Replies

The key fact here is that DiogenesLamp hopes to impose his own historical narrative on historical people who would not recognize it.

The key fact here is that the economics of the situation clearly shows that New York and Washington DC were ending up with all the trade money.

Another key fact is that most of this money would have disappeared from their control if the South traded directly with Europe. They wouldn't get what they had come to regard as "their cut."

We have here a towering motive called "Money" but gullible people prefer to believe it had some other cause than that, though uninvolved observers on the other side of the Atlantic pretty much nail the cause as a dispute over money, nor morals.

If you want to bypass the baloney on tariffs, I recommend the book King Cotton and His Retainers: Financing and Marketing the Cotton Crop of the South 1800-1925 by Harold D. Woodman.

https://books.google.com/books?id=5miElUnk_bYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=king+cotton+retainers’&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidkILl-tPaAhVBlFQKHbnhBvcQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=king%20cotton%20retainers’&f=false

It appears to be highly detailed and even discusses the infamous tome Southern Wealth and Northern Profits.

“The South’s economic problems arose from “our own supine and lack of energy,” charged another Southerner. Merchants were timid. They would not import merchandise themselves but were content merely to sell goods imported by Northerners. If successful, they did not seek to enlarge and expand their business but instead retired to a plantation.”

“The South lacked a large market and hence goods did not come to it. “If the Charleston merchant wonders why fewer commodities are imported into that market than into Boston, cannot he find ready answer in the fact that commodities go only where they are wanted…Commodities come to us because they are wanted-and we want the because we consume them. Commodities are not carried to South Carolina because they are not consumed there, and of course not wanted there.”

As we explore further, we’ll find more and more that the great burden of tariffs upon the South was way overblown.

DiogenesLamp: "Another key fact is that most of this money would have disappeared from their control if the South traded directly with Europe.
They wouldn't get what they had come to regard as 'their cut.' "

But about half of US cotton did ship directly from New Orleans to European & Northeastern customers.
Much or most of the rest shipped from smaller ports like Mobile, Galveston, Tallahassee, Savanah & Charleston.

So your argument makes no sense.
Your complaint, apparently, is that when those ships returned with import goods, they stopped first in major ports like New York to offload their imports to bonded warehouses until they could be sold and the duty paid.
You claim that if they were forced to take those imports to smaller ports like Charleston or Savanah, that would be more economical.
But it wouldn't because those imports, once sold, would still have to ship to the majority of customers up North, increasing both freight and tariff costs -- so they wouldn't do it.
Their alternative in, say, 1861 would be to find other sources for US exports, especially cotton, which is what they soon enough did.

No matter how you look at it, it doesn't add up.

DiogenesLamp: "We have here a towering motive called "Money" but gullible people prefer to believe it had some other cause than that, though uninvolved observers on the other side of the Atlantic pretty much nail the cause as a dispute over money, nor morals."

I think you've long since confessed that "money, money, money" was the secessionists' motive, even more than slavery, you claim.

So your purporting to see a "money" motive for "starting war" in people who expressed very different ideas seems more a matter of your own little "inner Democrat" doing what Democrats often do, projecting their mind states onto others -- i.e., "Russia collusion".