Of course not. Those goods are shipped to a distribution center closest to where they will be ultimately sold. But for your analogy to be true then that would mean that the majority of goods destined for sale in, say, South Carolina would first be sent to a warehouse in New York and then sent to Charleston. Now how much sense does that make? Either now or in 1860?
...yet they are not shipped directly to the stores themselves. According to your irrational renderings, it is an inherently economical exercise to ship directly to the place where the goods are being bought, thus making the actions of Wal-Mart a poor business decision in your model.
But for your analogy to be true then that would mean that the majority of goods destined for sale in, say, South Carolina would first be sent to a warehouse in New York and then sent to Charleston. Now how much sense does that make?
Depends on how much warehousing costs in New York, how much shipping between New York and Charleston costs, and any other number of related factors. In the end all that really matters is that the economic benefits of warehousing then shipping outweigh the cost in opportunity of the next best option, meaning shipping direct to Charleston. So long as they do it is inherently economical to pursue that route and, based on the widespread use of the warehousing system in the mid 19th century, it is certain that they did.