Also [USER=21069]@Union Blue,The census data for 1860 is available online. A county by county break down is available graphically. Your questions will be answered immediately. The items subject to the tariff were not consumer items, if such a term can be applied to 1860 commerce. I respectfully suggest that you are coming at this backwards. You have reached a conclusion & are hunting data to support it. Begin by finding out exactly what was subject to the tariff. Once you have established the list of items, look to see the quantity of that item was consumed in the Southern states & individual counties. Once. you have done that, you will have the means to examine the impact of the tariffs on individuals. I can save you some time. Historians have done just that already. The impact of the tariffs in place in 1860, which were lower than they were in 1840, had no measurable impact on the vast majority of white families. The data you will have gathered & your analysis that shows the lack of impact on white families will lead you, like scholars who have looked into this subject for the last 100 years to conclude that tariffs were not a significant cause of secession. Post war, however, when people were attempting to explain away the real reason they seceded, tariffs became a big deal. A modern way to look at tariffs is to ask yourself, how much have the billions of dollars worth of tariffs President Trump ordered have you personally paid? For every dollar modern tariffs U.S. consumers have paid, Southern white families paid almost nothing. The question you have to ask yourself is, would you march off & kill people over Trump's tariffs? If not, what makes you think that other people would? The tariff claim was intended to obscure the real reason the Southern states seceded.
I highly recommend that you find a history of the politics that led up to secession, starting with the 3/5th rule in the constitution. It will enlighten your understanding of what was really important to influential Southerners. Keep in mind that slave children were worth $33.00 for every inch over 4 feet at the Richmond market in August 1860. That at a time when a good wage was $15.00 a month. Think on that, a man had to work three months before his gross salary was worth one inch of a slave child. Now, that is the kind of money it is worth fighting for.
No doubt you are correct. I just wanted those who argue that the ACW was fought over tarriffs to provide some hard data to support their argument.
If tarriffs were truly burdensome on say French wine then French wine could easily be shipped to the French Carribean islands and be smuggled in at night. The few Internal Revenue Cutter's had no search lights,radar or air support so catching smugglers was difficult at best.
Slaves in fact were smuggled into the US right up to the Civil War as Cuba was only ninety miles from Southern Florida.
Absolutely the ACW was all about slavery.