I should have said machined tools and products produced by machinery like cheap cloth and farm implements. But then you already knew that. You site stats. Can you tell me what percentage of state gdp came from agricultural output in the north as compared to that of the south? I don’t know. Its important to this discussion.
You're grasping a bit, aren't you? Or do you really expect us to believe that the technological superiority of cheap cloth, plows, and rakes produced in Britain was so much higher than their U.S. counterparts? And if that was so, then wouldn't the Northern farmers be at just as big a disadvantage? So the tariff would have hit them just as hard as the Southern consumer.
Can you tell me what percentage of state gdp came from agricultural output in the north as compared to that of the south?
I don't think that's relevant. You said there were more farmers down South. If Mississippi had 90% of its GDP produced by 10,000 farmers, and Pennsylvania had 50% of its GDP produced by 20,000 farmers then there are still more farmers in Pennsylvania than in Mississippi. And if your scenario is correct then there are more people impacted up North than down South. The fact is that tariffs impacted both regions equally. A consumer in Connecticut paid just as much for a good made by a domestic manufacturer protected by tariffs as a consumer in Texas did. The South did not account for the majority of tariff revenue. In fact, if Alexander Stephens' figures are true, they accounted for less than a quarter.