How could it be? If $19 out of every $20 of tariff revenue was generated by Northern consumers then how could the South's secession break that? It may reduce it slightly. It may cause some budget shortfalls. But the revenue stream would continue, with or without the South's exports. As the FY1863 figures showed; without the South providing anything close to pre-rebellion export levels the U.S. still imported enough to generate $103 million in tariffs.
So that's why one can easily show that your claim that the South's secession broke the revenue stream is complete nonsense. And why the three pieces of evidence I gave supports this.
Point of initial payment tells nothing about location of final consumption. Any figure you draw from collection points is nonsense.
You said: "It may reduce it slightly. It may cause some budget shortfalls. But the revenue stream would continue, with or without the South's exports.
That is nonsense and not the issue. The point is that without southern cotton financing the imports, then the North would have to be paying tariffs in either specie or credit notes. There was not enough specie in Northern banks to pay for one eighth of the annual tariff fees on imports.
The problem was not only the with drawl of the southern consumers as a primary market for northern manufactures and reexport of European goods, but also the fact that the North would have to find other ways to pay for their imports.
You said: "As the FY1863 figures showed; without the South providing anything close to pre-rebellion export levels the U.S. still imported enough to generate $103 million in tariffs.
Your data is incorrect. According to the "Statistical Abstract of the United States Government" for year 1863, there were only $63.7 million collected.
But that data is misleading since by 1863 the Morrill Tariff had doubled the tax rates. Therefore, the amount of tariff paid in 1863, unless corrected in rate change, does not provide any meaningful data on the amounts imported, as you insinuated in the incorrect data that you gave.
You said: "So that's why one can easily show that your claim that the South's secession broke the revenue stream is complete nonsense.
According to the "Statistical Abstracts", the dutiable imports dropped by over 55% between 1860 and 1862. That should make the point clear that the revenues were down when the debt of the US Treasury was climbing at a remarkable rate.
"And why the three pieces of evidence I gave supports this.
Your "three pieces of evidence were total nonsense. It seems as if you failed to read you own incomplete sentences in that post.