[BroJoeK]

On the related question of what percent of Federal tariff revenues were "paid for" by "the South", we've seen numbers claimed starting at 75% and even going north of 85%.
This in the face of actual revenues collected in Southern ports around just 8% of the total.
So, how do we get from 8% actual revenues to 75%+ claimed as "paid for" by "the South"?

Well, some posters like DiogenesLamp tell us it's not about import tariffs, but rather the export earnings which "paid for" those imports.
These, if we jigger & massage the numbers enough, can be made to appear as if "75%+" of US exports were "Southern products" which thus somehow "paid for" 75%+ of Federal import tariffs.

Others, like FLT-bird, are more direct in saying 75%+ of US imports were Southern owned when landed in New York, thus Southerners paid the tariffs in New York and then shipped their imports South via rail or packet ships.
This, they say, was the great economic crime committed by, in DiogenesLamp's term, "Northeastern power brokers" against the hard-working innocent Southern planters.

Well...
We can clear up one point pretty easily: what percent of US imports ended up in the South -- was it 85%, 75%, 50% or 8%?
Answer: closer to the last:

--from The Cotton Kingdom, Vol. 1, by Frederick Law Olmsted, New York – London, 1861:

“A very large part of our duties are collected on the class of goods for which there is almost no demand at all from the South, either directly or indirectly – woolen and fur goods, for instance; of the goods require for the South not a few have been practically free.
The whole slave population of the South consumes almost nothing ...
The majority of the population habitually makes use of no foreign production except chicory, which, ground with peas, they call coffee.
I have never seen reason to believe that with absolute free trade the cotton States would take a tenth part of the value of our present importations.
And as I can judge from observation of the comparative use of foreign goods at the South and at the North, not a tenth part of our duties have been defrayed by the South in the last twenty years"

Maybe 10% according to this contemporary witness.

But what these numbers don't show us is the value of Southern "imports" from the North, circa $200 million per year.
We can compare those in 1860 as follows:

1. Southern cotton exports ~ $200 million
2. All other US exports, including specie ~ $200 million
3. Northern export to the South ~ $200 million

In other words, "the North" "exported" an equal value to the South as it did to the rest of the world combined.
And "the South" effectively spent all its foreign exchange earnings in the North.

Those are indeed significant numbers -- no, not 75% or 85%, but still important to the overall.

[FLT-bird]

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.

11th attempt.

[rockrr]

Can't you just picture bird-brain holding his ears and chanting "I can't HEAR you!"

[rustbucket]

And "the South" effectively spent all its foreign exchange earnings in the North.

For any northern goods whose prices had been raised because the tariff protected them from cheaper and in some cases probably better quality foreign goods, the South was effectively paying the tariff to the makers of those Northern goods.