One, the whole system was more complex than what’s described in the Southron lament. It was hardly “Southerners planted and Northerners profited.”
Two, factoring houses, already mentioned by others on this thread, were a huge part of the process.
The complexity arises because while there were usual and normal practices, different planters worked differently. Some wanted to follow the cotton through the sale. Others wanted the factor to act with complete autonomy to make the best deal. Others split the difference, giving the factor the lowest price they’d take. Even in that case, the factor might disobey that dictate if he felt he had to.
Further complicating matters is that many factor houses were Southern companies, others New York firms, and still others were American agents of British brokers and importers. In addition American and British banks invested in American businesses while not being directly involved.
Now, as you say, so far as I can tell once the deal was done the plantation owner had his money (depending on terms) and had no interest in importing. What I’ve read is that rich Southerners reinvested profits in more slaves and more land. The idea that the seller arranged shipping and not the buyer or exporter, and was forced to book round trip voyages, seems absurd to me. The market was ever changing and trends came and went, so a shipping company who wanted to charge the highest rates had to be flexible. Having your ships tied up both ways makes no sense.
That’s not to say that those profiting from crops in the South did not also participate in importing. But I don’t see a direct connection.
Oh, by the way, Louisiana politicians were all for tariffs when the duties were levied in sugar!
Not a "Southron" and it really isn't. I've noticed you've gone to great lengths to make it more complex, and i've been trying to simplify it.
This is not rocket science. The vast bulk of European trade was for items produced by the Southern States. When the South left, most of the European trade in New York was going to leave with it.
Now you want to get into the grass about what was this particular year's trade deficit, and how much profit was made by this entity, and so on and so forth, and you are hoping you can find some sort of mitigating explanation for why the vast bulk of the products going to Europe were produced in the South while virtually all the money came back through New York.
Instead of just accepting the reality that the North East had the South paying their taxes and subsidizing their industries, while gouging them on services, you want to find something to rescue your theory in the financial details somewhere.
I'm trying to simplify, and you are trying to make things more complicated.
Suggesting that most or all cotton had already been paid for and so changed hands before loading on ships to Europe, or Northeastern USA.
SoCal Pubbie: "What I’ve read is that rich Southerners reinvested profits in more slaves and more land."
Exactly, because according to Wigfall rules and simple common historical sense, that was the surest, quickest and longest lasting way to become wealthy.
After all, a Southern gentleman without a large plantation was, as Texans today say, "all hat and no cattle."
SoCal Pubbie: "That’s not to say that those profiting from crops in the South did not also participate in importing.
But I don’t see a direct connection."
The best I can do on import tariffs is here, and it suggests there was no way Southerners would pay for more than a small portion of it.
The reason is: bulk commodities of which you'd only buy as much as needed.
Items for resale would remain in large warehouses in, say, New York, until other buyers were found to pay the tariffs.