You're pretty quick on the trigger yourself, cowboy.
No need for statistics or documentation.
That always seemed to be your attitude when nolu chan brought the bacon, or rustbucket, or Pea Ridge, or stainless. I was just trying to be considerate of my interlocutor. Or are we playing Wlat's favorite game, "I win"?
Never mind the fact that far from drying up, tariff revenue expanded greatly.
You keep saying that. I guess your fellow-posters who disagreed with you don't count?
They're better-equipped than I to argue tariff stats, so I'll let them, while noting again that original source material, which you referred to in your reply to Domain Master, refers repeatedly to tariffs and business considerations in the debate about secession. Alexander Stephens, whom you referenced, opposed secession in his reply to Robert Toombs in the Georgia secession debate, and I happen to think he was "righter" than Toombs; but your referencing his remarks shows that you know very well that Southerners spent a good deal of time debating the proposition that the Union was a one-way street, or proposed to become a one-way street, in which the North would take advantage of the South economically.
Mind you, it needn't have been actually true, and modern economic analyses and sensitivity tests of the effects of tariffs on Southern States' gdp's might show that the Southerners' apprehensions were ill-founded, but the point here, is that they thought they were correct, and that they acted on those beliefs.
And not just on the slavery question -- your and the Red historians' politically-motivated, Clintonoid "contextualizing" gainsay utterly notwithstanding.
Where did they disagree? Rustbucket's figures show that not only is the southron claim that the south paid the majority of the tariff false, tariff revenue grew during the war in real terms, and remained at roughly the same levels when factoring in inflation. Without the southern consumers which y'all claim provided the majority of revenue, and without southren exports which y'all claim provided the bulk of the imports. Figures provided by DomainMasteer back up rustbucket's post, and figures provided by Lincoln show that revenues in 1864 were almost twice those in 1860. So if my 'fellow posters' disagree with anyone it's you and your southron myths.
...but your referencing his remarks shows that you know very well that Southerners spent a good deal of time debating the proposition that the Union was a one-way street, or proposed to become a one-way street, in which the North would take advantage of the South economically.
I've mentioned two speeches by Stephens, actually. In the one you seem to be thinking of, Stephens mentioned the tariff only to rebut Toombs' contention that they were an issue. Stephens pointed out that the tariffs were as low as the southern lawmakers had wanted them to be, and that if the south hung together they would remain that way. In the other speechs I quoted from, Stephens is pointing out how the South had basically run the show for most of the nation's history and could continue to do so in the future. So Stephens seems to be contradicting you rather than contradicting me.
And not just on the slavery question -- your and the Red historians' politically-motivated, Clintonoid "contextualizing" gainsay utterly notwithstanding.
Marxist AND liberal, with a womanizing Southern boob of a president thrown in for good measure. Damn, you're on a roll tonight.