Where the cargo lands and where the tariffs are paid are a good indication of where the customers are.
So all those commentators at the time, all those politicians and newspapers as well as a tax expert who has written about it were wrong and you are right?
Once again I present facts and you present opinions. Lincoln gave the revenue resulting from tariffs in his 1864 message to Congress - over $103 million rather than over $110 million, my error. How was that possible if the claims of you and DiogenesLamp are correct?
If the CSA had gone its own way and was thus free of the Navigation Acts that all but monopolized trade through those areas that had a larger shipping industry to begin with...ie NY and New England, then yes I'm sure they would import in ports that were in their own country.
What the Navigation Act said was that foreign ships could not bring goods from one U.S. port to another. It did not say that foreign ships, or American ships for that matter, could not bring those foreign goods to Charleston or New Orleans if that was where the demand for those goods was.
But if New York wanted to monopolize imports through the port why didn't they want to monopolize exports as well?
Hey, I'll give you credit. At least you are able to recognize that WHERE the goods are landed and thus WHERE the tariff is paid is not indicative of WHO is doing the paying.
But it is an indication of where the demand for those goods was.
No its not. Its merely where the distribution channel into the country starts. Long Beach is a massive port. That doesn't mean all the customers are in Southern California. It services a huge area.
besides, the customers weren't the ones eating the vast majority of the cost. The owners of the goods were. Northern manufacturers could - when tariff rates were particularly high - raise their own prices and still undercut foreign goods in the market. The importers could not simply raise their own prices by the amount of the tariff.
DoodleDawg said: Once again I present facts and you present opinions. Lincoln gave the revenue resulting from tariffs in his 1864 message to Congress - over $103 million rather than over $110 million, my error. How was that possible if the claims of you and DiogenesLamp are correct?
I have presented you with reams of facts, quotes and sources which all show it was the Southern states that were doing most of the importing and exporting. The Northeast was servicing those goods but it was the Southern states which were producing them....and exchanging them for foreign manufactured goods. How is it all those various sources said exactly what I said?
DoodleDawg said: What the Navigation Act said was that foreign ships could not bring goods from one U.S. port to another. It did not say that foreign ships, or American ships for that matter, could not bring those foreign goods to Charleston or New Orleans if that was where the demand for those goods was. But if New York wanted to monopolize imports through the port why didn't they want to monopolize exports as well?
It required that American goods be carried by American ships. I understand the initial reasons for it (make sure the fledgling nation have a shipping industry so that it would have the basis for a navy in time of war) but what tended to happen over time is this consolidated the shipping industry to a much greater degree in the region that specialized in shipping - the Northeast.
DoodleDawg said: But it is an indication of where the demand for those goods was.
Not necessarily AND this says nothing about who was bearing the cost of the tariff. Importers could not simply pass off all or even the majority of the costs onto customers.