No. You don't get to change the subject. The point you claimed to be making was that lower tariffs would not hurt the North because their products would be competitive with European products because they were closer.
My point is that if 10% tariffs in the South would cause no harm to the North, the North, which had complete control of congress, would have set them at 10%. The fact that they set them much higher, and that they enacted other protectionist laws, makes it clear that they thought these laws were necessary for their benefit.
Rendering these laws null would therefore have hurt the North financially, and they clearly recognized this.
I can point you to dozens of editorials and columns that said Trump actually did collude with the Russians and his actions were criminal.
Written in 1860? Also are you trying to say Northern newspapers back then were just as big liars as they are nowadays? My personal opinion is that people of that era were less blatant about lying, especially when their readership was a lot more intelligent than the fools we have nowadays.
But just out of curiosity how many railroad rails were imported from Europe prior to the rebellion?
I would guess none, and this would be because protectionist tariffs made it uneconomical to do so. Also, your inquiry sounds like you are attempting to make my point for me, that High Tariffs on manufactured goods benefited the North, and hurt the South.
And that is wrong because...?
My point is that if 10% tariffs in the South would cause no harm to the North, the North, which had complete control of congress, would have set them at 10%. The fact that they set them much higher, and that they enacted other protectionist laws, makes it clear that they thought these laws were necessary for their benefit.
And that tariff would still protect the domestic market. But for selling goods to the Confederacy the U.S. goods would be taxed at exactly the same level as European goods. There would be a level playing field, aided by shorter transportation costs. Domestic sales could subsidize the sales to the South, small as they were. There is no reason to believe that Northern manufacturers couldn't compete, and compete very well with overseas sources.
Rendering these laws null would therefore have hurt the North financially, and they clearly recognized this.
It wouldn't have hurt the North financially much, if at all.
I would guess none, and this would be because protectionist tariffs made it uneconomical to do so.
So you claim, not surprisingly. Was there a big export market for railroad rails from Europe?
Also, your inquiry sounds like you are attempting to make my point for me, that High Tariffs on manufactured goods benefited the North, and hurt the South.
You are hearing things again.