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.
How can that be true? If your factory is in Massachusetts and you ship goods to South Carolina then you pay a a price for transportation. But if you ship goods to Ohio or Illinois or Pennsylvania then aren't there also transportation fees? Same with imports. If you buy an imported good then you pay a price for the tariff and that is true if you are in Georgia or in Ohio. Tariffs hit all consumers equally regardless of their location. So how can the author claim that those costs only hit Southerners?
Because importation was often cheaper than shipping from the North, the South paid most of the federal tariffs.
How could shipping goods from Europe be cheaper than shipping goods from other parts of the U.S.? The distances are shorter so the transportation costs, insurance, etc. would be less than trans-Atlantic. Wouldn't they?
Between 1830 and 1850, 30,000 miles of track was laid. At its best, these tracks benefited the North. Much of it had no economic effect at all. Many of the schemes to lay track were simply a way to get government subsidies. Fraud and corruption were rampant.
I have never seen any evidence of that. Canals like the Erie Canal and every other canal built during the 18th and 19th century were either funded by the state or they were private enterprises. Same with railroads. I don't know of a single rail line paid for by the federal government. Even the transcontinental railroads were funded by government loans which had to be paid back. So I think this is a blanket statement without any truth at all. Unless you can point me to some information showing I'm wrong on this.
With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in the North, the South rightly felt exploited. At the time, 90% of the federal government's annual revenue came from these taxes on imports.
Except that wasn't true. Other people have posted statistics showing that in the year prior to the war close to 95% of all tariffs were collected in northern ports like New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. Why would that be true if all those goods were destined for southern consumers?
Many Americans do not understand this fact. A non-slave-owning Southern merchant angered over yet another proposed tariff act does not make a compelling scene in a movie. However, that would be closer to the original cause of the Civil War than any scene of slaves picking cotton.
And yet documents detailing the reasons for secession mention slavery time after time after time and don't mention the tariff. Why would that be true if the tariff was the major reason?
Slavery was a dying and repugnant institution.
Do you have any quotes from any southern leaders of the time which shows that they believed this?
But while we're on the subject of quotes, what do you make of this one. Henry Benning was sent from Georgia to Virginia to address the Virginia Secession Convention. In addition to saying that slavery was the reason why Georgia left the Union, he touched on the subject of tariffs. He discussing how the Confederacy would fund itself, he told the convention, "I have no idea that the duties will be as low as 10 per cent. My own opinion is that we shall have as high duty as is now charged by the General Government at Washington. If that matter is regarded as important by this Convention, why the door is open for negotiation with us. We have but a provisional and temporary government so far. If it be found that Virginia requires more protection than this upon any particular article of manufacture let her come in the spirit of a sister, to our Congress and say, we want more protection upon this or that article, and she will, I have no doubt, receive it. She will be met in the most fraternal and complying spirit."
If protective tariffs were such a big reason for secession then why were they promising Virginia protective tariffs as high as Virginia wanted them?