Joshism
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2019
- Messages
- 488
- Reaction score
- 587
In the discussion about tariffs as a supposed cause of the war, the emphasis is usually on the imported goods that would purchased be used in the South.
But shouldn't the real tariff issue be reciprocal tariffs? If the US raises tariffs on European goods, Europeans would typically respond by raising tariffs on US exports.
What was the export on which the South relied? Cotton, of course. So tariffs hurt the Southern economy by making Southern cotton less financially lucrative. King Cotton and slavery were intertwined in the antebellum South. An threat to one was a threat to both.
Thus in the end saying the war was about tariffs is to say the war was about slavery. Tariffs threatened slavery, much as the states' rights under threat was the right for a state to maintain slavery.
I believe the modern term is dog whistle.
But shouldn't the real tariff issue be reciprocal tariffs? If the US raises tariffs on European goods, Europeans would typically respond by raising tariffs on US exports.
What was the export on which the South relied? Cotton, of course. So tariffs hurt the Southern economy by making Southern cotton less financially lucrative. King Cotton and slavery were intertwined in the antebellum South. An threat to one was a threat to both.
Thus in the end saying the war was about tariffs is to say the war was about slavery. Tariffs threatened slavery, much as the states' rights under threat was the right for a state to maintain slavery.
I believe the modern term is dog whistle.