Some well-off Southerners complained about New York and felt that they were being cheated, but the statistics used to support that view could easily be used to point out that they were dependent on Northerners providing commercial services that Southerners didn't provide themselves.
Others, though, wanted to stay agricultural, and wouldn't have had much problem with the British providing the same services that Northerners did. Still others didn't have the same grievances and pointed out that Southerners already were involved in shipping, finance, and other aspects of commerce and were already competiting with Northerners and those on the other side of the Atlantic.
This is quite correct. It’s difficult to state in absolute terms what sector benefited from what activity back then when detailed written records weren’t always kept or have been lost over time. But I am doing research which will go a long ways toward revealing the truth.
DimLamp seems to think that Southern planters should have gotten the full profit generated by the crops they grew, with no added costs, or at least all profits taken for themselves, from all the logistical activities after the crop left the plantation. That’s not how the real world works.
So the question is who got the profit from that logistical activity? And if that profit was not in balance North vs South, was that unfair? Was there a reason other than deliberate subjugation? Was it, as you wrote, at least in part because Southerns were dependent on Northerners providing commercial services that Southerners didn’t provide themselves? And didn’t want to?
I will post more in coming days.