Why not? The majority of what the federal government spent it's money on was the military. The federal troops that helped protect Texas from Indians, along with other states. That spent money to build Fort Sumter, along with other federal facilities. Some of the rest went to support mints in places like New Orleans and Charlotte. Or to subsidize the postal service in southern states to the tune of $16 million a year. And of the tariffs used to subsidize those federal expenditures only a small fraction were collected in the South. So I would suggest that the South benefitted from federal spending far more than what they paid in.
Would the CSA benefit from tariffs they imposed? Sure, if they set them up for that purpose.
Virginia would definitely benefit from the protective tariffs promised. But the rest of the Confederacy would pay to protect Virginia business. So again, if protective tariffs were such a big issue then why was the Confederacy so anxious to continue them?
Why would you think the south would be any less inclined to protectionism if they thought it to be in their interest instead of their detriment?
Because they weren't that big a deal regardless of who was imposing them. When you're not paying much of the tariff to begin with then why worry about it?
All things being equal (other than price), faced with a decision between something priced for $1 (northern) and .85 (european) the choice is obvious. With tariff applied it becomes a choice between $1 and $1.11 (30% tariff). Raising it to 47% made it $1.25. But did the North leave their price @ $1? Or did it get raised to $1.15? Either way, northern pockets were filled with southern monies.
Despite this, some would have us believe that southerners were not affected by tariffs, or that southerners were not paying the duties (due to where the goods were shipped), yet no one can provide documentation of northerners protesting higher tariffs. They obviously think that southerners protested higher tariffs on behalf of northerners. < /sarcasm >
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/687182/posts?page=91#91
As usual, you're resorting to the old trick of being deliberately obtuse in order to cling to your argument:
As early as the Revolutionary War, the South primarily produced cotton, rice, sugar, indigo and tobacco. The North purchased these raw materials and turned them into manufactured goods. By 1828, foreign manufactured goods faced high import taxes. Foreign raw materials, however, were free of tariffs.
Thus the domestic manufacturing industries of the North benefited twice, once as the producers enjoying the protection of high manufacturing tariffs and once as consumers with a free raw materials market. The raw materials industries of the South were left to struggle against foreign competition.
Because manufactured goods were not produced in the South, they had to either be imported or shipped down from the North. Either way, a large expense, be it shipping fees or the federal tariff, was added to the price of manufactured goods only for Southerners. Because importation was often cheaper than shipping from the North, the South paid most of the federal tariffs.
This isn't some description from a "Lost Cause" website - it's from the website of a wealth management company - Marotta Wealth Management.
It's economics, which makes peoples' eyes glaze over, yours apparently included.