Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (38692)	5/31/1999 12:06:00 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 108807

There was a major economic problem if the North lost tariff-less access to these, and suddenly would have to start importing them from a foreign country with tariffs and all. Not to mention a long land frontier with a hostile nation. If the south had seceded, the north would have still had tariff-less access to cotton and tobacco if they wanted it simply by not imposing tariffs on imports of cotton and tobacco. Nations put tariffs on imports. No nation was so foolish as to tax it's own exports. The independent south did not do so either, though they did place tariffs on imports of manufactured goods. The only economic consequence of an independent south for the north was to lose the right to ship manufactured goods to southern customers without having to pay a tariff.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (38692)	5/31/1999 6:04:00 PM
From: nihil	Respond to of 108807

Had the Confederacy become a country it would have broken up over states rights almost immediately (it hardly survived the war). The North could have imported as much cotton and tobacco without tariffs as it wished. Please note that the importing country imposes tariffs, not the exporting country. Moreover, Southern independence would simply have turned California into cotton land earlier than it did. The real problem was that the South did not feed itself. It had to import food, mostly from the North. To divert much land from cotton and tobacco to food would have injured the Southern economy. The economic argument was Southern independence was very weak.