X: ***”Tariffs are usually paid by the end consumer.
However, it is true, that if an importer can’t sell the goods, he can’t pass the import tax onto the end consumer.
If there is no buyer to pass the tariff cost on to, the importer gets stuck paying the cost of the tax himself.”***
Sure, but after many years merchants know what sells and what doesn’t.
You would not expect them to invest in imports without profits, would you?
That implies everything imported year after year had solid customers and were sold at profit.
So key points to remember include that some imports (i.e., coffee & tea) shipped directly to end use customers, but others (woolens, iron) became raw materials for manufacturers who then “exported” to other regions, including the South.
Such Northern “exports” to the South are said to have totalled $200 million/year and thus soaked up whatever surplus cash planters earned from cotton.
Posters like Diogeneslamp and FLT-BIRD tell us the Union absolutely depended on “Southern” exports, and would collapse economically without them.
That, they say, is why Lincoln “started war” at Fort Sumter.
Their problem is, 1861 proved them wrong — Confederate exports zeroed out and yet Union exports fell only 35% in 1861, rose in years after.
Their arguments are especially weak in claiming Lincoln “attacked” Charleston to collect tariff revenues — weak because Charleston tariffs amointed to only one tenth of one percent of total tariffs.
We say no such thing. We said they would lose control of 238 million dollars per year in European trade, and we say they would lose more from market competition of European goods flooding the nation through New Orleans. They would lose still a third way, when the great increase in capital in the Southern states would fund rival industries to theirs.
But you misreport what we claim, and from anyone else I would say they are a liar, but you are so obsessed and delusional about what you desperately want to believe, that your brain automatically misinterprets everything we say so that it resembles something more to your liking.
You suffer from cognitive dissonance, and it creates these weird effects where you read stuff we don't write.
Independence for the Southern states was a grave financial threat to the North, but nobody said it was going to "collapse economically without them."
It was going to collapse economically if the South was allowed to compete with them. Destroying the South prevented this economic competition, and that's why they did it. If they couldn't control the Money and Economics of the South, they HAD to destroy it, and I think freeing the slaves had more with revenge and destroying the South's economic threat to them than it did with any concern about the well being of slaves.
And here is another bit of idiocy. NO ONE SAID THAT!
He attacked Charleston to PREVENT them from taking away New York's business by charging lower tariffs than did the Union.
Our arguments are not weak at all, but your stupid strawman pretense of our arguments is weak because you made it so when you deliberately misstated our arguments.
Charleston charging 10% tariff and getting rid of the ban on foreign ships carrying cargo between ports, would have resulted in an ENORMOUS diversion of traffic from New York to Charleston.
Lincoln sent his attack fleet and his subsequent blockade to stop the Europeans from ever getting a taste of the greater profits they would make from bypassing New York and incidentally, his Federal tariffs.
Your repetitive responding to respond in order to waste as much time as possible while failing to read and/or just claiming any source that is inconvenient for your arguments is automatically untrue, has likewise come to an end. Buh Bye.
5th attempt.