US Tariffs & Slavery: Economic Impact Explored

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

When we talk about the history of the United States, tariffs and slavery often seem like separate issues. One deals with taxes on goods, the other with the brutal system of human bondage. Yet, digging deeper reveals a tangled connection. Tariff policies didn’t just shape trade; they deeply impacted the lives and economic realities of Black people, from the lead-up to the Civil War through modern times. Understanding this connection is crucial to grasping the full economic story of America and its lasting effects on our communities.

These policies often favored certain parts of the country and specific industries, frequently at the expense of others. This economic maneuvering repeatedly intersected with the fight over slavery and the subsequent struggle for Black economic survival after emancipation. It is therefore important to look closely at how these seemingly dry economic policies played a role in shaping racial inequality.

Morrill Tariff Civil War Myth Debunked

A common argument, sometimes called the “Lost Cause” narrative, claims the Morrill Tariff of 1861 was the real reason the South seceded, not slavery. This tariff did significantly raise taxes on imported goods. It aimed to protect Northern industries and generate government revenue (Morrill Tariff – Wikipedia). However, this argument crumbles under scrutiny. The timeline simply doesn’t add up.

Most Confederate states actually left the Union *before* the Morrill Tariff was even signed into law on March 2, 1861. Their declarations of secession rarely mentioned tariffs. Instead, they overwhelmingly focused on preserving the institution of slavery. South Carolina’s 1860 “Declaration of Causes,” for example, explicitly centered on protecting slavery as their main reason for leaving (Debunking the Civil War Tariff Myth). Thinkers like Karl Marx observed this at the time, arguing slavery was the clear driver, and the tariff talk was just a convenient excuse used later (Morrill Tariff – Wikipedia; Debunking the Civil War Tariff Myth). Thus, while the tariff did raise tensions and become a revenue source for the Union (Tariffs and the American Civil War), it wasn’t the catalyst for secession; slavery was.

Tariff of Abominations and US Tariffs History

Long before the Civil War, tariffs were already stirring trouble, particularly the Tariff of 1828. Nicknamed the “Tariff of Abominations” in the South, it slapped high taxes (up to 50%) on imported goods to shield Northern factories from foreign competition (Tariff of 1828 – Britannica). Southern states, heavily reliant on exporting crops like cotton and importing manufactured goods, felt unfairly targeted. They feared retaliatory tariffs from other countries would harm their agricultural exports, the backbone of their slave-based economy.

This led directly to the Nullification Crisis (1832-1833). South Carolina, led by John C. Calhoun, declared the federal tariffs null and void within its borders, asserting a state’s right to reject federal laws it deemed unconstitutional (Nullification Crisis of 1832 – Lesson). Although the immediate crisis was about tariffs, the underlying issue was federal power versus states’ rights. Crucially, Southern leaders saw this fight as a blueprint. Calhoun and others explicitly framed the tariff dispute as a test case for resisting potential federal interference with slavery (The Nullification Crisis and the Bank War; Tariff of Abominations – Wikipedia). Consequently, this early tariff battle solidified the states’ rights doctrine that would later be used to defend slavery and justify secession.

Post-War Exploitation and the Economic Impact of Slavery

After the Civil War and the formal end of slavery, the struggle for Black economic freedom faced new, insidious obstacles. While tariffs continued to protect Northern industries, economic policies in the South evolved to maintain racial control and exploit Black labor. Systems like sharecropping and convict leasing effectively replaced slavery (Black Land Loss in the United States).

Sharecropping trapped many Black families in endless cycles of debt. Landowners, often former enslavers, would lease land, tools, and seed at high interest rates, taking a large share of the crop as payment. Unfair contracts and inflated costs made it nearly impossible for sharecroppers to get ahead, creating a system of debt peonage (Debt Peonage – US History). Simultaneously, convict leasing allowed states to rent out prisoners, overwhelmingly Black men arrested under discriminatory “Black Codes” and vagrancy laws, to private companies for brutal forced labor (Reconstructing Slave Labor). Furthermore, discriminatory tax policies and tariff structures increased costs for essential farming tools, disproportionately burdening Black farmers trying to establish independence (The Morrill Tariff; Reconstructing Slave Labor). These systems perpetuated poverty and hindered Black wealth accumulation for generations.

Forced Labor Tariffs: A Modern Loophole

The link between tariffs and forced labor didn’t end with the Civil War. Shockingly, the Tariff Act of 1930 (often called the Smoot-Hawley Tariff) contained a major loophole that allowed goods made with forced or slave labor into the U.S. This act raised tariffs dramatically on thousands of items, aiming to protect American jobs during the Great Depression (Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act – Overview). However, it deepened the economic crisis globally.

The loophole permitted imports made by forced labor if the goods couldn’t be produced domestically in sufficient quantities to meet demand. For over 80 years, this allowed products potentially tainted by modern slavery – like cocoa from the Ivory Coast or cotton from certain regions – to legally enter the U.S. market. This flaw was finally closed by Congress in 2016 (Eight Decades Later, Congress Closes Loophole). Subsequent legislation, like the 2021 Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, further addressed this by specifically targeting goods from China’s Xinjiang region due to widespread concerns about forced labor camps (Modern Slavery in United States). Indeed, these ongoing legislative efforts highlight the persistent need to use trade policy to combat forced labor.

Modern Tariffs, Forced Labor, and Economic Inequity

Even today, tariff policies continue to intersect with issues of labor exploitation and economic inequality that have roots in slavery’s legacy. The 2018 U.S.-China trade war, initiated with tariffs on billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods (US-China Trade War 2018), brought renewed attention to global supply chains. While aiming to address trade imbalances and intellectual property theft, the conflict also highlighted American dependence on goods produced in regions with documented labor abuses.

Concerns about forced labor, particularly involving the Uyghur population in Xinjiang, became central to the trade discussion (The Slave Wages Beneath Your Stuff). The subsequent Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) established a “rebuttable presumption” that goods from Xinjiang are made with forced labor, banning their import unless proven otherwise (The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act). Moreover, initiatives like California’s 2024 reparations package seek to address long-standing systemic inequities. Although excluding direct cash payments, the package includes measures targeting wealth gaps, property rights (like addressing racially biased eminent domain), and criminal justice reform – issues worsened by historical economic policies, including discriminatory tariffs, that disadvantaged Black communities (California Introduces First-in-Nation Slavery Reparations Package). These efforts reflect an understanding that past economic injustices continue to shape present realities.

From the pre-Civil War era to today’s globalized economy, U.S. tariff policies have consistently intertwined with the history of slavery and its enduring economic consequences for Black Americans. Arguments citing tariffs as the primary cause of the Civil War obscure the central role of slavery (Debunking the Civil War Tariff Myth). Early tariff disputes like the Nullification Crisis provided a framework for defending slavery through states’ rights (The Nullification Crisis and the Bank War). After emancipation, exploitative systems like sharecropping flourished alongside tariff policies that often benefited Northern industry while hindering Black economic progress (Black Land Loss in the United States). Even modern tariff laws have inadvertently enabled forced labor imports, requiring specific legislation like the UFLPA to address these issues (Eight Decades Later, Congress Closes Loophole; Modern Slavery in United States). Ultimately, understanding this complex history is vital for addressing the deep-rooted economic disparities that continue to affect Black communities today.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.