You are asking questions of an article that came from the period. They are also the same inane questions you have been asking for more than four years, despite massive information to your rebuttal.
I do not expect you to change...you persist quite irrationally in your myths.
But here is another article explaining how the coastal packet trade developed out of New York.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1HTF3maH7dUJ:post.economics.harvard.edu/hier/2005papers/HIER2073.pdf+1860+%22southern+imports%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
It is produce by Harvard University and answers your questions.
Prostitutes and politicians make that much? ;o)
New York Mayor Fernando Wood once wrote,
When Disunion has become a fixed and certain fact, why may not New York disrupt the bands which bind her to a venal and corrupt master – to a people and a party that have plundered her revenues, attempted to ruin her and a party that have plundered her revenues, attempted to ruin her commerce, taken away the power of self—government, and destroyed the Confederacy of which she was the proud Empire City? Amid the gloom which the present and prospective condition of things must cast over the country, New York, as a Free City, may shed the only light and hope of a future reconstruction of our once blessed Confederacy.He, and many other northerners understood that the residual states of the union would lose millions and millions of dollars that went to Atlantic shipping and manufacturing interests, that Northern 'imports' would now face tariffs (or possibly export duties if the Confederacy voted to enact them). Without a commercial fleet and laws mandating yankee ships/crews to transport Southern exports, the British and other shippers were poised to take the shipping business out of Northern hands. Southern exporters would see a rise in net profits with the reduction in tariffs, and the average Southerner's standard of living would rise accordingly.
Conversely, millions of dollars of 'protection' money would be lost to Northern interests, their costs would rise, and many industries would simply fold in the ensuring meltdown. The Panic of 1857 would be a picnic in comparison.
Oh bullshit. You have hemmed and hawed and trotted out the Warehousing Acts which have no bearing on the situation. You have done everything except explain how simple laws economics managed to bypass the south. If the south imported such massive quantities of goods then why weren't those goods delivered directly to them. It wasn't lack of ports. It wasn't lack of suppliers for imported goods. The only possible, reasonable, rational explanation why so little was imported into southern ports is that there was so little demand for imported goods in the southern market. That is what you haven't refuted, Pea. You keep spending your time denying that you said what you said, and accusing others of ignoring evidence which isn't even there. Coastal shipping out of New York to the south grew because it was the most cost effective way of getting the small quantity of imports demanded by southern consumers to them. If there was any great demand then the imports would have gone to them direct. Simple supply and demand dictated that.