Of course you won't. Anything that disputes your claims is of no interest to you.
Again, some form of the Jones act has always existed in this country.
True. But we're talking about your claim that foreign ships bringing imports to the U.S. or exports from the U.S. were taxed at a higher rate than U.S. ships, giving them a disadvantage. I've provided the evidence that such taxes were repealed decades before the rebellion. You dispute that without any evidence of your own.
People tend to see what they want to see, and ignore what they don't really want to see.
As you have shown countless times already.
I never see anything from your side that disputes my claims. You don't have the sort of strong evidence (Declaration of Independence, Ratification statements, Corwin Amendment, Export values, Import tariff map, etc) that we have. All of your "evidence" tends to be weak, pathetic, subjective, and requiring extraordinary "interpretation" to make it look like it supports what you claim.
All the evidence on our side is pretty straightforward and unassailable by realistic and objective people.
Youse guys usually just substitute repetition in lieu of good evidence to support your claims.
I've provided the evidence that such taxes were repealed decades before the rebellion.
I will acknowledge that what you have provided seems to support the claim that this aspect of the unfair trade laws were repealed, though I do not think it is quite so cut and dried as you seem to indicate. The repeal requires the President's approval, and requires the foreign country that would no longer have duties to have reciprocal trade policies with the US.
I can only assume their target nation is England, but I do not know if this is true. It would seem that all the duty penalties would still apply to all foreign countries that don't have reciprocal trade policies with the United States, but which countries are those, and how significant would they be in the overall trade with Europe?
You assume a whole lot of information not yet in evidence with your claim, and at this point we have no way of actually knowing if any of these duty laws were really repealed for the existing trade.
I would assume they were repealed for England, but I do not know if this is actually true.
Even if the most favorable to you interpretation of this law can be accepted as correct, it is only an aspect of the advantage Northern ships had in securing the trade with Europe. Still left is the significant economic advantage they had in carrying cargo between ports, which the European ships did not have.
Again, if protectionist laws do not result in favor for the protected target, why would anyone make them?
As you have shown countless times already.
Yes, I consistently point out examples of your side doing this very thing.