[Gianni]

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.

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.

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

I take what GOP says with a grain of salt. Why don't you try and sway me? You are correct that the southern economy was dependent on exports. Millions of bales of cotton and other goods flowed out of New Orleans and Mobile and Savannah and Charleston destined for European shores. Yet if you look at the tariff revenues for those same ports almost nothing from Europe was flowing in. Why were those ships showing up empty to be loaded if such a vast amount of imports were destined for southern consumers? It's a simple question and should be handled with a simple answer. How can you say that the tariff was abusive when such a small percentage was shouldered by southern consumers?