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.
It's almost amusing.
Not necessarily and not even close to accurate. In order to continue, you must break down the commodities each tariff was paid for and specifically who paid them. Second, take into account any opportunity costs. Third, take into account the issue of economic competition post secession. Specifically, what happens if the south leaves and holds the tariff at its old level, but the north hikes it up to 40% or more? The answer is simple - foreign commerce shifts to southern ports to avoid the tariff. The south develops faster economically as a result, and the southern-bought goods make their way up the coast by way of land, where it is harder to tax and trace, and would likely not be so by necessity of the north's dependent commerce. In short, the yankee tariff is circumvented by the market.
The 'small number of collection points' encompassed the three largest northern ports and the 8 or 9 largest southern ports.
I see you again ignored the question. Who paid those tariffs? Specifically. Break it down by nation, and by commodity
As for tariffs being on imports, well, duh.
Hey, i'm just covering all bases. You have shown your economic ignorance and misunderstanding of the entire tariff concept in previous posts, so I don't want to put anything past you.
That last paragraph makes even less sense then the rest of your stuff does.
If that is so, why can't you bring yourself to address and rebut the issues raised in it? Since you cannot substantiate your attempted blanket dismissal of those points, I may reject that dismissal in a word. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.