"You also cited the 1860 Treasury report from the State of the Union address as the source for the numbers,"
I did, and it gave you the import number to begin. I told you that it would take some work.
"giving a general link and telling us"
The link was specific, and I told Grand Old the topic to search for.
"Well, we did find it, only to discover that those numbers were nowhere in that document."
The import/export and tariff data were and are all there.
"Nor could they be extrapolated through any amount of interpretation and study, as you suggest."
It can and does with the right study.
"No, the closest that document comes is in giving the total collected tariffs for each quarter of the preceding year. So why did you tell us all that was the place we could find the numbers?"
Tell us all? Who are you representing?
I told you the source of the data on import value. I told you that the value of import consumption could be determined. I have even explained it to you in a post above.
You still don't get the point do you?
The point I get is that you're trying to maximize the importance of tariff income on foreign goods bound for the south by conflating them with non-tariff-subject goods from the north. Then, when you're called on it, you attempt to cover a vague source (Encarta????) by sending anyone looking to verify your numbers on a series of wild goose chases into historical documents. And when someone does run down those documents and finds that they don't say what you said they would, you play the o-so-superior "Well, you're just not smart enough to understand" card.
That's the point I get. Now if you've actually got a source for this stuff, post it. Post the actual documents like I did with the 1860 Treasury report. Otherwise, your credibility with these "facts" is shot.