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?
Nobody is claiming that Iowa or Kansas or Vermont were big consumers of imported goods. What about Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky? Or why not Illinois, Minnesota, and Nebraska? The point I am making is that your evidence is economically incomplete and therefore flawed. If you wish to make the claim that you do, you should be able to evidence it with statistics pertaining to goods consumption itself. You do not offer that and instead post only port of entry tax collection stats, which are insufficient as evidence.