So you approve of Rep. Brooks' actions?
FLT-bird on 1828 tariff: "In general the Southern states quickly came to hate it because it did huge harm to their economy.
New England came to love it and tried to keep it in place because it allowed them to significantly increase prices while still gaining market share."
No, most New Englanders opposed that tariff because it increased costs of some raw materials.
Who truly loved it were mid-Atlantic & Western manufacturers.
More important, so did Andrew Jackson, who eventually negotiated compromises of gradually falling rates.
Again, my point is it was not strictly North vs. South since many New Englanders opposed it and many Southerners (i.e., Jackson) supported it.
FLT-bird on 1830 nullification crisis: "Actually it was ended by compromise not by one side backing down.
The tariffs were steadily reduced which was the very thing South Carolina had wanted."
Right, because of Southern rule over Washington, DC, rates continued downward, for 30 years, until by 1860 they were as low as the first tariff under President Washington, about 15% average.
FLT-bird on alleged Southern exports: "But I have provided actual data.
I have also provided sources like tax expert Charles Adams’ 2 books on the subject. "
You keep yammering "Charles Adams, Charles Adams, Charles Adams..." as if the name by itself were some kind of argument.
It's not, but I went back to see if you'd actually posted anything from your Charles Adams, and found two posts, #157 from DiogenesLamp with some pretty good numbers and your post # 211 with just nonsense.
All other mentions of "Charles Adams" provided us with no data whatsoever.
But what about DiogenesLamp's post #157 to SoCal Pubbie?
Well, at least those are numbers we can work with, so let's start here:
Your DiogenesLamp/Charles Adams report says 1859 total US exports were $279 million.
I have two reports (here and here, page 605) one from a 1960 study the other US commerce department, which put 1859 ($357 million) or 1860 ($398 million & $373 million) exports considerably higher, including specie.
Of that DL/Adams puts cotton at $161 million in 1859, 58% of the total, while other sources put 1860 cotton at $191 million = 48% or 51%.
DL/Adams puts tobacco at $21 million in 1859, another source gives us $19 million in 1860.
DL/Adams puts naval stores at $3 million in 1859, another gives us $2 million in 1860.
DL/Adams puts rice at $2 million in 1859, others say $2.5 million in 1860.
So up to this point, DL/Adams seems to be at least in line with other reports.
But then seems to go completely nuts, larding on undefined or ill-defined "Southern products" that make no sense:
Undefined "other" = $10 million.
Mfg cotton = $8 million.
Breadstuffs = $36 million
Specie = $58 million (20% "Southern" = $11 million).
Added together, DL/Adams comes to $252 million or 90% of 1859 total US exports!
And this seems to be the source of all the nonsense we've seen here about it.
What it tells us is that possibly Adams and likely those who used his data were not being entirely honest.
So if we remove breadstuff & specie from "Southern products" that gets us back to 73%.
If we use the total exports from other reports ($357 million), that reduces "Southern products" to 57%.
If we more realistically allocate manufactured cotton and the undefined "other" that gets us to 55%, which begins to sound more realistic.
However, even 55% is way too much "Southern products" because what we're really talking about here are Confederate exports, and those turned out not to include much tobacco.
Of the $21 million shown, only $3 million came from the Confederacy, the rest, $18 million, was Union tobacco.
And that reduces the value of Confederate-Southern products to 50%, which is about right.
Indeed, in 1861 when nearly all Confederate exports were eliminated, US exports fell only 35%, telling us that except for cotton, alleged "Southern products" could actually grow pretty much anywhere.
FLT-bird on "unfair spending": "No they didn’t. Not even close.
And they were paying the vast majority of the tariffs so it was doubly unfair."
The actual data we have says otherwise.
FLT-bird on Confederate tariffs: "Wrong, they set the maximum initially as a revenue tariff...ie 10% maximum.
They were forced due to the needs of war to raise more revenue to defend themselves and thus had to raise it."
In fact, there were two Confederate acts setting tariffs, the first on March 15, 1861 set Confederate rates at 15%, covering especially iron for railroads.
The second act passed on May 21, 1861 had several rates. which (see this document) resembled the pre-Morrill Union tariffs and averaged 12.5%.
Had that truly been a serious threat to Union commerce, the quick & easy response would be to return Union tariffs to their pre-Morrill rates.
FLT-bird quoting: "....allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of TEN PERCENT which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York. -- New York Evening Post March 12, 1861 article..."
So, after this NY Post article, on March 15 Confederates passed their first tariff, set at 15% on most items, including rail parts.
But merchants landing in Savanah for shipment to, say, Chicago would pay tariffs twice, in addition to at least 25% higher rail freight costs versus landing in New York.
In the second Confederate tariff, dated May 21, 1861 rates were set at 15%, 10%, 5% and zero.
In the case of railroad iron, that rate was still 15%, not 10%.
Of course, 15% was less than the Union's 24% pre-Morrill and 30% Morrill rate.
But why would anyone pay tariffs twice plus extra shipping?
Furthermore, by 1860 the US was producing most of its own rail, so why would anyone import it?
FLT-bird on the Morrill tariff: "Yes it DID pass after the Southern delegation withdrew but it was GOING TO pass anyway.
The only difference between it becoming law or not was 1-2 Senators.
They could have easily picked off 1-2 Senators."
You keep posting that, but it's still not true.
In 1860 Senate Democrats ruled with 38 votes to 25 for Republicans, and Southerners ruled Democrats, among other ways through seniority and chairmanships, including the finance committee.
Of those 38 Senate Democrats, 28 (74%) were Southerners, plus two Southern American party, meant they needed only four of ten Northern or Western Democrats to join them.
Considering that 14 Northern House Democrats voted "no", that seems pretty doable, had Southerners made the effort.
Further, I've always argued the House itself in 1860 could have defeated Morrill, if Southerners had remained united, because there were enough abstentions plus Border Democrats to make a majority opposed.
So there was nothing inevitable about Morrill until secessionists walked out.
FLT-bird on who owned imports: "I never said “all”.
I said Southerners were doing most of the exporting and importing.
This has amply been demonstrated by all sources."
There's no data anywhere which says who physically owned US imports when they arrived in, say, New York -- Southerners, Northerners or foreigners? -- and therefore directly paid the tariffs.
However, the 1846 Warehousing Act allowed merchants to bond imports without paying their tariff until buyers were found.
This meant that, in effect, ultimate buyers paid the tariffs, not Southern exporters except where they themselves purchased an import item after the tariff was paid.
FLT-bird: "NY serviced Southern exports....everything from Factors to Bankers to Insurers to Shipbuilders, to Shipping Companies."
Far be it from me to defend DiogenesLamp's arguments, but he claims those New York merchants & financiers were not Southern and therefore they were evil and had to be eliminated through secession.
That's his whole argument.
Now if you tell us New Yorkers weren't really that wicked after all (which I agree with) then I'm confused as to why secession was needed to eliminate them.
FLT-bird: "The numbers DO support what I’ve said.
So do the newspapers.
So do commentators....and from all sides.
Cotton alone was 60% of US exports. "
Noooo... Cotton alone was 50% of US exports, including specie.
But nothing else classified by some as "Southern products" was exclusive to the South.
Once again consider the South's #2 export, tobacco.
It also grew in Northern states (i.e., PA & OH), Union Border states (KY & MO) and Unionist regions of Confederate states (TN & VA) such that tobacco fell only 14% when Confederate exports were removed from Union totals in 1861.
Similar results with every other "Southern product" except cotton.
FLT-bird: "I’ve already explained why one year - particularly the first year of the conflict - is not a reliable indicator of where goods came from. eg.
There are things like warehouses in which goods are stored after all.
Sometimes those goods aren’t produced in the same year they are exported....."
Understood, and that explains why cotton exports fell only 80% in 1861 -- the pipeline was full and with higher prices any random bales were scarfed up & sold.
Got it.
But it can't possibly explain why the #2 export, tobacco fell only 14% or why clover seed nearly doubled and hops exports grew from $33,000 to $2,000,000 in one year!
Clearly those commodities were mis-classified as "Southern products" when they were nothing of the sort.
FLT-bird: "Missouri seceded by the way."
Only in Confederate wet dreams, along with Kentucky, Maryland & Delaware.
FLT-bird: "Most Southern states left so there’s not much of a difference between 'Southern' and 'Confederate'.
There are reams of data and numerous commentators on all sides openly saying the Southern states provided the overwhelming majority of all exports."
Turned out in 1861 there was a huge difference between "Southern" and "Confederate" products.
For one thing, of the South's 8 million whites, nearly 3 million lived in four Border States which refused to secede.
Another 600,000+ Unionists lived in Upper South states (especially WVA & E Tenn) in 1861 and Union controlled regions increased every year after.
So even after Fort Sumter in April 1861, nearly half of Southerners were not Confederates so their exports were not Confederate products.
FLT-bird: "Sorry but you do not know better than what observers at the time on all sides and even foreign countries were saying nor do I trust the one year’s worth of data you have compiled over what other economic historians like Charles Beard and Charles Adams have shown."
But all your observers in the 1850s knew nothing of what would happen in 1861, when push came to shove and their true classifications of what was really Confederate and what was actually Union came out.
Turned out in reality a lot of so-called "Southern products" were actually Union grown.
FLT-bird on alleged unequal Fed spending: "ah but we have data that does show it and I have provided those sources.
It shows the North got about 75-80% of federal spending."
Ah, but you've provided no sources to show any such thing, certainly not in terms of over all, long-term Federal spending.
FLT-bird: "Your claim that Northerners did whatever Southerners told them to do because they happened to be Democrats is laughable.
Its irrational and you have no evidence to support it."
OK, first look up the word "doughface", it's here.
Next look up President Buchanan's role in the Dred Scott decision, here. 
Doughfaced Democrat Buchanan's role in Dred Scott made him the best friend the slave-power ever had in Washington, DC.
And that's plenty enough for now...