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?
The South was heavily export dependent, and transshipment of goods has already been discussed at length by GOPcapitalist. If you disagree with his statements on the subject, then nothing I say will sway you.
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?
I don't believe I ever stated that the South paid the lion's share of the tarriff, only that it was abusive. If I have, I apologize, because that would be errant. The problem with a broad import tarrif is that all suffer, including those in the South.
Apportionment of a wrong does not make it a right.
GOPcap - courtesy ping.