It all depends on any number of circumstances. If a ship from England just dropped off its hold of imports from England and will be returning there regardless, he may be inclined to take with him a shipment of cotton at a discounted rate rather than let his hold remain empty on the return voyage. Same could go for a railroad.
You are either a complete moron or engaged in another exercise of intellectual dishonesty.
Cotton produced on plantations in the south was sold to "Factors" who acted as middlemen or agents for the plantation owners. The Factors also loaned money to the plantations at interest, and of course collected commisions on the sale of the cotton to "brokers" who represented investment houses, importers, and textile/ manufacturing interests. Plantation owners also paid their Factor for hauling, storage, and insurance on their product. Factors often took cotton as payment and used their superior knowledge of fluctuating commodity prices to further increase their profit, at the expense of the cotton producer.
Next, the idea that English merchant vessels were arriving at American ports with no manifest for another cargo is absurd (and false), as is your postulation that the slave owning south was engaged in anything approaching Ricardian, comarative advantage free trade.
Antebellum southerners, drunk with the notions of "King Cotton" and "white supremacism", foolishly spent their time trying to expand their slave empire, while remaining hopelessly dependent on northern and foreign manufactured goods. Its one of the reasons the south lost the Civil War.
If you need a deposition to support your claim that the college you attended failed to educate you, let me know.
Much to the contrary. To note the simple economic fact, as I did, that shipping costs for any number of reasons may differ by mode, means, and time is neither dishonest nor moronic. It is valid to say though that persons who deny this reality easily qualify for both of those terms though. That would include The Lincoln and you.
Cotton produced on plantations in the south was sold to "Factors" who acted as middlemen or agents for the plantation owners.
That's nice. And on today's commodities markets, we have brokers, agents, hedgers, investors, financers and any number of various similar roles that function at the intermediary stages between agricultural planters and the final use of their produce. Cost wise, it throws another factor into the mix, but I have yet to see a case where it has stopped trade or produce from occurring in a reasonable fashion.
Next, the idea that English merchant vessels were arriving at American ports with no manifest for another cargo is absurd (and false)
You are misreading what I said (perhaps intentionally) as that is precisely the point - merchants are inclined to maximize their own gain from a voyage and are therefore inclined toward taking cargo on a return voyage, be it previously arranged or on the spot. In the event that a choice between an empty return voyage and a full one emerges, the merchant will be inclined toward the full one and that, in itself, alters the cost of shipping in relation to the alternative.
as is your postulation that the slave owning south was engaged in anything approaching Ricardian, comarative advantage free trade.
As I asked you previously, why did they not produce cotton in Vermont? If you can answer that, then you should know what a comparative advantage is. If you do not know the answer to that, then as a word of advice to ensure your personal financial health - stay away from agricultural commodities markets, agricultural futures, and going into farming on your own.
Antebellum southerners, drunk with the notions of "King Cotton" and "white supremacism", foolishly spent their time trying to expand their slave empire
You keep ranting and raving to that end without showing any further cause. Repeating that will not make it so any more than flapping your arms at a high speed will give you flight. Just a word of advice, you know. Oh, and let me know if you ever become airborne.
If you need a deposition to support your claim that the college you attended failed to educate you, let me know.
If I ever desired a deposition from an economically backwards and uneducated fool who worships at the feet of tyrants, I think with good reason that I should be able to find a person with, at minimum, a higher profile than your own out of the old Soviet Union. Not that I don't think a GED is grounds to deny you a job or anything - I'm just saying that if I ever had to bring idiots into my company, I'd pick ones that were more interesting than you.
Oh, and for the record, you have yet again neglected to refute my mathematical proof of your error on the issue of tariffs. Did you sleep through the math portion of your GED prep course, or are you simply afraid to admit that you are flat out wrong?