You are quoting incorrect data
"And yet it's from a source that you directed me to and cited approvingly."
"it still means that if $31 million in imports was consumed by the north, the other 90+% consumed by the south and it again fails the common sense test."
90+% consumed by the south? No source that I provided said that. You and your pal 'non' conjured up that data as an illogical straw man argument, threw it out, and wanted to argue its fallacy.
Since you were so hell bent to have the data, you are now either wanting to change the subject or playing little "blemish" games rather than discuss it. So, it appears that you have no personal or scholarly interest in the truth. So be it.
Hey guys, you were right. They won't consider anything except their little arguments.
Not at all. But your larger point behind this discussion was that Lincoln's interest was primarily in collecting the tariff. I never suggested that the south didn't import anything, I did, however, have a hard time accepting the Encarta numbers which you presented to show that the south did, indeed, import a great deal--ten times the imports with a quarter the population. After much back and forth and condescension from you, some more realistic numbers were finally represented from Kettell (and I'm sorry, I neither have the time nor the committment to an internet argument to go to the library to dig for this stuff myself. Mea culpa, but thanks). Those numbers for European imports which you present in post #837 show a total for European imports in 1859 of $317 million, with $106 million consumed by the south, still a disproportionate amount on a per capita basis, but n ot as jaw-dropping as a 10/1 difference. I note, however, that you say in #837, "Referring again to the imports of 1859 of $317 million, and if they were distributed in the same proportion, then Southern consumption would be $106,000,000; for Western $63,000,000; and for the North $149,000,000. " But those aren't the same proportions. In the 1850 numbers the south consumes 26%, the west 21% and the north 52%. In the "same proportion" 1859 numbers, the south consumes 33%, the west 19%, and the north 47%.Again it appears that numbers are being massaged to make a political point.
But be all that as it may, while I'm a little annoyed by the condescension you've exhibited throughout this exchange, I'm ultimately appreciative. While I don't agree with the larger points you try to make, I've learned a great deal and for that, sir, I thank you. But I think we've reached the end of this particular road. So I'll just concede to you that, yes, the south imported stuff from overseas. They even imported a somewhat disproportionate amount per capita.
But time and again you've also tied this argument to your larger one about the evil yankee capitalists, factors, middlemen, shipping interests and the rest who were intent on economically subjugating the south. You've talked about Warehousing Acts, Navigation Acts, and more. So I go off to learn more about those subjects. But what I find doesn't support what you claim they do. It only supports that the south didn't care to spend its capital on other things (imported luxury goods, perhaps) than on ships and harbor improvements.
Finally, if the south was being so persecuted by the northern business interests, why were 60% of the "wealthiest men" in the south? And why was southern per capita income almost double that of the north and growing 30% faster?