All things being equal (other than price), faced with a decision between something priced for $1 (northern) and .85 (european) the choice is obvious. With tariff applied it becomes a choice between $1 and $1.11 (30% tariff). Raising it to 47% made it $1.25. But did the North leave their price @ $1? Or did it get raised to $1.15? Either way, northern pockets were filled with southern monies.
Despite this, some would have us believe that southerners were not affected by tariffs, or that southerners were not paying the duties (due to where the goods were shipped), yet no one can provide documentation of northerners protesting higher tariffs. They obviously think that southerners protested higher tariffs on behalf of northerners. < /sarcasm >
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/687182/posts?page=91#91
And with Northern monies as well. You forget, or ignore, that the Northern consumer paid exactly the same price as the Southern consumer did.
But I asked before and I'll ask again. What was it that the South was importing in such vast quantities that not only did they account for 75% of all imports but they also lined the pockets of Northern manufacturers?
...or that southerners were not paying the duties (due to where the goods were shipped)...
Isn't that a good indicator? If the South consumed three quarters or more of all imports then wouldn't it make sense to send those goods to Southern ports where they would be closer to their consumers? According to articles the North consumed less than 25% of all imports yet based on tariff collections over 90% of all imports were landed in Northern ports. Why?
The tariff of 1857 was no more than 15%. It was that low because southern congressman ruled in those decades regarding the tariff issue.