I'm aware that the North had a much higher GNP, but they still couldn't buy imports with it unless they somehow acquired the value from Southern (73%) or Northern (27%) export goods. (Roughly.)
It still comes down to the South producing the vast bulk of the products exchanged with Europe. The North used some of it's GNP goods to trade with the South to acquire the value for European import products, but they still had to glom on to what the South was producing, making it ultimately the South paying for the European products through the intermediary of Northern citizens.
And the prices for Northern goods were artificially inflated because of high tariffs that protected them. It still works out that the South could get better value for their production by going direct to Europe.
They did acquire that value by producing their own products and selling them both overseas and to Southerners.
By your argument, Hollywood and Silicon Valley and some farmers would be the only Americans buying foreign goods today.
The North used some of it's GNP goods to trade with the South to acquire the value for European import products, but they still had to glom on to what the South was producing, making it ultimately the South paying for the European products through the intermediary of Northern citizens.
Take an economics course sometime. Money circulates. It doesn't care who owned it last. If it's in your pocket, you can spend it.
And the prices for Northern goods were artificially inflated because of high tariffs that protected them. It still works out that the South could get better value for their production by going direct to Europe.
In historical terms, tariffs from 1846 to 1861 were on the low side. Add in shipping costs and it's not clear that US products were uncompetitive.
They wrote it into the prior contract which they all signed.
Nobody wrote the right of secession at will into the Constitution.
When it became clear that much of New York's import traffic would move to Charleston, to Mobile, to New Orleans, that put an entirely different face on the situation.
When exactly did that become clear? I don't mean "clear" to random editorialists with space to fill. I mean when did actual businessmen conclude that somehow all of New York's business was headed southward. How did they communicate this to the government? And how did government policy change?
You ought to realize that it would take years for Savannah or Charleston or Mobile or even New Orleans to match New York in shipping and commerce.
In 1860, Charleston only had $2.0 million in imports, Savannah had only $800,000 in imports, Mobile had only $600,000 in imports, New Orleans had only $20.6 million in imports, and other southern ports had only $3.0 million in imports. In the same year, New York City alone had $231.3 million in imports and all other northern ports had $95.3 million in imports.
New Orleans was the southern port that collected the most in the tariff, and it was only $3.1 million. The total south only collected $4.0 million in tariff revenues, whereas New York City collected $34.9 million in tariff revenues and the total for northern ports was $48.3 million. ...
So out of $52.3 million in tariff revenue in 1860, 92.35% was paid in northern ports, while only 7.65% was paid in southern ports, which includes Baltimore, Maryland.
New York had developed commercial advantages over decades. It would have been foolish for business people to throw away those advantages to chase after some dream of Southern economic dominance.
Well first of all, prices would come down because the Government wasn't taking such a big bite out of everything. So on just that point alone, everyone would be making more money on the deal.
Building new wharves and warehouses to accommodate greater quantities of goods, hiring and training new customs personnel, expanding banks and insurance companies and training new personnel would take time and money.
By eliminating the "Navigation act of 1817", Shipping costs would have been dramatically reduced, further putting more money into everyone's pockets except for the North Eastern industries.
"Into everyone's pockets"? Slaves? Poor back country Whites?
Your whole argument so far has been based on the welfare of slaveowning cotton planters. The money going into their pockets wouldn't likely percolate down to poorer Southerners.
Plus, more money into foreign shippers' pockets wouldn't necessarily percolate down into more pockets in our hemisphere. Money that American shippers make tends to get spent more over here, rather than across the sea.
To see what was going on, you have to look at the economics of the whole picture. I assure you Northern shipping executives were fully aware of the threat Southern independence would pose to their industry. Same with Bankers, same with Insurance agents, same with Warehousers, same with Manufacturers. They all had reason to fear and hate the South harming their business by lowering tariffs and eschewing their overpriced shipping.
Not everyone would put such a high value on your assurances or your knowledge of economics.