“You are trying to equate conditions under the protectionist policies of Washington DC with the conditions which would have occurred without the protectionist policies of Washington DC.”
I’m trying to show that your statement attributing Charleston’s decline as a shipping port was due to the Civil War was false, since that decline had been almost complete by 1840. You’re going to switch positions, and now claim that it was Northern tariffs and economic subjugation, but that’s not what you posted. You wrote that it had more to do with ravages of the Civil War.
You are thinking that the effect of warships shooting at people trying to trade with Charleston would have no impact on their commerce? Well that just seems silly to me. I don't think people want to trade with ports under siege by warships, and this would have caused a definite loss of trade.
You wrote that it had more to do with ravages of the Civil War.
I have no doubt that's what you think you read, but that is not what I wrote. That is your interpretation of what I wrote, and a heavily biased one at that.
Let me try again. Without the war Charleston would have seen a massive increase in trade because they could offload products at a cost of 13% versus the USA's 40-50%.
It was this increase in profit to the trade ships that would have caused them to go to Charleston.
Now I know this is a complicated thing to understand, but warships threatening and capturing ships that attempted to trade with Charleston, prevented ships from going to Charleston as they would have done without a war.
I'll try to simplify further.
No war: Massive trade increase in Charleston.
War: Complete collapse of trade in Charleston.
I hope i've made it simple enough that you can understand about war causing a loss of trade in a city blockaded by warships.
I hope you can also understand that a 35% extra profit would have motivated ships to go there if they weren't stopped from doing so by warships.
If any part of this is too complicated, just tell me the part you are having trouble with, and I will endeavor to explain it more clearly the next time.