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.
Nonsense is believing the two are unrelated.
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.
Then how did the North pay for enough imports to generate $102 million in tariff revenue in FY 1863?
Your data is incorrect. According to the "Statistical Abstract of the United States Government" for year 1863, there were only $63.7 million collected.
"Deduct from these amounts the amount of the principal of the public debt redeemed and the amount of issues in substitution therefor, and the actual cash operations of the Treasury were: Receipts, $884,076,646.57; disbursements, $865,234,087.86; which leaves a cash balance in the Treasury of $18,842,558.71.
Of the receipts there were derived from customs $102,316,152.99, from lands $588,333.29. from direct taxes $475,648.96, from internal revenue $109,741,134.10, from miscellaneous sources $47,511,448.10, and from loans applied to actual expenditures, including former balance, $623,443,929.13." -- Lincoln Message to Congress, December 1864 Link
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.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the purpose of a protective tariff is to discourage imports and direct consumers to domestic goods. So the Morrill Tariff should have reduced imports, not increased them.
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.
You don't suppose the rebellion had anything to do with that, do you?
Oh, and the fiscal year back then was from June to May. So when Lincoln reported the $102 million in December that was the time frame he was talking about. And it is also a figure reported by the Statistical Abstract under 1864. Better than 1865 when the amount dropped to $84 million, but not as good as 1866 when it exceeded $170 million. And all withough your Southern consumers.