"I was, however, surprised by the Encarta numbers you presented which appeared to show that the south imported ten times more than the north."
Your mistake and we have covered that.
"Of course you now admit that the northern numbers are flawed."
The numbers were not mine. I do not admit anything because I do not know of their source.
"So please explain to me how these laws favored the north in ways that they couldn't have equally favored southern interests,"
You have already seen the explanations on this thread.
"had the south bothered to build ships and warehouses. I think Coker makes a valid point that the south chose to expend their capital on expanding their agricultural production instead of on ships."
Coker was commenting on Charleston. Picture was quite different elsewhere.
"So that southern complaint, presumably, had been addressed."
And you miss the really important point that now Charleston would be able to handle the deep draft ocean going ships that would open direct trade to that port. This was a threat to New York and Philly.
"So why do they then complain that they're being taken advantage of by northern shippers?"
I haven't seen much evidence of that. It was the unfair treatment under the laws that was the problem.
"Frankly it seems very akin to the sorts of complaints lodged against Jews, the same sort of economic conspiracy theory to make someone feel better about their lack of business acumen."
Your posts are becoming silly.
You have already seen the explanations on this thread. No, I haven't. I've seen you say that navigation laws and warehousing acts had the effect of benefiting the north, and I'll agree, but only because the north had ships and warehouses. There's nothing in the text of the laws that wouldn't have equally benefitted southern shippers and warehouses, had they existed in comparable numbers. You can't show me an actual sectional favoritism in the text of the laws.
Coker was commenting on Charleston. Picture was quite different elsewhere.
What does that mean, that the south had plenty of ships and facilities? Then what was the problem?
And you miss the really important point that now Charleston would be able to handle the deep draft ocean going ships that would open direct trade to that port. This was a threat to New York and Philly.
So why was New York so sympathetic to southern secession? I'd think Fernando Wood would have been calling for the immediate invasion of the south if that had been the case.
It was the unfair treatment under the laws that was the problem
Please show me what was unfair to the south in the laws that couldn't have been solved by the south building their own ships and port facilities.
And finally, is there a single Declaration of Secession that mentions tariffs or warehousing acts or navigation acts? South Carolina's doesn't, although it mentions slavery over and over.