Replies

DL has been posting this graphic ever since he first saw it. But he can’t quite figure out what it represents.

I know very well what it represents. The man who created it did so to prove the South wasn't paying any tariffs, and therefore the "tariff" argument was just a bunch of bullsh*t.

What the guy didn't know was this:

The South was producing the vast majority of export value, and imports are payment for exports. Anyone who grasps this concept called "trade", realizes immediately that this map shows something very wrong.

The records prove the money was generated in the South, but the tariff map shows almost all the taxes were collected in New York.

For those with the wit to understand, it clearly demonstrates New York had somehow managed to acquire control of all wealth generated from Southern exports.

Again, those with wit to understand immediately realize that if the South took control of it's own trade, that huge amount of money (230 million per year) would move from the control of New York, to the Port cities in the South.

Very powerful motive to launch a war to stop it.

He appears to believe that New York simply pocketed that $35,155,453!

No, that went straight to Washington DC, which was the other major player which had a very strong motive to stop the South from taking over that trade themselves.

Money money money.

I know very well what it represents. The man who created it did so to prove the South wasn't paying any tariffs, and therefore the "tariff" argument was just a bunch of bullsh*t.

Ah, I think I see the problem. The author of that graphic should have titled it "northern profits" instead of "Tariffs". LoL

In the real world, what it depicts is the revenue dollars collected at a certain point in time at various ports. It doesn't waste it's time attempting the impossible - trying to differentiate which dollars were for goods headed south vs. goods intended for northern consumption.

The South was producing the vast majority of export value, and imports are payment for exports.

No they aren't.

For those with the wit to understand, it clearly demonstrates New York had somehow managed to acquire control of all wealth generated from Southern exports.

Only in your peculiar world.

No, that went straight to Washington DC, which was the other major player which had a very strong motive to stop the South from taking over that trade themselves.

Thank you for confirming my suspicion. As far as I can tell, you view the world - especially the WBTS - as an "us vs. them" proposition. I don't. For me (and many others) it was an "us vs. us" struggle. I take southerners at their word when they state that they are every bit an American as people from northern states. (full disclosure: Having lived in three southern states and one western state, I do not consider myself a "northerner" - if anything I am a westerner)

So when you attempt to compartmentalize people into simplistic boxes you do everyone a disservice.

The system of revenue policy in the United States was very fluid and evolutionary in the years leading up to the WBTS. There were differences in interests and inclinations north, south, east, west, upland, and downstream. Representatives wrote laws based upon changing circumstances that included international interests and change of presidents. Special interests - all around - advocated for legislation favorable to their constituents.

We all know about the Tariff of Abominations. It was a tariff promoted to benefit one group at the expense of another group. It was so egregious that it sparked the Nullification Crisis. Eventually new legislation with new tariff rates was passed and the crisis passed. That was the nature of tariff law in the early days. the rates were negotiated up and the rates were negotiated down.

You frame your arguments as though you consider that the American people (north and south) saw each other as mortal enemies. I contend that it came to that for many with the advent of the WBTS but that it wasn't always thus. Nor do I believe that we are mortal enemies now. Just people with different perspectives and interests. You may be correct but I don't think so.