enough evidence that the price of cotton decreased as the tariff rate increased and as Northern textile paid less than the export rate it was basically a double hit. It also didn't just effect cotton but sugar and tobacco also while driving up the price of all industrial goods domestic or imported.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


john hayward
Allenstown, NH, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal
Posts: 146

Re: The tariff of 1842
Posted on: 4/28/2017 3:28:32 PM
Could support of the tariff open the door for the South to start industrializing? Creating their own mills?

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 553

Re: The tariff of 1842
Posted on: 4/30/2017 3:38:36 AM
John,

That is a tricky question. It could have if we are talking long term support and if Northern banks would have been willing to loan the capital at reasonable rates competitive with those given to exiting Northern industry. The thing is why would Northern banks do that and add competition to their existing customers and in many cases partners in Northern industry? Throw in that the tariff adds greatly to the start-up costs because anything iron or steal is now tariffed at what 50% so as to make Northern production more competitive while adding to profits so as to create more jobs in the North not the South.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5713

Re: The tariff of 1842
Posted on: 4/30/2017 6:47:31 AM
John this is interesting. I had to do a little homework but it seems that the 1842 Tariff was quickly replaced in 1846 by President Polk.

It was called the Walker Tariff and it had great support in the south. One article said that trade with Great Britain had suffered under the 1842 Tariff and that Polk's initiative would revive that trade.

Does that make sense? Did the 1842 Tariff stifle foreign trade?


Cheers,

George

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 553

Re: The tariff of 1842
Posted on: 4/30/2017 3:20:47 PM
George,

The whole point of a "protective tariff" is to protect domestic production from foreign competition, ie raise the cost of imported goods to increase the sales of the domestically produced alternative.


---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5713

Re: The tariff of 1842
Posted on: 4/30/2017 3:39:42 PM

Quote:
George,

The whole point of a "protective tariff" is to protect domestic production from foreign competition, ie raise the cost of imported goods to increase the sales of the domestically produced alternative.


--John R. Price


John I know what a tariff does. We just had one imposed by Mr. Trump on our softwood lumber.

But the 1846 Tariff, the Walker tariff, reduced tariffs by a great deal. It seems to me then that Pres. Polk felt that the 1842 tariff was disadvantageous to US interests.

So why did Polk reduce the tariff? Did the US economy get worse in the period between 1842 and 1846?

Cheers,

George

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 553

Re: The tariff of 1842
Posted on: 4/30/2017 9:56:34 PM
George,

The tariff was the chief source of revenue for the Federal government and not every tariff is protectionist. And with respect the US economy wasn't in trouble in 1842 only the Northeast or what today is the eastern part of the "Rust Belt" was having problems mainly with unemployment and wage deflation mainly due to immigration. There really wasn't a US economy but sectional economies with different wants and needs. Also you have the debate of limited vs expanded central government at work here mainly over building transportation infrastructure for industry although some would say that the fear of a cash rich Fed would try to use that cash to free the slaves factors in also. There is a hell of a lot going on here and given our history I'd rather not get into it.

Edit The average rate of the 1842 Tariff was 39.8% with rates on iron and steal averaging near 75% and those on nails and hoop metal over 100% while expanding items taxable from 50% of imports to 85%. A better question might be why was that so high not why the Walker Tariff so much lower.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5713

Re: The tariff of 1842
Posted on: 5/1/2017 6:55:28 AM

Quote:
There is a hell of a lot going on here and given our history I'd rather not get into it.


I presume by "our history", you mean past conversations between you and me.

It is a rather dry topic John. If you don't want to share that's OK.

I won't lose any sleep over it.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Posts: 5713

Re: The tariff of 1842
Posted on: 5/1/2017 10:32:32 AM
OK I have been trying to follow the periods in US history in which protectionists vied with free traders in determining whether punitive tariffs would be applied.

In the early days of the US, tariffs were applied to encourage domestic industries to grow.

New businesses were established but were only competitive domestically.

In the years before the War of 1812, Jefferson imposed an embargo on British goods. (1807)

Those businesses thrived throughout the war but when it ended their inefficiencies became apparent. They were called "mushroom industries" and they demanded higher tariffs to protect their positions domestically. Called mushrooms, I presume because they were sheltered and allowed to succeed only because foreign competition was discouraged by the tariffs.

And so the US imposed even higher tariffs in 1816.

Good for industrialists, bad for farmers because everything imported was subject to duty and anything exported was subject to countervailing duties.

Virginia farmers were upset because the tariff system meant that effectively they could only sell domestically.

Those farmers said that the government should realize where the country had a competitive advantage.


Quote:
“That instead of struggling against the dictates of reason and nature, and madly attempting to produce every thing at home, countries should study to direct their labors to those departments of industry for which their situation and circumstances are best adopted.”


Seeds of Discontent

Southern farmers perceived the high tariffs as a benefit to the northern manufacturers at their expense.

In 1821 a Congressional Committee on Manufacturing declared:


Quote:
“It is a fact, which cannot be too often repeated, which has been verified by every experience, confirmed on every trial, that, when the domestic market has been secured to the domestic manufacturer, domestic competition has reduced the price to the consumer.”


And the response from Virginia Sen. John Taylor


Quote:
“The Committee have entirely overlooked by far the most important branch of political economy, namely, the economy which teaches nations not to expend the principles which secure their liberty, in search of money. ... How could it happen that exchanges of property with foreigners should ruin us, but that transfers of property to capitalists should do us no harm?”



Americans were paying double the world price for sugar and the same for wool products.

1828 Congress imposed the Tariff of Abominations. Britain was still the manufacturing giant but Americans could not afford their products because of tariffs. People in the south were upset because they had to buy shoddy American produced products and at the same time the export market for cotton died

1832. Congress bumped the tariff again. The government of South Carolina called this tariff unconstitutional and began to buy cannons and other military goods.

But former Sec. of Treasury Gallatin (also a treaty negotiator for the War of 1812), reported that the tariff system was killing the iron production industry. The US had been producing iron that was excellent and competitive on the world market before this cycle of tariffs was brought in.

1845. The Dems took over and began to dismantle the tariff system.

Note the protectionists felt that the tariffs shielded them from the British but in 1846 the Brits repealed nearly all tariffs on US agricultural products.

But the industrialists still pushed for a tariff system.


Do I have the basics down about protectionist policy in the US? If not, please correct and advise.


So here is my question:

Was the tariff system a factor in starting the civil war?

Abe Lincoln campaigned on a promise to boost tariffs again so I wonder how alienated the southern states, dependent upon agriculture felt about a system that was designed to protect northern industry at the expense of southern farmers.


Cheers,

George

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 553

Re: The tariff of 1842
Posted on: 5/1/2017 12:58:45 PM



Was the tariff system a factor in starting the civil war?

Abe Lincoln campaigned on a promise to boost tariffs again so I wonder how alienated the southern states, dependent upon agriculture felt about a system that was designed to protect northern industry at the expense of southern farmers.

The discussion of how much a factor is the main reason why this section is "Unmoderated." I don't think you will get much disagreement that it was a factor but I don't think you will get any agreement on how much a factor.

---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


john hayward
Allenstown, NH, USA
top 40
E-4 Corporal
Posts: 146

Re: The tariff of 1842
Posted on: 5/8/2017 10:18:55 AM
reason I started this was I read an interesting on Millard Fillmore. He pushed the 1842 tariff when he was in Congress. He seemed to feel it would help all sections. I think the Whigs had more vision to a modern US

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant
Posts: 553

Re: The tariff of 1842
Posted on: 5/8/2017 1:33:12 PM
John,

You think a inclusive and very high tariff is a good thing? Especially when domestic production(supply) can't hope to meet demand and domestic production is in many cases a inferior product? Plus with respect the majority of the population worked in agriculture which was exported and any tariff is going to be countered by trade partners with their own tariff lowering the amount you export lowering the price gotten for you products domestically because of a glut in supply.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


 American Civil War Politics (Unmoderated)    
 Forum Ads from Google