So your argument is "because protectionism can be created which does not favor one particular portion of the country to the detriment of another portion of a country, protectionism cannot be made which favors one particular portion of the country to the detriment of another portion of the country."
If that is your thinking, I recognize that as bad logic. It is possible to create protectionism that favors the entire country, but it is also possible to create protectionism that favors specific parts of the country.
Laws which grant favors to American ships benefit those areas that produce and control American ships. They are economically disadvantageous for those that don't.
You have failed to show how the tariffs of the 19th century did that.
You can keep saying that, but no matter how many times you keep repeating it, it's still untrue. I have shown you how tariff/shipping laws moved the money produced in the South into the North. We haven't even gotten into the other acts such as the "Warehousing act of 1846" and a few other acts which were discussed in previous threads on this topic.
There is a reason why the "Free Soil Party" was located in New York New York instead of Kansas. It was because it served the interests of New York New York. Keeping the Southern states at a legislative disadvantage insured the money produced by Washington DC law would continue flowing into the pockets of the New York gentry and the Washington DC plutocrats.
The Southern states were free to build or purchase their own ships.
They could not purchase foreign ships. That was not allowed. They could build ships, but then they would have to compete with Northern shipbuilders and shippers who had government contracts guaranteeing them a profit, while the Southern shippers would not have such government contracts.
The Northern shipping industry was highly organized, highly clannish, and worked with other northern industries to create a "closed shop" condition for their industry. Their banking, insurance and warehousing were all in collusion with each other, and they all maintained their connections to government power in Washington DC.
In other words, the same corrupt system we have now which favors the liberal elite and their corrupt corporations.
“So your argument is “because protectionism can be created which does not favor one particular portion of the country to the detriment of another portion of a country, protectionism cannot be made which favors one particular portion of the country to the detriment of another portion of the country.”
No, it isn’t and I never wrote anything of the kind. I was simply stating that protectionist legislation does not on its face favor one part of the country or another. In no way did any of the legislation you have cited prohibit southern shipbuilding, or even southerners buying their own ships built in the northern part of the country. You seem to portray the southern gentry as completely incapable of finding any solutions to their problems other than rebellion and warfare.
“I have shown you how tariff/shipping laws moved the money produced in the South into the North.”
You have done nothing of the kind. You’ve posted numbers on exports and somehow conflated those with imports, and gave no mechanism by which the vast majority of the country was not paying the duties on imports, in other words the North.
To recap:
The reason for secession was the South’s desire to preserve slavery.
The trigger for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which fed fear of the abolitionist foundation of the Republican Party.
The American Civil War began when units of the South Carolina Militia fired upon a Union fort in Charleston harbor.
“They could build ships, but then they would have to compete with Northern shipbuilders and shippers who had government contracts guaranteeing them a profit, while the Southern shippers would not have such government contracts.”
Please explain these Government contracts that guaranteed profit. If shipping was so unprofitable without subsidies, where was all that “vigorish” you keep talking about.
To recap:
The reason for secession was the South’s desire to preserve slavery.
The trigger for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which fed fear of the abolitionist foundation of the Republican Party.
The American Civil War began when units of the South Carolina Militia fired upon a Union fort in Charleston harbor.
Ownership shares in commercial ships were sold like stock in the 1800s. Smart Southerners we’re free to buy ownership, but preferred buying more land and more slaves.
Let’s hear about this Warehousing Act of 1846. Pray tell, how did this hurt the South?
Oh, and it was repealed in 1961.
To recap:
The reason for secession was the South’s desire to preserve slavery.
The trigger for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which fed fear of the abolitionist foundation of the Republican Party.
The American Civil War began when units of the South Carolina Militia fired upon a Union fort in Charleston harbor.