That is precisely the problem with your claim. When you look there you are looking at incomplete data and therefore in the wrong place. The economic costs of a tariff are NOT calculated strictly in the physical revenue collection, and especially not when the tariff is protectionist in nature. To see who bears those costs requires more economic data and mathematical analysis of that data. I've told you this repeatedly and asked you to seek out that data yet you refuse to do so and instead you knowingly post the same misleading and inconclusive data. Why could that be, other than my strong suspicion that you are trying to perpetrate a fraud with it?
If all those goods were destined for southern consumers then why weren't they shipped directly to the southern ports?
Why would they necessarily need to be if the tariff's very nature was to discourage their importation and instead ship domestic goods south? It's a simple matter of economics. You cannot weigh the entirity of a tariff by simply listing physical locations of revenue collection. To do so would be foolish and any credentialed economist would tell you so.
So why don't you graph it out, post the prices, and show some evidence that the burden of the tariffs lay with the south.
If you like. I recall attempting to guide you into doing this with me previously. You refused then and continued ignorantly spouting misinformation. If you wish to consider this further may I have your assurance that you are truly interested in an examination of the tariff's burdens and costs? If so, please indicate it and indicate the specific item of trade you wish to consider and we'll procede from there.
Until then stop shooting your mouth off on claims you can't back up.
To cease doing so would require that I were doing so in the first place, which is simply not the case. Other than pointing out that your little charade of listing tax collection locations and calling it economics doesn't make it so, I have made no claims for which you may lodge your grievance against. Hence your grievance is itself as unfounded as the fraudulent stat pushing you promote in place of real economic trade analysis.
All this gobblety gook doesn't mean squat.
The slave states didn't want manufacturing interests to prosper. They didn't want free labor and they didn't want a middle class. They wanted a stratification of society into peons and nobles, slaves and masters.
And as you well know, southern congressmen made the tariffs --exactly-- what they wanted them to be. By keeping the federal government strapped for cash, they made revolution and rebellion more attainable.
They thought.
Walt
It seems to me more a case of simple mathematics. The claim has been made that the south paid 87% of the tariff revenue. That would seem to me that they would have had to consume either 87% of the actual imports or 87% of the output of the industries that the tariffs protected. And both those figures are ridiculous. Southern demand for imports were too low to justify having the goods shipped to them. That leaves domestically produced goods. What Northern industry did the south consume the overwhelming percentage of, other than slaves? Iron, textile, some other form of manufactured goods? What? The claim that the south paid most of the tariffs is impossible to support. If anything it is far more likely that the south actually paid a smaller percentage of tariff revenue.