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.
Obviously, since you are making zero sense to begin with. Why would goods destined for Northern consumers suddenly so South?
On 8/9/21 you wrote:
“I think the decline of Charleston had more to do with a Federal invasion and destruction of capital and economic activity that they did than it did with anything Charleston did in mismanaging their businesses.”
So yeah, that's what you wrote.
Here's what really happened:
“South Carolina's leaders also sought to improve waterway connections from inland areas to Charleston. In 1800, the Santee Canal connected the Santee River to the headwaters of the Cooper River. As a result, the interior country's crops were brought downstream to Charleston, but this cut off the Georgetown port's potential growth. Interior farms and plantations once served by Georgetown's port now sent their produce to Charleston. But the Santee Canal was plagued by low water levels and by 1840 it was out of business...
...In the mid-1840s, Charleston repealed its restriction against steam engines within the city, but railroad tracks still stopped at the edge of town. By then, the port had lost its edge. “Charleston was seen as a terrible port starting in the 1840s,” says Nelson. Its shallow harbor could not accommodate the new transatlantic steamships with deep drafts.”
https://www.scseagrant.org/rise-and-fall-and-rise-south-carolinas-maritime-history/
Nothing to do with tariffs, nothing to do with anything except mismanagement.