Railroads in the South were designed to get goods from the interior to port cities like Charleston, Mobile, and Savannah. There were no railroad lines connecting New York with the South.
There were other things called canals and rivers.
There were no canals linking the North with the South, and the only rivers were the Mississippi and the Ohio.
Then there was the coastwide trade whereby goods would be shipped to other ports once arriving in NYC or Boston etc and being subject to duties there.
So in your scenario all those massive amounts of imports, the vast majority of them according to you, were taken to New York and other Northern cities, landed, had their tariff applied and paid, loaded on other ships, and then taken South? And then those ships that brought them to the U.S., ships which could just as easily taken the goods directly to the customers in South Carolina or Georgia or New Orleans, then sailed south to load up with cotton and return to Europe? And we're the ones who are economically challenged?
Not necessarily. See above. Goods arrived often in New York, paid the tariff and then were trans-shipped via railroad, via canals, via coastwide shipping to other ports
See above. Why?
Adams provides sources and I provided several others. Its just inconvenient for you to admit it.
Sorry, I've got the book and Adams doesn't source his claim with a footnote. He just makes the claim.
Since coastwide trade had to be carried in American ships under the Navigation Acts, what tended to happen was that foreign ships arrived in NY, paid the tariff on their goods and the goods were then trans-shipped from NY being loaded onto the required American ships bound for other ports or the goods were loaded onto trains, sent on barges through the Erie Canal and onto the Great Lakes, etc etc
Well sending through the Erie Canal is in the opposite direction of the South so your story is making less and less sense. But back the original question, which your scenario does not address. You want us to believe that the majority of imported goods which were destined for Southern consumers were taken to New York, unloaded, had the tariff applied, were loaded on other ships, and were then takes South. I ask again, why not take those goods directly to Southern ports since the ships had to go there to load with cotton anyway?
it did not "prevent" it but with the distribution system centered on NY and to a lesser extent, Boston and Philadelphia......foreign ships tended to land at those ports quite frequently though New Orleans was also a major port.
You keep going back to this mythical distribution system. If one did existed, and it didn't, why was it one way? Why didn't all those ships going South load with cotton, bring it back and export it through New York and Boston and Philadelphia? Wouldn't that double Yankee profits if they did?
Just saying the customers were in the North (they weren't all by a longshot) does not mean those customers were bearing the cost of that tariff.
No it doesn't. What means the customers were in the North is the fact that the goods were brought to ports closest to them and not ports far away from them. That's simple economics and good business sense, two things your scenario ignores.
Yet there were some rail lines that could be used and were used to distribute goods. They were not all exclusively to ports...and of course when trans-shipped from NYC via the coastal trade, those rail lines from ports into the hinterland could be used and were used to distribute goods.
DoodleDawg: There were no canals linking the North with the South, and the only rivers were the Mississippi and the Ohio.
Just the Mississippi. That's all. LOL!
DoodleDawg: So in your scenario all those massive amounts of imports, the vast majority of them according to you, were taken to New York and other Northern cities, landed, had their tariff applied and paid, loaded on other ships, and then taken South? And then those ships that brought them to the U.S., ships which could just as easily taken the goods directly to the customers in South Carolina or Georgia or New Orleans, then sailed south to load up with cotton and return to Europe? And we're the ones who are economically challenged?
Show me where I said "vast majority". What I said was that your argument that the customers had to be in close proximity to the major ports was false. There was a distribution network. NYC was at the center of it. That doesn't mean just New Yorkers were consuming those foreign goods. You obviously have no idea how the shipping lines and the package trade worked at the time. Yes, you are economically challenged here. Read up on it some time.
DoodleDawg: Sorry, I've got the book and Adams doesn't source his claim with a footnote. He just makes the claim.
Ah so a book written by Tax expert Charles Adams is just not good enough of a source.....you say so. The very first sentence from the Amazon review: "Using primary documents from both foreign and domestic observers.....". Let's face it - you are going to claim anything that is inconvenient for your argument is somehow invalid, unproven, the source had some kind of bias, blah blah blah, regardless of all else. Tell us again how this is not exactly the trolling 101 scenario I laid out from the start.
DoodleDawg: Well sending through the Erie Canal is in the opposite direction of the South so your story is making less and less sense.
No, seeing as how your argument was that NYC and surrounds must have provided the vast majority of the customers for those foreign goods, it is your story that is making less and less sense. You've burned a ton of electrons here trying to buttress your weak argument and still failed. There was a nationwide distribution network. Just because the goods landed at one port or were shipped out of one port that means neither that the goods were produced in the area immediately surrounding that port or that the imported goods were bought by customers in the immediate surrounding area of that port. Moving on....
DoodleDawg: But back the original question, which your scenario does not address. You want us to believe that the majority of imported goods which were destined for Southern consumers
Wait a minute. Where did I said "destined for Southern Consumers"?
DoodleDawg: were taken to New York, unloaded, had the tariff applied, were loaded on other ships, and were then takes South. I ask again, why not take those goods directly to Southern ports since the ships had to go there to load with cotton anyway?
The distribution network and shipping lines were centered on New York. That was the biggest hub by far for foreign goods entering the US as well as for the US coastwide trade. Ships bound for foreign ports would carry cotton and other cash crops and return with manufactured goods. Ships bound for US ports - particularly Southern ones - would carry foreign goods and return with cash crops. They tried never to run empty. That's hugely wasteful....kinda like tractor trailers today. The key to efficiency and an efficient distribution network is to minimize the amount of time/distance when the vessel is empty.
DoodleDawg: You keep going back to this mythical distribution system. If one did existed, and it didn't, why was it one way? Why didn't all those ships going South load with cotton, bring it back and export it through New York and Boston and Philadelphia? Wouldn't that double Yankee profits if they did?
Yep. You're a complete ignoramus about history/economics here. Yes, there was a distribution system. There were shipping lines. Read about them some time.
DoodleDawg: No it doesn't. What means the customers were in the North is the fact that the goods were brought to ports closest to them and not ports far away from them. That's simple economics and good business sense, two things your scenario ignores.
You plainly do not know much about how the economy of the country worked in the mid 19th century.