The fact that 19 out of every 20 dollars in imports came to the North indicates that demand down south for those goods was virtually non-existent. Then does that mean that demand for imports in Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, Vermont, or any of the other inland states and regions was non-existant? I ask because the reason upon which you make your above assertion holds demand for those goods to be determined strictly by their port of entry.
Nobody is claiming that Iowa or Kansas or Vermont were big consumers of imported goods. But the claim is made over and again that the south paid a disproportionate amount of the tariff income - 75% or 85% or more. My question has always been that if the south consumed such a large percentage of imports then why were those imports not sent to Charleston or Mobile or New Orleans? It would make sense that those consuming so much of the import market would have the economic clout to have the goods sent to their nearest port. Why weren't they? Why would the southern consumers put up with the added expense of having all their imports routed through New York or Boston?