One of my minors is in Economics, but it's not a subject that one can understand in a few sentences. A trip to your local library should allow you to find a beginner's book on economics - the laws of supply and demand, Laffer curves, etc are not complicated. International economics & tariffs are only slightly more difficult, but a tax on imports IS an indirect tax on exports. Alternatively, you can learn online 'Mises Institute Home Study Course in Austrian Economics' for $350. Your study can also explain how economies of scale work to reduce costs by shipping > trans-shipment and the role of warehousing, and how tariffs are passed on, and the advantages of open markets which raise the standard of living in all participating countries. When higher profits are realized, they are almost invariably followed by investment in some means of mechanization - where possible - to futher reduce costs and increase profits.
Spare us the condescending Tommy DiLorenzo "Economics for Dummies" school of theory. I've taken economics courses and the graduate and undergraduate levels, I'm just as conversent in it as you are, but I don't make the same stretch that you do. I know what economies of scale are, and about the only application it might have to your arguement is to explain why it made no financial sense to send imports directly to southern consumers since there was so little demand for them. I've read the Warehousing Acts and I laugh every time you guys trot it out because your twisting it to suit your agenda makes no sense at all. I know that, theoretically, open markets benefit everyone but I also know that tariffs fall equally on those who purchase the taxed goods regardless of location. And I also know that there was no mechanization that would help the southern farmers, and wouldn't be for another 100 years. So back off.