I'm a little confused as to what Herbert is trying to say here. On page 148, after detailing the huge difference between the tariff collections in New York and the Southern ports, he says, "And a massive amount of the exports going out of New York were from Southern plantations." Is he saying that the reason for the tariff collections was because of the export of Southern goods? That doesn't make any sense. Or is he saying that all that cotton and rice was shipped to New York and other northern ports for export? That is contradicted by the records of the time that show well over 90% of all cotton was exported from Southern ports. I imagine that the percentage for rice was the same.
I see you are still playing the same games you played in your previous FR life. Certainly the South provided the bulk of US exports back then, somewhere between 70 and 75 percent. Tariffs weren't collected by the US on exports from the US, but exports made it possible for the US to import goods from Europe. Without those Southern exports the US would have had a balance of payments problem.
Or is he saying that all that cotton and rice was shipped to New York and other northern ports for export? That is contradicted by the records of the time that show well over 90% of all cotton was exported from Southern ports. I imagine that the percentage for rice was the same.
Herbert doesn't say "all." He says on page 147, "Southern cotton exported to Europe did not typically go from Southern ports to Europe. It went from Southern ports to Northern ports to Europe." Perhaps one reason for that was that the North owned 80 percent or more of the registered shipping tonnage capacity in the US. It made sense for Northern shipping firms to drop off some cotton bales for Northern mills, then consolidate shipments to Europe before crossing the Atlantic. I have no doubt that cotton and rice originated in the South and the majority got shipped out of their ports, perhaps with other goods meant for the coastal trade. Where it went from those Southern ports is another question. Herbert provided the answer.
Others have commented on New York's role in the cotton trade. See Link for the following quote:
New York City, not just Southern cities, was essential to the cotton world. By 1860, New York had become the capital of the South because of its dominant role in the cotton trade. New York rose to its preeminent position as the commercial and financial center of America because of cotton. It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters. The trade with the South, which has been estimated at $200,000,000 annually, was an impressive sum at the time.
Keep in mind that point of export for record keeping and point of export shipment out of the country were often different.
Goods, i.e. cotton or rice, etc., were shipped from farms to seaport export warehouses, coming under the control of the federal government and under the Warehousing laws. They were inventoried there. Of course, no taxes were paid on exports.
Most of these items were marked for export to overseas ports. Data was collected on the amount and value of exports at these warehouses and submitted to the Dept. of Treasury.
Sometimes these items left the warehouses via overseas shipping and sometimes by domestic shippers transporting them to other US ports for transhipment on other ships.
If they were transshipped to other US ports such as New York or Boston, they were not double counted as exports from these local warehouses.
Practically all cotton, rice, and tobacco was exported from Southern ports but they usually stopped over in New York for reloading on bigger ships.