Covered this several times, and since you won't listen, I don't see any point in going over it again, though I will make a brief recap for the benefit of others.
Navigation Act of 1817, coupled with the Tariff laws, coupled with New York being 800 miles closer to the European shipping, pretty much covers why New York cornered the vast majority of all trade.
Take away the Navigation act of 1817 and the requirement to pay High Tariff's in Charleston (under the Union) and the picture of the resulting trade changes dramatically.
New York loses, and everyone else gains.
Because the law doesn't mean what you say the law means.
Navigation Act of 1817, coupled with the Tariff laws, coupled with New York being 800 miles closer to the European shipping, pretty much covers why New York cornered the vast majority of all trade.
Absolute nonsense. If there was any kind of demand for imported goods there is no reason why they could not have been brought directly to Southern ports. Neither the Navigation Act or any other act of Congress prevented goods from being imported into certain ports or prevented them from being exported from certain ports. The only thing governing that was simple economics.
Take away the Navigation act of 1817 and the requirement to pay High Tariff's in Charleston (under the Union) and the picture of the resulting trade changes dramatically.
Again, total nonsense. There is absolutely no reason why goods destined for Northern consumers should go to Southern ports. And if goods destined for Southern consumers went to New York because it was 800 miles closer then that would still be true even had the South won their rebellion.