Ah yes, it's an American tradition to raise spending for luxuray items during a war, isn't it? You are dodging the question as though you knew you had no intelligent anwer. I wonder why? LOL....
Something you know. Protectionist built this country in the 19th century. Free trade is a valid concept only for a country ahead of the pack, which is why we preach it now, but still resort to protecionist tariffs so that country doesn't end up flat on it's face economically like the old South did when it bought that bag of poop from Gladstone.
I'm not quite sure if I can pinpoint what you are smoking, but it cannot be anything normal as it seems to have induced a hallicinatory state in which you have percieved me to discuss something you call the "southern viewpoint" of education spending. In reality I have mentioned nothing of the sort. You haven't cited it, just made a demonstration of it. A big part of having that condition is not being aware of it.
Next, you must explain to me how a 1/4 cent increase in the tax on a pound of sugar flattened out the North's economy
A 1/4 cent tax increase was not much of an issue in the 1860 bill. Rates were hiked from 17% to 36% then to 45% and then to 47%.
Hardly. As a matter of fact, a 1/4 cent tax on a pound of sugar was a 25% increase in the sugar tariff. BUt just for you information, the sugar tariff was decreased a 1/4 cent because it had been previously added as a protectionist tariff for Louisiana sugar, and Louisiana was had already left the Congress.
Their economic effects are clearly visible in what happened after their adoption - trade going into the port of New York City was practically halved overnight. You've been notified of that fact many times yet for some reason you persist in embarrassing yourself further. But go ahead - show just what an uneducated fool you truly are. Myself and many others on this forum will find it quite amusing.
Again, you over look that there was a war on. Please explain how it was that you are surprised to find the import of expensive European goods on the decrease in a time when citizens of the North were donated millions of their savings to the war effort, directly and through the purchase of war bonds?
That's funny. I never knew that steel was a luxury item. The fact is that the Morrill Act raised tariffs on all sorts of goods, both luxury and non-luxury. It raised taxes for protective reasons. That is why ultra-protectionist Henry C. Carey was one of its chief backers and an advisor to the bill's proponents in Congress. You are dodging the question
Dodging? No. I've sufficiently responded to all but the most inane and coherency challenged of your claims on this subject of tariffs. You, on the other hand, have willfully avoided practically 90% of what I have posted and ignored practically every fact that would otherwise indicate the falsity of your claims.
Something you know. Protectionist built this country in the 19th century.
So you're a protectionist, eh? It sure is curious how people on your side of this topic always let that slip out eventually. But then again, protectionism and ignorance go hand in hand so it should not be surprising at all. Oh, and no. Protectionism did not build this country. Entrepreneurship did. Protectionism had, at best, a realigning and distorting effect that artificially stimulated a select few industries and, at worst, served as an anchor on the neck of the American economy for decades after its use had run out and its intellectual merits had been exposed as frauds. Free trade is a valid concept only for a country ahead of the pack, which is why we preach it now
I see you are back to embarrassing yourself again. As any competent trade economist will tell you, true free trade actually tends to provide more benefit to the "smalls" than it does to the large country on top.
I'm not quite sure if I can pinpoint what you are smoking, but it cannot be anything normal as it seems to have induced a hallicinatory state in which you have percieved me to discuss something you call the "southern viewpoint" of education spending. In reality I have mentioned nothing of the sort. You haven't cited it, just made a demonstration of it. A big part of having that condition is not being aware of it. Hardly. As a matter of fact, a 1/4 cent tax on a pound of sugar was a 25% increase in the sugar tariff.
Yawn. You are apparently as mathematically inept as you are economically inept. A 25% tariff is not the same as a 25% numerical increase in the tariff paid, be it on sugar, steel, or something else. If I impose a tariff of 20% on widgets and imported widgets are $1 each, I raise the imported widget price to $1.20.
Now if I hike the existing rate on widgets by 25% of its own though that means a 5% hike to 25% total (5% is one quarter of 20%), thus giving me a price of $1.25. Conversely, if I raise the tariff rate by 25% I effectively change it from 20% to 45%, for a price of $1.45 per imported widget. On most goods overall, and in its Average Tariff Rate, the Morrill Act did the latter - effectively adding 20% plus onto the existing tariff rates and raising them from the 17% range to the 36% plus range.
BUt just for you information, the sugar tariff was decreased a 1/4 cent because it had been previously added as a protectionist tariff for Louisiana sugar, and Louisiana was had already left the Congress.
I bet you thought you were real clever for knowing that piece of information! Too bad for your cause that the real issue of the Morrill tariff was not in sugar importation but rather in other goods - especially those that competed with northern manufactures.
Again, you over look that there was a war on.
Once again, there was no war in March of 1860 when Justin Morrill posted his bill before the US House of Representatives. Nor was there a war on in March of 1861 after the first tariff hikes went into law - also the first month that shipping took a hit in NYC.
Please explain how it was that you are surprised to find the import of expensive European goods on the decrease in a time when citizens of the North were donated millions of their savings to the war effort, directly and through the purchase of war bonds?
Most of the European goods they taxed were CHEAPER as imports than their domestically produced counterparts. In fact that is why they taxed them! As for your little theory about the war bonds, it too does not fit the timeline. War bond financing became commonplace in the north after and due to the passing of the Legal Tender Act in February 1862 - a month AFTER the New York port records for the previous year came out and indicated that their trade had HALVED virtually over night.