I think it did. Especially this line here:
"As for the cotton ports themselves, they did not crave enough imports to justify packet lines until 1851, when New Orleans hosted one sailing to Liverpool."
Your article describes it as a triangle trade where west-bound ships loaded with imports and immigrants land in northern ports and discharge their cargo. Then they have to travel down to the cotton ports and load with exports destined for Europe. That seems to support the fact that the South imported comparatively little in the way of imports since if they demand for imported goods was greater then it would make sense for the ships to load in southern ports with cotton and return to southern ports with imported goods. Instead what goods southern consumers did demand could be met by smaller packet ships.
And your point is?