[FLT-bird]

Because, as has been shown in the debate on this thread, that is not true (i.e. "a lie").,/p>

Except that it was true and the denial of it is the lie

South Carolina Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett had estimated that of the $927,000,000 collected in duties between 1791 and 1845, the South had paid $711,200,000, and the North $216,000,000. South Carolina Senator James Hammond had declared that the South paid about $50,000,000 and the North perhaps $20,000,000 of the $70,000,000 raised annually by duties. In expenditure of the national revenues, Hammond thought the North got about $50,000,000 a year, and the South only $20,000,000. When in the Course of Human Events: Charles Adams

As Adams notes, the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North.

"Before... the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? ... Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this." ----Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton, cited at page 49 of The South Was Right!, by James Ronald Kennedy & Walter Donald Kennedy

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird to marktwain: "South Carolina Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett had estimated that of the $927,000,000 collected in duties between 1791 and 1845, the South had paid $711,200,000, and the North $216,000,000.
South Carolina Senator James Hammond had declared that the South paid about $50,000,000 and the North perhaps $20,000,000 of the $70,000,000 raised annually by duties.
In expenditure of the national revenues, Hammond thought the North got about $50,000,000 a year, and the South only $20,000,000."
When in the Course of Human Events: Charles Adams

"As Adams notes, the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860.
They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports.
The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North."

All of that is pure nonsense because:

1. It conflates "Southern Exports" with Federal import tariffs.
   In reality, "Southern products" were bought and sold several times on their way to European customers, as were European and other products on their way to American customers.
   So the idea, that somehow Southerners "paid for" Federal tariff revenues, is ridiculous nonsense.
   The truth is most Southerners (or any other producer) were paid for their products when they sold at local markets, or to men called "Factors".
   In fact, nearly all import tariffs were paid by end users of those products, including Northern manufacturers in wool, cotton, silk and iron, plus big city consumers of coffee, tea and wine.

   However, seemingly, Rhett's, Hammond's and others' claims were and remain, highly effective Democrat propaganda.

2. In 1860 about 95% of all "Southern products" -- meaning exports from Confederate states -- consisted of just one item: King Cotton.
   Cotton alone represented roughly 50% of US exports with every other "Southern product" combined adding another 5%.

   Northern, Eastern and Western products, including Union slave-states, also including gold and silver, made up the remaining 45%.

3. There are no facts to support claims that disproportionate Federal spending went "to the North", unless you define "the North" as everywhere north of South Carolina.

   In reality, such data as we have says about 60% of Federal spending on forts, lighthouses and other infrastructure went to states south of the Mason-Dixon line.