Nonsense. The various northern newspapers lamented that it would be impossible to levy taxes on the products that would have streamed across the long borders between the two. They recognized that the Northern imposed tariffs were effectively repealed, because they would be unenforceable with an independent South. (Think Mexico and Drugs.)
You contradict yourself. Was it the loss of tariff revenue or the coming flood of foreign goods that so angered the Yankees?
Embrace the healing power of "and."
I do not contradict myself. The potential losses of money for the northern manufacturers were many and varied. I only mention a few, but in deeper contemplation of this scenario, I see many ways in which the wealthy men of the North east (and Chicago) would lose out financially if the South set up regular direct trade with Europe.
The power brokers of that era could see it too. They were shrewd businessmen with an inherent understanding of their markets, even their captive markets like the Railroad shipping monopoly for farmers.
As I stated in an earlier post, Only by smuggling.
Think Confederates and slaves. It would be a lot easier for slaves to run away North than for smugglers to break up large quantities of manufactured goods down into concealable portions that could be sold at competitive prices. Of course, if you wanted to stop all those slaves from escaping and assert your independence against the North the border would become so patrolled and militarized that it would not be easy to sneak stuff through.
Think imported Chinese goods coming here in containers. If importers had to break them down into smaller quantities to sneak them past customs officials all the economies of scale would be lost. That is to say, the savings that came from importing in bulk would be lost because the big lots would have to be broken down into smuggleable quantities (which had already been subjected to Confederate tariffs) which couldn't be sold at low wholesale prices. That would be even more true in the 19th century when there were no trucks or cars. You could try to sneak things through in river boats or railroad cars (good luck with that), but most likely you'd have to rely on horses or horse-drawn carriages or rafts or backpacks and your own two legs -- and how much could you or a horse really carry? It wouldn't be a fantastically profitable trade in any case.
Think our border with Canada. It's highly profitable to smuggle drugs in across our Northern and Southern borders. If you smuggled nuts and bolts and screws, pins and needles, shovels and hammers, and shirts and socks across the border, it's much less profitable. We make them over here ourselves. Smuggling ordinary manufactured goods across the border isn't a thing -- or not much of one. Would it have been back in 19th century America? Was there much smuggling of British manufactured goods from Canada into America back in the 19th century? I don't think so. I never heard of much smuggling of household items back then. So why would it suddenly become epidemic across a Southern border?
The power brokers of that era could see it too. They were shrewd businessmen with an inherent understanding of their markets, even their captive markets like the Railroad shipping monopoly for farmers.
But you are not. Not by a long shot.
Don't you even get tired of your preaching nonsense?