Have done so numerous times. The navigation act of 1817 did most of the damage to other ports. I think there was also a warehousing act that did more damage, but I don't recall the details on it. Federal subsidies for Northern shipping interests made things more difficult for competitors that were located anywhere else.
New York already had a natural advantage. It was one of the closest American ports to Europe. To go an extra 800 miles to Charleston would require some sort of incentive. 30% savings from lower tariffs would have done it.
You have not. The only law you have cited by title in these discussions is the 1817 Navigation act. What was the warehousing law you cite.
The Navigation act restricts the shipment of cargos between American port to American flagged ships. Southern ship owners would have been protected from foreign completion
in that trade, just as much as Northern shippers were.
Southern cargos such as cotton bound for Europe could be carried by any ship from any nation. Cargos bound from Europe to Southern ports could be carried on any ship flying any flag.
You are correct that New York and the other Northern ports had advantage in location. Also, both private businesses and the states concerned invested a lot of capitol in developing these ports. Something that Southern states and investors were much less likely to do. Without Federal money, Charleston harbor would have been almost useless, the Government paid to have that harbor dredged 3 times before the war. They also built the lighthouses at allowed mariners to enter the harbor safely.