[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.

[FLT-bird]

BroJoeK: All of that is pure nonsense because: 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.

All of what Adams said is completely true and your claims that somehow the price paid by wholesalers to producers is not affected by the prices European customers could afford to pay is simply laughable. Where did the wholesalers get their money with which they paid the producers of the exports? Oh...that would be those very same European customers. Equally laughable is your claim that somehow end consumers paid the tariffs on imports rather than the owners of the goods. You are not only grossly ignorant about how tariffs work but you are stubbornly ignorant. Its OK, I'll just keep rubbing your nose in the reality until you get it.

Remember when President Trump put a tariff on Chinese goods? Did you see a line item on your receipt that said "Tariff" when you bought those goods? No? Why not? You are the end user. So why didn't you pay the tariff? You should have according to your "logic".

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

Nope! They were 100% True. They said it. Numerous politicians on both sides said it. Newspapers in both the North and the South said it. Even foreign newspapers and commentators said it. Economists and tax experts who have looked at the period said it. But you still cling to the laughable little fantasy that you can just deny deny deny and somehow people will believe you over everyone and everything else.

BroJoeK: In 1860 about 95% of all "Southern products" -- meaning exports from Confederate states -- consisted of just one item: King Cotton.

Wrong. It was high, but it was never 95%. It was more like 83%

BroJoeK: Cotton alone represented roughly 50% of US exports with every other "Southern product" combined adding another 5%.

See above. Your percentages are incorrect.

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

See above. This is false. The only significant export the North produced was Midwestern grain. The Northeast produced practically nothing by way of exports and never really had produced much by way of exports.

BroJoeK: 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.

This is 100% pure unadulterated BS.

BroJoeK: 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.

This is a laughable little fantasy on your part completely unsupported by any credible source.