How so? Don't you bother to read the stuff you post? By your logic it makes no sense to do otherwise. New York, Philadelphia, and Boston were centrally located for the import market, you say. With a fine, large harbors and extensive extensive warehouses. And they were hundreds and hundreds of miles away. Ideal distribution points, by your logic. That is why it made so much sense to land 95% of all imports there, and it would make equal sense in your world to funnel 95% of all exports out there as well. The east coast is geographically closer to Europe than is the Gulf Coast. In your world, where apparently the Gulf Stream doesn't exist and prevailing winds don't prevail, it makes perfect sense to send all imports to New York and Boston as the closest points to Europe, much closer than New Orleans or Mobile way down yonder on that Gulf Coast. That is why you believe it made so much sense to land 95% of all imports, and it stands to reason that it would make equal sense in your world to send all that cotton out through there as well. The U.S. was blessed with an extensive rail network, used to get all those imports from up North to down south. And, in your world, it was so much cheaper to send those imports by rail from New York than to ship them directly to Mobile or New Orleans from Europe. So in GOPcapitalistland it would be so much cheaper to send all that cotton by rail to New York and Boston to export them to Europe. How so? Because you keep saying so! Or don't you actually believe the crap you spout?
I don't believe I've ever said that Boston is centrally located to anything. Of large cities, it is the northeastern-most location in America. It is also coastal and therefore as far away as one can physically get from the center of the nation. The other two cities, NYC and Philadelphia, are similarly coastal ports and therefore as far as one can get from the geographic center. As coastal ports go, however, Philadelphia is located in the mid-atlantic region (the area generally consisting of PA, MD, VA, and DE) and therefore is centrally located among the east coast ports. NYC is north of Philadelphia but south of Boston, thus making it northeastern though not as far to the northeast as Boston.
With a fine, large harbors and extensive extensive warehouses.
NYC had a large harbor and extensive warehouses. I don't believe I've ever given that characterization to Philadelphia or Boston, and in fact circa 1860 neither of those cities had anywhere near the warehousing capacity of NYC.
And they were hundreds and hundreds of miles away. Ideal distribution points, by your logic.
From final destinations of goods, yep. They sure were.
That is why it made so much sense to land 95% of all imports there, and it would make equal sense in your world to funnel 95% of all exports out there as well.
Actually, northern import dominance did not come from either Philadelphia or Boston. Both of those ports took in a tiny fraction of New York City. As previously noted, New York City became the dominant import location for the entire nation by 1860. The reasons for this have already been discussed, namely warehousing capacity, relatively advantageous geography in relation to Europe, and the dominance of the Britain-to-NYC seafaring route.
The east coast is geographically closer to Europe than is the Gulf Coast. In your world, where apparently the Gulf Stream doesn't exist and prevailing winds don't prevail, it makes perfect sense to send all imports to New York and Boston as the closest points to Europe, much closer than New Orleans or Mobile way down yonder on that Gulf Coast.
First and once again, I have not said so much as a word about Boston to suggest that it was the most geographically advantaged location in North America or even close to it. Where you got that notion and why you persist in injecting Boston into this discussion is beyond me. Second, your precious gulf stream and the unidentified "prevailing winds" were not capable, even at their strongest, of lifting a ship out of the ocean, hopping it across the peninsula known as Florida, and landing it at the mouth of the Mississippi. No matter what the winds were, how strong they acted, or what direction they came from it was an inescapable fact of navigation that ANY ship traffic bound for New Orleans from northern Europe had to first sail south around the tip of Florida and then backtrack north again to the get to the gulf coast.
A simple glance at historical voyages from the era reveals the absurdity of your claims. The Liverpool-New Orleans route was a common one of the day. It took about 40 days by sail as of 1843 and longer if delayed by storms. A quick google search reveals a voyage of the bark Yorkshire on March 8, 1843 out of Liverpool. They reached the west Indies on May 2nd, almost two months later due to bad winds and storms. Arrival in New Orleans was not until May 10th.
The Swanton left Liverpool on January 16, 1843. It reached New Orleans on February 26th.
The Olympus left Liverpool on March 4, 1851. It arrived in New Orleans on April 27th.
The clipper Tam O'Shanter made the faster reverse voyage from New Orleans to Liverpool in 31 days in 1850.
Contrast that with the Liverpool-New York route. In 1838 the Great Western made it in 15 days out of Bristol and the Royal William made it in 15 days out of Liverpool. In July 1845 the Great Britain sailed from Liverpool in 13 days. These were steam and sail vessles, but improvements in sail and the rise of the merchant clipper in trade soon approached similar speeds.
In 1860 the clipper Young America sailed from NYC to Liverpool in 14 days. In 1864 under rougher conditions it made the reverse voyage in 29 days.
Both sail and steam vessles of the era made it to NYC and from NYC faster than ships to NO and from NO. The two clippers make for a good comparison on the return voyage. NO to England took twice as long as NY to England. The same general rule holds for England to NY and NO, where voyages were often against certain wind patterns. In short the entirity of your geographic premise is flat out wrong.
The U.S. was blessed with an extensive rail network, used to get all those imports from up North to down south. And, in your world, it was so much cheaper to send those imports by rail from New York than to ship them directly to Mobile or New Orleans from Europe. So in GOPcapitalistland it would be so much cheaper to send all that cotton by rail to New York and Boston to export them to Europe.
Not necessarily, but it certainly was cheaper to send it to Charleston from the inland and gulf states, at least when bound for northern Europe. The Charleston to Europe route held no great advantage or disadvantage to any other major east coast port, so shipping by rail from one to the other wouldn't gain anything. By contrast, when cotton was going to the carribean, south america, and in some cases southern Europe New Orleans was the cheapest place to ship from.