Replies

Your comment to another: "Your fancy graphic showing where the money was getting collected is dominated by New York. Do you think New York alone earned all that money from their own exports?

You are correct . That diagram only shows the point of collection of the tariff charges.

The only diagram that would have any relevance here would be point of consumer payment or consumption of goods.

All of the prior posting comments about New York, wealthy plantation owners, etc. is all worthless speculation.

DiogenesLamp: ""Your fancy graphic showing where the money was getting collected is dominated by New York. Do you think New York alone earned all that money from their own exports?"

PeaRidge: "You are correct.
That diagram only shows the point of collection of the tariff charges.
The only diagram that would have any relevance here would be point of consumer payment or consumption of goods."

My post #590 addresses this issue with the best data I can find.

Around 1859 cotton represented 54% of US exports, tobacco another 4%.
The rest was Northern and western agricultural and manufactured products.

So it's clear the South contributed more than it's "fair share" to total US exports, but it's not clear if the resulting imports were really paid for by Southern cotton growers.

To cite a simple example: suppose a Southern cotton grower buys a machine (i.e., railroad or steamship equipment) manufactured in the North.
Now suppose that with money earned building this machine, the Northern employees go out and buy something imported from Europe, on which they pay a duty to Uncle Sam.

So, who do we say ultimately "paid the duty", those northern employees, or the Southern cotton grower?
Seems to me that for you to claim the cotton grower was somehow wronged because Northerners used some of his money to buy imports, and paid a duty, is a bit... well... far fetched.

Do you disagree? "