[DiogenesLamp]

If you are referring to the South prior to the Civil War, can this be substantiated?

Yes it can.

A quick check found numerous articles that suggested the South did not pay 75% of the cost of running the Federal government, including the following articles:

"How much of federal tax revenue came from the South before the Civil War?"

"What portion of tariffs was paid by Southern states before American Civil War?"

"#FlagMyths: 'The Civil War Was Fought Over... Tariffs'"

"Five myths about why the South seceded"

I looked through all your links. None of them get it right. They argue that because the bulk of the tariff collections occurred in New York, the tariff's were paid by Northerners.

This is absolutely incorrect. The end consumer pays the costs of tariffs, and the vast bulk of Import goods were in payment for Southern exports. Yes, the South produced 75% of all monetary value for exports, meaning that money coming back was to pay for good purchased from the South.

Value of Northern exports was 25%. In other words, European money, goods and services earned by the North only amounted to 25% of the total.

The story is far more complex than most people realize, but once you dissect it down to it's simplest elements, the South was creating 75% (some say as high as 83%) of all import traffic, and the tariffs were being collected in New York, because the system was jiggered to work that way. 75% of the money actually belonged to the South.

Yes, the tariff's were getting collected in New York, but the monetary value for which those imports were payment, were earned by the South. I can show you the numbers if you like.

[Carl Vehse]

"The end consumer pays the costs of tariffs"

That was discussed in several articles. One stated:

"[I]t should be considered that because some supplies from overseas were landed in New York and then carried south, southerners as final consumers indirectly paid bigger than 8% portion of tariffs (by no mean 75-80%)."

And that was supported by excerpts from 1857 and 1861.

Another article noted:

"If there's a more esoteric argument that says somehow the South ultimately bought 80% of those goods and therefore experienced the markup that came from them being taxes, I haven't seen it, but it would be interesting to read and parse."

The article also noted that the alleged burden of paying the cost of tariffs was not included in the secession declarations.

Thus there is no reason to accept your cavalierly dismissing the contents, including additional references, of the various linked articles I proved earlier.