Simple: They raised taxes. Those taxes served to protect home industry with a trade barrier but they also brought in revenue. In fact, the port entry data from New York City in 1861-65 indicates that the Morrill tariff did EXACTLY that: the number of imports into the port basicalled halved overnight yet since the rates were so high revenues from the port increased.
You have the classical southern viewpoint, which is that it would be better to have no schools than to have the money spent on them, that it would be better to have no newspapers than to have people read them and get the notion that they should have schools, and that always, someone else should pay the tab for the lazy and ignorant when they don't want to pay it for themselves.
I'm not quite sure if I can pinpoint what you are smoking, but it cannot be anything normal as it seems to have induced a hallicinatory state in which you have percieved me to discuss something you call the "southern viewpoint" of education spending. In reality I have mentioned nothing of the sort.
Next, you must explain to me how a 1/4 cent increase in the tax on a pound of sugar flattened out the North's economy
A 1/4 cent tax increase was not much of an issue in the 1860 bill. Rates were hiked from 17% to 36% then to 45% and then to 47%. Their economic effects are clearly visible in what happened after their adoption - trade going into the port of New York City was practically halved overnight. You've been notified of that fact many times yet for some reason you persist in embarrassing yourself further. But go ahead - show just what an uneducated fool you truly are. Myself and many others on this forum will find it quite amusing.
Ah yes, it's an American tradition to raise spending for luxuray items during a war, isn't it? You are dodging the question as though you knew you had no intelligent anwer. I wonder why? LOL....
Something you know. Protectionist built this country in the 19th century. Free trade is a valid concept only for a country ahead of the pack, which is why we preach it now, but still resort to protecionist tariffs so that country doesn't end up flat on it's face economically like the old South did when it bought that bag of poop from Gladstone.
I'm not quite sure if I can pinpoint what you are smoking, but it cannot be anything normal as it seems to have induced a hallicinatory state in which you have percieved me to discuss something you call the "southern viewpoint" of education spending. In reality I have mentioned nothing of the sort. You haven't cited it, just made a demonstration of it. A big part of having that condition is not being aware of it.
Next, you must explain to me how a 1/4 cent increase in the tax on a pound of sugar flattened out the North's economy
A 1/4 cent tax increase was not much of an issue in the 1860 bill. Rates were hiked from 17% to 36% then to 45% and then to 47%.
Hardly. As a matter of fact, a 1/4 cent tax on a pound of sugar was a 25% increase in the sugar tariff. BUt just for you information, the sugar tariff was decreased a 1/4 cent because it had been previously added as a protectionist tariff for Louisiana sugar, and Louisiana was had already left the Congress.
Their economic effects are clearly visible in what happened after their adoption - trade going into the port of New York City was practically halved overnight. You've been notified of that fact many times yet for some reason you persist in embarrassing yourself further. But go ahead - show just what an uneducated fool you truly are. Myself and many others on this forum will find it quite amusing.
Again, you over look that there was a war on. Please explain how it was that you are surprised to find the import of expensive European goods on the decrease in a time when citizens of the North were donated millions of their savings to the war effort, directly and through the purchase of war bonds?