Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur
The fact of the matter is that the south did pay a disproportionate share of the tariff, a disproportionately low share.

I'm sure those charitable Northern merchants just sucked up that tarriff cost as a consequence of doing business. Those gracious souls, God Bless them.

Either that, or you might consider researching the effects of tarrifs on consumers.

353 posted on 05/15/2003 8:10:05 AM PDT by Gianni (Peace, Love, and Biscuits and Gravy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies ]


To: Gianni
Either that, or you might consider researching the effects of tarrifs on consumers.

I'm aware of the effect of tariffs on consumers. My point is that the south consumed next to nothing on imports. Had it been otherwise then 95% of the tariff income would have come in to Charleston, New Orleans and Mobile instead of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia.

But let me ask you. If you sign on to the claim that the south paid the lion's share of the tariff then what was it that they were importing? If your claim is that they indirectly paid that tariff in higher goods for domestic products then what domestic products did they consume in such massive quantities?

354 posted on 05/15/2003 9:51:00 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson