This isn't the only thread in which the Civil War gets discussed. My comment referred to the larger context of all these discussions, not this specific thread. The "tariff" issue did exist, but it wasn't the primary issue involved.
The primary issue was the ability of Southerners to bring the Import/Export trade back to their own home ports without money being siphoned off by Washington D.C. and New York.
But for you, it's certainly not about California secession, the original subject of the thread.
The concept of secession applies to all states. My purpose here is to assert this right for all states, even California.
That's nonsense. No war, no immediate change in trade patterns.
It is not nonsense. 3/4ths of all export trade value was those products sent out from Southern ports. Their profits invariably came back through New York in the form of European products imported in exchange for US exports.
New York skimmed of 40% of the total, and the Federal government got their taxes, which were as high as 50% depending upon the exact nature of the imported good.
Get rid of the laws of Washington, and you effectively double the money the South would collect for their exports. You would also have gotten rid of the prohibition on foreign ships carrying American goods from port to port, and that would have greatly profited the Foreign shipping companies that would have engaged in that Trade.
Without the artificial conditions imposed on trade by Federal laws, the normal trade routes would have been between the Southern states and Europe, with the North only contributing about 25% of all export value.
Northern trade with Europe would have dropped 3/4ths or more.
Eventually, there might be more significant changes in trade patterns, but New Yorkers were savvy enough and competent enough not to be destroyed by changing economic trends.
The Europeans wanted cotton and tobacco more than they wanted Timber and Fish. The South had it, the North didn't, and I don't know what they could have done to change this economic dynamic short of blockading the South, which is what they did in fact do.
Southern independence means the rise of New Orleans and the ruin of New York. But that wouldn't necessarily have been the case.
I am perfectly willing to listen for your explanation as to how this would not have happened. Certainly the Newspaper editors of the time in Massachusetts and New York thought that it would.
"Skimming"? Your beloved slaveowning cotton planters bought goods and services from Northern manufacturers, merchants, and financial institutions.
Would you have preferred that the Northerners simply give them everything for free and let them keep 100% of their cotton profits (which were surely "skimmed" off someone else's efforts to begin with, n'est-ce pas?)
The average rate of tariffs between 1846 and 1861 was about 20%. Some goods were taxed at 30%, but higher rates than that were reserved for liquor, foodstuffs, tobacco and luxury cabinet woods. And some goods weren't taxed at all.
Without the artificial conditions imposed on trade by Federal laws, the normal trade routes would have been between the Southern states and Europe, with the North only contributing about 25% of all export value.
No, because the population of the North was greater, so imports were greater. The transportation network was also better in the more densely populated North, so goods could reach more people more efficiently.
There was a great call for ships in the South during cotton harvest time. Most of the rest of the year, ships going to and from the South would have been empty. It made sense to include shipping from Southern ports in with the much larger trade going from New York to Britain and Europe.
The Europeans wanted cotton and tobacco more than they wanted Timber and Fish.
Free trade Britain needed food. America could -- and later did -- supply it. Not to mention the trade in industrial and consumer goods between the North and Europe.
The 18.5 million free people in the free states could produce and consume more than the 5.5 million free people in the Confederacy. Heck, throw in the 2.5 million free people in the Border States and the slave states were still at a disadvantage.
But, gosh. We have been going over and over again with your stupid theory. Isn't it time you moved on? Or is this really all you have in life?