And the point that I am making is that tariffs are economically employed for their protectionist over their revenue collection elements. That being the case, it is indisputable that the protectionist tariffs helped the north and hurt the south. End of question.
The claim that the south paid the lions share of the tariffs is clearly wrong when you look at the statistics of the period.
Is it? Cause the only statistics you have produced that I see indicate a small number of collection points. It does not say a thing about who paid the tariffs themselves. Besides, tariffs are on imports, not exports, which means those importing goods paid them. Last I checked, a country cannot reasonably import its own goods to itself.
I'm not sure how you can say that the tariff affected crop prices. For the years prior to the war the price of cotton had never been higher.
No kidding. And it was due to the reduction of many protectionist tariffs in the 1840's against yankee wishes that allowed cotton's price to climb for the decade that followed! Now think for a moment. What was the southern tariff complaint with Lincoln's government? THAT THEY WOULD HIKE THE TARIFF BACK UP BEYOND THE OLD LEVELS! It was openly advocated by the northerners, campaigned on by them, and for the first time in decades they put together a party with enough strength in the government to do so (and did just that almost immediately after Lincoln took office). So what happens when the tariff goes up? Prices go up on imports, it takes more cotton to get the same thing due to the tariff, and bye bye prosperity.
It 'created' iself in an illegal manner through illegal actions, as determined by the Supreme Court in 1869.
They had already cast off the United States itself with relative ease. The Lincoln government responded by invading them after they had already come into existence.
Their independence wasn't recognized by the United States government or any other government. They were a rebellious part of the United States.
The army had no more right to Sumter than Jefferson Davis had to take up a garrison blocking the entrance into Boston.
Sumter was a U.S. Army post, built by the government in a city of the United States. The Army had every right to be there. Davis had no such power because he was not in command of the army of the United States or any other country.
Forts all across the south were abandoned by the yankees without so much as a scratch inflicted on either side.
U.S. Military installations had been appropriated by the confederacy.
The south definately fired the first shot, but did so only because the alternative would have inevitably caused more casualties.
How so? Up to that point the Union had taken not a single hostile action against the rebellion, regardless of provocation. There is no reason to believe that that was going to change just because Lincoln put food and reinforcements into Sumter. But Davis chose to take the first step and initiate hostilities. Rather than causing zero casualties, his actions caused hundreds of thousands.
Hardly the end of the question. Tariffs affected anyone who bought the imported goods. Given the fact that 95% went into Northern ports then that is a strong indication that Northerners were the purchasers. Therefore tariffs hurt the North more.
...the only statistics you have produced that I see indicate a small number of collection points.
The 'small number of collection points' encompassed the three largest northern ports and the 8 or 9 largest southern ports. As for tariffs being on imports, well, duh. Those importing paid the tariff. Those paying the tariff were in New York and Boston and Philadelphia.
So what happens when the tariff goes up?
That last paragraph makes even less sense then the rest of your stuff does.