Replies

DiogenesLamp: "With Southern ports charging far less in tariffs for imports,
All the traffic from Europe would have gone South to avoid the Northern city tariffs."

But if you wish to fantasize such a tariff "war", then you must assume that Congress would quickly adjust Union tariffs to make them more competitive, and the result would not be economic ruin in the North.

DiogenesLamp: "The US Would have been supplied with European goods going through the Southern ports instead of New York, Boston and Philadelphia."

Remember, in 1860 50% of cotton exports already went through New Orleans, and that in no way ruined Northern cities' trade.
So, given its location, at most, Charleston could ship 10% of US cotton exports -- perhaps $20 million a year, as compared to total imports of $362 million in 1860.
Bottom line: there is no reason to suppose that Charleston would ever become a larger port than it is today.

DiogenesLamp: "Bottom line, an Independent South was a financial disaster for the Monied people in New England. Utter disaster."

Bottom line: the "utter disaster" you fantasize did happen during the Civil War, and the result was Northern economies adjusted, expanded and came out more prosperous and dominant than ever.

So your argument here is ludicrous.

Lower revenue collections? Congress? Be serious.

Even with tariffs of the same percentage, Cotton and Tobacco no longer going through New York would have been a massive impact to the economic system of New York.

Look at this picture again. Imagine 80% of that pile moved over to South Carolina.

Over time, the shipping to Charleston would have simply increased more and more, and the City would have started to rival the economic might of New York. The primary conduit of European goods and services to the interior of the US would have come through Southern ports instead of New England ports.

Very big money, eventually. So big that New England could not allow it to happen.