|
|
> 1) Manufacturing. Absent the tariff, would there have been any significant
> manufacturing in the U.S. before 1850? Quite possibly not. The country's
> international comparative advantage was in agriculture, and plausibly the
> course of events was for New England to become depopulated.
Joshua,
I don't know the literature on the antebellum tariff all that well, but I
am somewhat startled by your view of early manufacturing.
One reason is that before 1850 considerable manufacturing existed in
British North America in spite of having lower incomes and lower
population densities than in the U.S., in spite of having a small and
weakly integrated internal market (because of the geography of settlelemt
in British North America), in spite of lacking clear access to the US
market (because of the US tariff) AND in spite of having a low external
tariff. If Montreal and rural Canada had significant manufacturing, why
not Boston and rural New England which had many more advantages quite
apart from the tariff?
I could not resist the example, today being our 'Canada Day'. However,
leaving aside Canadian peculiarities, in 1850 a good deal of manufacturing
everywhere (including Britain) processed local raw materials for local
consumption. Especially so for raw materials in which the local region had
a comparative advantage. In the case of antebellum North America I would
include in this category all of the leather and wood-based products, most
food and beverages, some fibres and minerals and almost all of the
non-metallic minerals. It is a different point, but other kinds of
manufacturing, such as printing, had a signficant component of locally
generated services. The survival of local industry is not so surprising
when we recognize that by 1850 only a small number of industries had been
transformed by industrial revolution technology and long-distance
transport costs still had a long way to fall. Even in markets with a high
proportion of long distance trade, the North American producers had some
advantages, including various mentioned by Deirdre.
Perhaps I am missing your point, but your view of early 19th century
manufacturing does not seem plausible. However, if you retreat a little
and say less broadly that the size and location of manufacturing in
antebellum america would have been different without the commitment to
tariffs, and that the nature of the difference is very difficult to
assess, then I agree fully. And that might be enough for your larger
point about methodology.
Kris Inwood, University of Guelph
|
|
|
 Send comments and questions to admin@eh.net
|
||