Talk:Tariff of 1828
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been assessed as Mid-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve tax-related articles to a feature-quality standard. |
| Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the Project's priority scale. |
 |
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
I delete an earlier comment - it looks like the page is under attack. My apologies. Hughespj 12:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Excuse the question, but exactly when did the British stop buying cotton from U.S. producers? The tariff didn't affect the price to the British, only made their finished cotton textiles more expensive in the U.S. The Brits still had many other markets. The cotton states were the world's largest producers of raw cotton anywhere. If the Brits didn't buy from the U.S., they'd have to go out of business.... And years later, during the Civil War, many British mills did shut down temporarily until they could find another source of supply.
Is there another name for this? It seems kind of POV. Only half-kidding, Meelar 05:41, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What is POV?
- POV means "Point of view"--it's not welcomed here. For our official policy, read Wikipedia:NPOV, which explains the concept of "Neutral Point of View". Meelar 05:50, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- P.S. You can sign your edits by using 4 tildes in a row.
Contents |
[edit] They didn't stop buying...
"Excuse the question, but exactly when did the British stop buying cotton from U.S. producers?"
They didn't stop buying the cotton, the British reduced the amount of cotton imported into the country from the US.
++ The right response, here, would be to provide a citation for this assertion of fact, not to just repeat the text of the existing article. No one is misreading the text of the article. The question is: what is the quantitative evidence that this was true. BruceW07 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
"The tariff didn't affect the price to the British, only made their finished cotton textiles more expensive in the U.S. The Brits still had many other markets. The cotton states were the world's largest producers of raw cotton anywhere."
But not the only suppliers of cotton.
++ In 1828, the American South was pretty much the only source for short- staple cotton. The relatively low cost of American, slave-plantation-produced cotton undermined the economic basis for developing other sources. BruceW07 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
"If the Brits didn't buy from the U.S., they'd have to go out of business...." (I assume you mean the British?) "And years later, during the Civil War, many British mills did shut down temporarily until they could find another source of supply."
The source was already there, the British owned 1/3 of the worlds supply of raw cotton. The problem with them shutting down was a loss of revenue for manufactured goods, not from missing an ample source of material (but from an export problem, the south was under a blockade). The confederacy was an attempt to establish a separate government, and as such, had no trade relations with any other country. The confederacy used the cotton they did have to try and persuade the British and European countries to break the blockade which they never did. Also because of this lack of trade with the south, the revenue generated for European textile makers was greatly reduced as the products were manufactured domestically.
++ This is an extremely tendentious misreading of the impact of the Southern cotton embargo and the subsequent Union blockade. In fact, European inventories of raw cotton were very high at the beginning of the American Civil War -- it was a glutted market, which blunted the effect of the Embargo. Later on, Union war demand and economic expansion blunted the overall effects; the American South was a vital market for British exports only in the deluded minds of Southern leaders. None of this has much to do with the topic of this particular article, but it makes me question your motives and objectivity. BruceW07 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proper title of Act
In accordance with other articles on tariffs and bills, this article should be titled under the formal name of the act, Tariff of 1828, rather than under a perjorative nickname, Tariff of Abominations. And so I moved it for that reason. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] How much was the tarrif?
Added... --Palundrium 04:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Not The Highest in US History...
The American Pagent 12th Edition writes "[The tariff] It turned out to be the highest protective tariff in the nation's peactime history." in regards to the Hartley-Smoot tariff. It would be a more accurate and still equally meaninful statement to say that the tariff was the highest so far; instead of the highest in history. --Frozenport 00:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
In reading/scanning through Taussig's text on tariffs I see some major problems with the present article. The following I'm stiking because it appears both inaccurate and the citation given is not from an authoritative source on the matter:
It came to be known as the "Tariff of Abominations" because it was the highest tariff in U.S. history, enacting a 62% tax on 92% of all imported goods
First, I don't believe it is accurate. Second, the Buchanan quote is not what I would call a credible reference. Buchanan is a political figure and as such has a strong POV, writing to persuade rather than document/inform. He is not an historian. Third, in reading how complex the tariff structure was, particularly the minimum valuations and what was/was not covered I realize that such a precise statement requires an equally precise peer reviewed or at least widely accepted source. Red Harvest (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
