Not yet, but why would we need specific data? Once we've established that a general condition holds, specific numbers will only reflect "noise."
Any such estimation must be based on inference drawn from available data. Would you agree with that?
Yes, but inferences are close enough. You aren't going to find a radical departure from the norm.
With the South producing 65-84 percent of the total export value, 65-84 percent of the tariff money must come from this revenue stream. (Probably more actually, because the tariffs were also weighted to favor the North.)
But none of this addresses the largest and most significant aspect of this. The bulk of European trade would have moved to Southern ports, and it would have very badly hurt some Northern Industries and especially New York.
At least we agree on this one small point.
Ill argue the rest later.
The correct figure, for purposes of this discussion, is exports not of ill-defined "Southern products" but rather of strictly Confederate products, which turned out to be: cotton, in 1860 ~$200 million or 50% of US total exports.
Most everything else classified as "Southern products" turned out to have shipped from Union states or Unionist regions of Confederate states.
DiogenesLamp: "But none of this addresses the largest and most significant aspect of this.
The bulk of European trade would have moved to Southern ports, and it would have very badly hurt some Northern Industries and especially New York."
Today about 95% of US trade tonnage goes through ports that are not New York.
Indeed, the entire Eastern Seaboard, from Boston to Baltimore, by my calculation receives only 10% of total US freight tonnage.
And how big of a problem has this caused either average Americans or those amorphous "Northeastern Power Brokers"?
You tell me.