View single post by ole
 Posted: Sun Jan 6th, 2008 11:02 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Posts: 2031

  back to top

I am just a country boy and easily confused, but I followed the links you provided regarding the tarriff issue and then followed links on that site. What I found strongly supports 39th Miss. Walker's argument...
As am I, Bama, but the tariff agrument simply doesn't fly very far. Ever launched one of those rubber band airplanes and it just blindly scrunched itself into a wall or tree? The tariff arguments simply don't fly. The south was not oppressed with tariffs. They paid exactly the same premium as the north. Fancy French libations oppressed the North as well as the south. The premium on rail steel affected the northern consumer as well as the southern. Cigars. Perfume. Furniture. There was no difference. You want a Steinway, you pay the freight. No difference. Rail stock? Same old same o.

The very idea that the south was put upon is, at best,specious. What the south had to pay, the north did as well.

All of the imports were dutied equally among the buyers. If you want to argue that the dutied items were more onerous in the south than in the north. I'd be interested to see some actual figures. The southern buyer paid exactly as much as the northern buyer, and probably a premium for the shipping. After all, the good stuff came into northern ports and was transhipped to southern buyers. And this has what to do with the northern merchants?

Push comes to shove in the general south. It lived on credit, and the north was the only source of that credit. Although the south was wealthy in terms of the paper value of land and slaves, it couldn't function without the credit granted by northern bankers. And that situation sucked, big time. But there were few southern financiers. And the northern influence was prevalent. Cain't live with them; can't live without them. And they grew to resent it. Just a sidebar.


 Close Window