I suspect that the big objection to the Morrill tariff was that specific rates for goods were set, and the practice of having suppliers provide phony invoices would not be effective.
The federal government spending antebellum was a small percentage of GNP. Tariff provided most of the government funds, supplemented from sale of land. That is why it makes of sense to compare tax revenues to GDP.
Compared to the 1 to 2% tax burden that the tariff represented, my current income tax is about 25%, which is to my mind, a long way from minimal. That is in addition to payroll taxes, state income tax, state and city sales taxes. My personal is similar to the national, with the current federal budget being about 25% of the GDP. Not included in my personal income tax is the SSN/Medicare/Medicaid taxes, and not included in the budget is the promises of SSN/Medicare/Medicare to provide great sums to people in the future.
Given an option to trade a 25% tax for a 2% tax, yes, the 2% tax burden looks pretty minimal, and I don’t think those promises are worth much anyways.
“I suspect that the big.....”.
Suspicion does not make fact.
Why does comparing tariff revenues to GDP make sense in this conversation?