Even if we acccept that the sum of $331 million in southern imports from Europe and the north and $31 million in northern imports only coincidentally adds up to the $362 million in foreign imports stated in the Treasury Report, it still means that if $31 million in imports was consumed by the north, the other 90+% consumed by the south and it again fails the common sense test.
And while you're quick to point to the warehousing and navigation acts as causes for the decline of southern shipping, I find this:
"Charleston was blessed with an excellent harbor, yet South Carolinians built and invested in few seagoing vessels. Instead, they depended on ships owned by Londoners or Bostonians. New Englanders increasingly dominated American shipbuilding and maritime investing. Bostonians bought vessel shares in the way that modern investors buy corporate stock shares."
"P.C. Coker, an independent scholar of local maritime history, has described the thinking of a typical colonial Carolina merchant who had 1,200 pounds to invest in the 1730s. With that sum, a merchant could build and outfit a 200-ton seagoing vessel, but he would risk his investment with storms, wars, fires, groundings, and pirates. Or he could pour his money into a dozen slaves and a 500-acre plantation, where he could grow rice and indigo, which fetched high prices. The choice was simple: purchase slaves and a plantation and charter someone else’s ship to send produce to Europe."
(...)
"By 1800, Charleston was steadily losing maritime trade to other cities. Greater precision in navigation and improved vessels allowed ship captains to sail directly from Europe to New York. Ships no longer had to travel the southerly route via the Caribbean and Charleston. The faster transatlantic route between New York and Europe left Charleston out of the loop."
"Many British and New England merchant firms in the 1820s began avoiding Charleston because free black seamen could not enter the city without a hefty bond being posted."
http://www.scseagrant.org/library/library_coaher_fall02.htm
So, according to this, it was the south's own short-sightedness and basic greed that led them to fail to build their own ships, and it was a combination of their racial paranoia and improved navigation techniques that led British ships to steer clear of the place.
If you don't "accept" it means that you do not believe or do not want to believe the records.
What is the point is the following comment from Grand Old has been completely refuted:
To: 4CJ
Tariffs collected at southern ports were nil, because southern imports were nil.
611 posted on 09/27/2005 7:48:11 PM EDT by Grand Old Partisan
Now, that is a comment from someone who is ignorant of his ignorance. Some people do not realize what they do not know, yet sit around making commentary that is totally absurd, while oblivious of the truth.
This request has been fulfilled:
From Grand Old Partisan:
"You were going to post a link to a source other than MSN, remember? You said the figures were from the U.S. Treasury, so post the link."
"and $31 million in northern imports only coincidentally adds up to the $362 million in foreign imports stated in the Treasury Report"
Where in the Treasury Report do you find $362?
"it still means that if $31 million in imports was consumed by the north, the other 90+% consumed by the south and it again fails the common sense test."
You are quoting incorrect data.