And your arrogance is showing again. If the southern planter sells his cotton to a broker then where do tariffs come into play? The broker pays no tariff on the exports and the planter has his money to spend locally.
If I give my cotton to a buyer in Britain, I do so only because he is giving me something in return for that cotton. It may be a payment in money that he gives me.
And if I sell my cotton to a New York buyer then what do I care how he gets rid of it? You seem to be insisting that the southern planter was deeply involved with purchasing the goods in Europe for import. I believe that it was PeaRidge who offered the charming picture of thousands of southern planters riding their cotton bales across the pond to go on their shopping spree in Europe only to be gouged on their return by that evil tariff. A more likely scenario is that the southern planter played no part in the cycle other than selling his produce to someone who would then export it. It would stand to reason that the planter would want to limit his risk as much as he could. Selling it right out of the gin meant that he didn't have to run the risk of losing the goods in a shipwreck or be at the mercy of international trade variables. He had his cash in hand to spend as he wanted, on what he wanted.
As Clingman pointed out, goods can come in anywhere by sea on the North American continent.
And as Simmons pointed out the small amount of tariff money collected in the south indicates that there was little southern demand for the goods. Why should I accept Clingman's statistics over Simmons? Clingman offers nothing to back up his $150 million figure.
If New York has a tariff blocking goods from entering and Charleston does not have such a tariff, the foreign shippers will go to Charleston to avoid paying that tariff and the good is delivered.
If there was that much of a demand down south then the goods would have gone there directly, not through New York. They did not, so obviously demand was much greater up North than down south. The imports would have continued to go to the customer regardless of tariff because they would have done the New York merchant no good sitting on the dock in Charleston.
Since when is it arrogant to point out that you are consistently acting in an ignorant manner on a subject where your ignorance has been made known to you previously, though evidently to no avail?
If the southern planter sells his cotton to a broker then where do tariffs come into play?
At the price.
The broker pays no tariff on the exports and the planter has his money to spend locally.
Not so. If trade stops and the foreign buyers are lost, the prices in agricultural market die too. The broker is only an intermediary, just like the commodities markets of today are intermediaries for farmers. Therefore much of the burden is transfered through to the seller himself.
And if I sell my cotton to a New York buyer then what do I care how he gets rid of it?
So long as he is paying market value, you shouldn't. But the number of New Yorkers who are willing to pay market price for cotton is not unlimited, nor is Europe's unlimited. If Europe is cut out of trade by a tariff and ceases buying American cotton, there is no guarantee that the cotton that used to go to Europe will all be absorbed by New York buyers at the same price. Rather, the market will be flooded with all that surplus cotton that isn't traded any more, causing the price to bottom out.
You seem to be insisting that the southern planter was deeply involved with purchasing the goods in Europe for import.
Only insofar as the southern planters provided 75% of the nation's exports. Trade is a circular pattern, Non-Seq. If America exports something, it expects to get something in return, which means either imports or monetary credit. So in that sense, by being the nation's exporters, yes - southerners were deeply involved in European imports because their exports made those imports happen.
It would stand to reason that the planter would want to limit his risk as much as he could.
Not necessarily. Profit maximization tends to be the primary goal of most producers, especially in free perfectly competitive markets. Therefore he sells it at the market price, be the recipient a European or a yankee.
Selling it right out of the gin meant that he didn't have to run the risk of losing the goods in a shipwreck or be at the mercy of international trade variables.
Your theory is irrational and yet again demonstrates your economic ignorance. It makes about as much sense as Wal-Mart imposing a rule that it will only permit customers who live in a 10 mile radius of the store, because people beyond that have to drive further and therefore run a greater risk of getting in a car wreck on the way home.
He had his cash in hand to spend as he wanted, on what he wanted.
...and since the question of the tariff determines how much cash that will be that he has on hand, and how much purchasing power that cash has when he goes to spend it, surely you can now see why the south had such an interest in tariff policy.
And as Simmons pointed out the small amount of tariff money collected in the south indicates that there was little southern demand for the goods.
Aside from failing to respond to the fact that goods may enter anywhere on the North American continent, your fallacy is again noted. By that same reason, Tennessee must not recieve any goods or pay any tariffs because none are collected there. If there was that much of a demand down south then the goods would have gone there directly, not through New York.
You are missing the concept entirely. It is a matter of demand for North America itself. If a barrier blocks the entry of goods into one port but not another, goods from abroad will enter where the barrier does not exist then distribute accordingly within the continent.
The imports would have continued to go to the customer regardless of tariff because they would have done the New York merchant no good sitting on the dock in Charleston.
Nonsense. To get the goods, the New York merchant need only transfer them internally from Charleston, or up the Mississippi from New Orleans and so forth. Barring the logistically impossible establishment of custom houses at every road, railway, waterway, and river across the north-south border between Virginia and Arkansas, he could do so without paying a single tariff.