Your claim that U.S. law taxed exports and imports coming and going from the U.S. at the outbreak of the rebellion is one claim I showed was wrong.
All the evidence on our side is pretty straightforward and unassailable by realistic and objective people.
Your 'evidence' tends to be your opinion and nothing else.
...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.
Pathetic.
Must have missed that.
Imports and exports are merely opposite ends of the same horse, so a tax on one is effectively the same tax on the other.
And it wasn't a "rebellion." The exercising of a right to secession is not "rebellion." Salmon P. Chase also reiterated this point, though later he rightfully became terrified of the political power unleashed, and just like Kavanaugh or Roberts, he would capitulate on a principle out of fear for his own safety and concern for his social status.
Your 'evidence' tends to be your opinion and nothing else.
You tend to portray clear cut evidence as "opinion", perhaps because so much of your own "evidence" fits this pattern.