The Warehousing Act of 1846 was likewise passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by a slaveowning president, James K. Polk. That was the Congress that passed the low tariff of 1846 and the law was intended as a free trade measure. As with the Navigation Act, it was only later that some Southerners started to see all this as part of a Yankee plot.
The idea that the Navigation Act meant that Northern shippers set rates only a little higher than the fines imposed on foreign shippers has some things wrong with it.
First of all, there wasn't a cartel that could enforce rates, so far as I know. US shipping companies were in competition with each other, and if the rates were too high, planters and merchants could ship directly to the Old World on British ships, since the Navigation Act didn't apply to shipping to and from Europe, so there was a limit to how high rates could go.
Secondly, why would using British ships automatically be cheaper? You could make the case the established British millowners still produced thread and cloth that was better or cheaper than US products, but why would that apply to shipping, something that Yankees were as experienced at as were the Britons?
Third, the idea that British companies would be shipping between US ports and incurring fines is a little sketchy. If you're not welcome and there are fines and prosecution involved you go into business somewhere else.
The law effectively kept the British out of US domestic shipping. Prices may have been a little higher, but developing US shipping was considered to be worth it. If the US abolished the law it wouldn't mean a flourishing of Southern-owned shipping, it would just have meant that British firms would enter into competition with US ones.
In 1817, it seemed benign and desirable. It took years before people realized how it put them at a disadvantage. Many is the act of congress that later was discovered to be a disaster.
As with the Navigation Act, it was only later that some Southerners started to see all this as part of a Yankee plot.
Not so much a plot as it is mutual interests cooperating to their mutual advantage.
The idea that the Navigation Act meant that Northern shippers set rates only a little higher than the fines imposed on foreign shippers has some things wrong with it.
First of all, there wasn't a cartel that could enforce rates, so far as I know.
Everyone in the industry knew what the rates were with and without penalties. If you don't think that provided a clue for everyone to set their rates at just below the penalties, then you are grievously underestimating the intelligence of business people.
US shipping companies were in competition with each other, and if the rates were too high, planters and merchants could ship directly to the Old World on British ships, since the Navigation Act didn't apply to shipping to and from Europe, so there was a limit to how high rates could go.
No shipper wants to cross the ocean with an empty ship, and so they always carried cargo both ways. What were these British ships going to carry as cargo to the South? All the stuff the Southerners wanted was greatly taxed, and so wouldn't be as easy to sell as it would in a free trade or low tariff market.
The British ships would also be limited as to their profit potential by being required to dock at only one port. They couldn't sell some product in one, and move to another, it all had to come off at whatever single port they chose.
Somewhere in one of the larger threads, there is a pretty good analysis of all the detriments to the South caused by the Navigation act of 1817. I'm sort of looking for it, and I expect I will eventually find it.
Secondly, why would using British ships automatically be cheaper? You could make the case the established British millowners still produced thread and cloth that was better or cheaper than US products, but why would that apply to shipping, something that Yankees were as experienced at as were the Britons?
Rail Road iron and Rail Cars/Engines would be cheaper. Iron products in general would be cheaper. The things that were protected by tariffs would have all come in cheaper than what they could be bought for with the tariffs in place.
Third, the idea that British companies would be shipping between US ports and incurring fines is a little sketchy. If you're not welcome and there are fines and prosecution involved you go into business somewhere else.
They checked your log books, and there were penalties beyond just the forfeiture of your cargo for manipulating those. If you got caught trying to ship between US ports on a foreign built ship, a foreign owned ship, or even a ship that has a partial foreign crew, then your ship could be seized as well as your cargo, and you could end up in Prison.
The port authorities made a record of every ship that docked, and these got sent to Washington where they were checked for exactly this sort of Port to Port banned trading. They would have caught anyone attempting it.
The law effectively kept the British out of US domestic shipping. Prices may have been a little higher, but developing US shipping was considered to be worth it.
Worth it to the people running Washington and New York, but perhaps not so worth it to the people in the South. Also there is the factor of how many people want to do business with people who really really hate them and consider them immoral?
I make a point to boycott businesses that come out against the NRA (founded by Union officers) or other conservative organizations. I don't doubt there was some sentiment to do that in the old South.