Calling ignorance ingorance is not an insult, Non-Seq. It's a statement of fact. You engaged in ignorance and I simply made note of that fact.
Leaving aside for a moment your ridiculous claim about employees setting labor rates
You sound just like a labor union thug, you know. Now not only are you making absurd claims of wage arbitrariness at the mercy of the employer, but you are also deliberately constructing straw men accusations against others of alleging a similar price arbitrariness by the employees when nothing of the sort is true.
the gist of DiLusionals arguement seems to be that since southern plantation owners were at the mercy of what the market would pay for their goods then they were most susceptible to tariffs. I pointed out, and I can't see where you managed to refute it, that the overwhelming majority of the people in the country were in the same boat.
Those who willfully blind themselves can seldom see much of anything. Your statement that everyone else was in the same boat is a falsehood for the reasons I stated previously. While it is indeed true that the country at large was harmed by the tariff, harm was disproportionately southern. Southern agricultural exports were over THREE TIMES AS LARGE as northern agricultural exports. Do the math, Non-Seq. If I export three times as much as you, I'm gonna end up paying more of the tax than you as well.
Further, as I noted previously, your argument ignores the fact that the Morrill Act extended protection to several of the northern farm commodities.
The Northern wheat farmer did not set the price for his crop any more than the southern cotton farmer, and the fact that his crop was primarily used for domestic consumption is meaningless.
Not if the tax is on trade, it isn't!
Both were at the mercy of the market
No. Absent tariffs, both were price takers. Install a tariff though and the export-dependent one of the two becomes at the mercy of the federal government's tax collector.
Honestly, Non-Seq. Trying to discuss trade economics with you is like trying to discuss them with a labor union thug, Ross Perot wacko, or Buchananite. It's also like trying to discuss income tax economics with a liberal Democrat.
In each and every case, no ammount of fact matters to you or will ever defer you from pushing thesame tired old argument that was just as wrong in Lincoln's day as it is today. I could present the president of the AFL-CIO with a letter signed by every single living nobel laureate in economics stating "protectionism is wrong and hurts the nation" and he would still advocate protectionism. He would still put forth the exact same arguments he had before as if nothing whatsoever had changed, that even though they lack any merit. He would still advocate protectionism because his interests are NOT in the good of the nation as he claims but rather in the good of those few who are making money off the tariff at everyone else's expense, meaning himself.
Just the same, I could present you with a letter signed by every single living nobel laureate in economics stating "A tax on imports is really a tax on exports" just as that textbook does and you would not accept it. You would still put forth the same arguments you did before even though they have no merit. You would still defend the Morrill act and belittle southern grievances with it because you are NOT interested in historically representing them with accuracy but rather in arguing your predecided ideology of right and wrong as it pertains to the civil war. You may deny this reality to your heart's content, but the record of this and other threads provides ample testimony to its existence.