I see. So when those goods were landed in New York they loaded them on wagons, sent them down I-95 to their ultimate destination down south?
Good went to the port closest to their intended customers. If the majority went to New York and Boston and Philadelphia then that's where the consumers were.
I have presented you with reams of facts, quotes and sources which all show it was the Southern states that were doing most of the importing and exporting.
You have presented reams of opinion. Lincoln quoted government figures; what do your sources quote? Adams claims the south paid the lions share of tariffs yet in his book he doesn't provide a source for that claim. But what do you think? If the Union could only buy imports because the had Southern exports then how did the revenue climb so dramatically when those exports were cut off?
It required that American goods be carried by American ships.
Well if that's true then foreign shippers should be able to take their goods to any port they wanted since they weren't American goods. Were they?
...but what tended to happen over time is this consolidated the shipping industry to a much greater degree in the region that specialized in shipping - the Northeast.
I agree that the Northeast specialized in shipping. But what prevented U.S. shippers from bringing goods from London to Charleston, or London to New Orleans, if that was where the demand for those goods were?
Not necessarily AND this says nothing about who was bearing the cost of the tariff.
I think we've determined that. The tariff is paid by whoever ordered the goods and it's paid when those goods are landed. Tariffs have the effect of artificially inflating the cost of goods that consumers buy. All consumers, North and South. But what does that have to do with Southern demand for imports?
There were these things called railroads. There were other things called canals and rivers. Then there was the coastwide trade whereby goods would be shipped to other ports once arriving in NYC or Boston etc and being subject to duties there. In any event, the end customers did not pay most of the cost of the tariff. The whole point of the protective tariff was to price foreign goods out of the market. Northern manufacturers could undercut foreign goods on price once foreign goods were subject to huge tariffs. The importer could not pass on most of the cost to customers in the form of higher prices. Their profit margins were squeezed severely as they were forced to eat most of the cost and they lost market share.
DoodleDawg said: Good went to the port closest to their intended customers. If the majority went to New York and Boston and Philadelphia then that's where the consumers were.
Not necessarily. See above. Goods arrived often in New York, paid the tariff and then were trans-shipped via railroad, via canals, via coastwide shipping to other ports.
DoodleDawg said: You have presented reams of opinion. Lincoln quoted government figures; what do your sources quote? Adams claims the south paid the lions share of tariffs yet in his book he doesn't provide a source for that claim. But what do you think? If the Union could only buy imports because the had Southern exports then how did the revenue climb so dramatically when those exports were cut off?
Adams provides sources and I provided several others. Its just inconvenient for you to admit it.
DoodleDawg said: Well if that's true then foreign shippers should be able to take their goods to any port they wanted since they weren't American goods. Were they?
Since coastwide trade had to be carried in American ships under the Navigation Acts, what tended to happen was that foreign ships arrived in NY, paid the tariff on their goods and the goods were then trans-shipped from NY being loaded onto the required American ships bound for other ports or the goods were loaded onto trains, sent on barges through the Erie Canal and onto the Great Lakes, etc etc
DoodleDawg said: I agree that the Northeast specialized in shipping. But what prevented U.S. shippers from bringing goods from London to Charleston, or London to New Orleans, if that was where the demand for those goods were?
it did not "prevent" it but with the distribution system centered on NY and to a lesser extent, Boston and Philadelphia......foreign ships tended to land at those ports quite frequently though New Orleans was also a major port.
DoodleDawg said: I think we've determined that. The tariff is paid by whoever ordered the goods and it's paid when those goods are landed. Tariffs have the effect of artificially inflating the cost of goods that consumers buy. All consumers, North and South. But what does that have to do with Southern demand for imports?
Just saying the customers were in the North (they weren't all by a longshot) does not mean those customers were bearing the cost of that tariff. They bore some costs as prices rose for manufactured goods, but the importer was obliged by the market to eat most of the cost which slashed profit margins. Meanwhile, profit margins for Northern manufacturers exploded as they were able to raise prices and still gain market share.
Good went to the port closest to their intended customers. If the majority went to New York and Boston and Philadelphia then that's where the consumers were.
You clearly do not understand what was going on. "Coastal Packet." Do you speak it?
An extraordinarily important point which I've tried now for years to explain to DiogenesLamp, with no success.
There's no doubt that cotton was a Southern product, and not just Southern, but Deep South, the first seven Confederate states, almost none grown elsewhere.
And cotton was ~50% of US exports, including gold & silver, so that part is true.
But beyond #1 cotton, nothing else qualifies as an exclusive "Southern product", not even #2, tobacco.
We know this because in 1861, when Confederate exports were excluded from Union statistics, tobacco exports fell only 15%.
That tells us tobacco exports were 85% produced in Border Union states.
So the issue here was never "Southern exports", but only one export, cotton.
Of course, if you lived in a cotton state, you might easily be forgiven for thinking of King Cotton as not just your "world" but your entire Universe, and anybody who didn't share your outlook, even a fellow slaveholder, was a hated "Northerner".
DoodleDawg: "what prevented U.S. shippers from bringing goods from London to Charleston, or London to New Orleans, if that was where the demand for those goods were?"
Nothing! And they certainly did that, to the tune of 6% of total US imports, including all ports of the future Confederacy.
DoodleDawg: "The tariff is paid by whoever ordered the goods and it's paid when those goods are landed. "
Well... actually no.
After the 1846 Warehousing Act, all imports could be landed and warehoused (bonded) duty free, with tariffs only paid when product was sold & shipped to customers.
The 1846 Warehousing Act was a huge boon to New York, which had lots of warehouses, so it must have been a product of those evil Northerners scheming to screw-over the South, right?
Noooo, the 1846 Warehousing Act was passed shortly after the 1846 Walker Tariff -- Southern Democrat acts proposed & supported by Southern Democrat President Polk (born in North Carolina, lived in Tennessee).
It reduced the previous rates passed by Whigs in 1842.
Unless you consider North Carolina and Tennessee part of "the North", Warehousing was in no way an effort by Northerners to screw over "the South".