Like?
(I believe the costs of some things were doubled.)
For example?
Once the extra costs were gone, there would have probably been quite a lot of demand for English rail road iron, cars, engines, and other machinery, iron implements and such.
Why? Leaving aside for the moment that there was no tariff on railway engines, there wasn't a lot of demand for it in the South before the rebellion. Add to that the fact that the Confederacy enacted their own tariff so prices of imports wouldn't drop that much. Plus all the items they used to get from the North now was taxed as imports.
The long and short of it is that before the rebellion upwards of 95% of all imports entered through Northern ports. After the rebellion you would have us believe that all those imports would all go south. If the demand wasn't there before the rebellion why would that change?
Well, not if you put a blockade around all their ports it wouldn't.
If the demand wasn't there before the rebellion why would that change?
I'm constantly astonished that so many conservatives don't seem to understand basic economics. What point is "demand" (In the North) if the money to fill your demand does not belong to you? The people who are actually owed the money may have different demands, and the people who owe the money (The Europeans) would be obligated to figure out what they wanted in exchange. Demand in the North without the money to pay for it is meaningless. "Demand" in the South would have been created if that is where the money was destined. It would just possibly be different imports to balance those trades.
You would have us believe that the Southerners would simply heap their European currency up into piles and just look at it. No, they would redeem it on products that the Europeans could supply that they would want.