[Gianni]

It stands to reason that goods would be shipped to those consuming them.

Yet every single example I can think of, then and now, indicates that your reasoning is flawed, as reality shows otherwise.

I've seen this numbers game played too many times. Here are the facts of the tarrif argument:

1. The Southern economy was heavily dependent on international trade.
2. Protectionist tarrifs stifle international trade.

To prove your point, you need to refute one of the above facts. Whether a tarrif is paid in New York or New Orleans is immaterial. The percentages of goods shipped to Pennsylvania vs Tennesee is irrelevent to the core of the argument.

[Non-Sequitur]

Southern cotton exports enjoyed an almost unbroken stream of annual increases in the three decades prior to the rebellion. How was southern trade stifled?