Which if your goal is to shaft Northern shippers then that's all well and good. But your original claim, or the author of the post you linked to, was that the north was raping the south by forcing the south to pay them for shipping and insurance and brokerage charges. If it's Europe who is doing the raping and not the north then where is the south any better off? They're still getting raped.
You probably forgot or refused to accept it when it was first explained to you, but when the Law sets forth penalties for using foreign ships, (up to and including confiscation of the ship and cargo)
For costal shipping only, U.S. port to U.S. port. Would the South scrap the Navigation Acts entirely?
So yeah, the Shipping charges would suddenly have gotten way cheaper for the Southern states than they had previously been.
You have no way of knowing if that is true. If the exporters of the south were used to paying X dollars per ton to ship their cargo then why wouldn't the European shippers charge the same?
Again, not about slavery.
From the southern standpoint, yes it was.
Most people's goal is to further their own interests, especially their own economic interests. This is their primary focus, and the fact that their efforts to further their own interest may have adverse impacts on others is not their primary concern.
But your original claim, or the author of the post you linked to, was that the north was raping the south by forcing the south to pay them for shipping and insurance and brokerage charges.
Which were artificially inflated beyond the market norm because of laws forcing them to use the North's shipping, banking, warehousing, insurances and other services.
If it's Europe who is doing the raping and not the north then where is the south any better off? They're still getting raped.
Well certainly, if the raping were being continued by Europe, but because the Europeans would have to compete in a free market, they couldn't get away with raping them. If the Europeans were gouging the way the Northerners were gouging, they might as well keep using the Northerners.
What would have happened is that prices would have fallen to a market sustainable rate, and it is axiomatic that this would have been cheaper than a rate artificially created through government mandates.
This is basic conservative economic theory. When government artificially creates demand, prices are higher. When markets set demand, prices fall to the lowest amount possible. Government creating artificially high prices is the very nature of "Protectionism."
For costal shipping only, U.S. port to U.S. port. Would the South scrap the Navigation Acts entirely?
Secession scrapped the existing Navigation act, (and the warehousing act, and various other acts.) and as to whether the CSA would have reconstituted their own version of it, I have no idea, but I think that if they were of a mind to do so, it would have been after they had a reason to do so, i.e. protecting their own domestic shipping industry, which as we have all noticed, was virtually nonexistent at that time.
You have no way of knowing if that is true.
Basic free market economics says that it is.
If the exporters of the south were used to paying X dollars per ton to ship their cargo then why wouldn't the European shippers charge the same?
Because the Europeans have to give them a reason to use their ships instead of Northern ships. They have to do it cheaper, or the Confederates would simply continue using the previous shipping system.
From the southern standpoint, yes it was.
So the people who want to justify the invasion and hundreds of thousands of dead keep telling us, but the basic fact of the continuation of slavery in the USA absent secession, contradicts this claim.