[PeaRidge]

BroCanard, in your post #1501, you were giving tariff revenue in the North by year.

But you left out two years’ worth of data....here is what you posted:

1860 = $53 million
1863 = $63 million
1864 = $102 million
1865 = $85 million

Let me help you.

(From the “Statistical Abstract, using US Customs data.”)

In millions of dollars.

1860 = 52.7
1861 = 39
1862 = 46.5
1863 = 63.7
1864 = 96.5
1865 = 80.6

Now you may ask why '64 and '65 data is at some variance. Reason being is that Census/Customs data was published at the end of the callendar year. Treasury data was compiled and published on a June 30/July 1 schedule.

[rustbucket]

Now you [BroJoeK] may ask why '64 and '65 data is at some variance. Reason being is that Census/Customs data was published at the end of the callendar year. Treasury data was compiled and published on a June 30/July 1 schedule.

I read something the other day on why tariff revenue jumped up in 1864. The reason given was that importers removed items from the warehouses in advance of an impending higher tariff rate.

[BroJoeK]

PeaBrain: "BroCanard, in your post #1501, you were giving tariff revenue in the North by year. But you left out two years’ worth of data...."

I posted the data exactly as my source provided.
Your numbers are interesting because they show the following:
Change in Union tariff revenues by year:

1. 1861 = -26%
2. 1862 = +19%
3. 1863 = +37%
4. 1864 = +51%
5. 1865 = -16%
6. 1870 = +129%

PeaBrain: "Now you may ask why '64 and '65 data is at some variance. Reason being is... "

No problem since your numbers tell the same basic story as mine: that even without cotton in 1861 US revenues fell only 26% and soon recovered, growing 19%, then 37% and 51% in the following years.

Thanks.