Poor analogy. The Confederate Constitution was heavily based on the US Constitution and incorporated virtually all of it even using the same text verbatim throughout much of it.
The South was politically closer to the North than it was to England by that time. Once Slavery was gone, people would likely see two different governments as redundant.
Charleston wasn't even the busiest port in the South in 1860; Mobile and New Orleans were. What would make Charleston eclipse those?
Well this is where I learned some things from reading Pea Ridge's postings. The Vast bulk of European trade went through New York. Charleston was a lot further to travel to trade with Europe than New York, and New York had access to the great lakes and all that interior trade. People wouldn't go to Charleston without some additional reason to go there.
In addition, laws were in effect to more or less force trade to go through New York. Foreign ships were not permitted to carry goods between American ports. Only American ships were permitted to do that.
There was a packet shipping system set up to run up and down the coast shipping goods between American Ports.
Foreign Ships found it easier to restrict their trade to just New York and Boston.
New Orleans and Mobile were busier because people HAD to go to these ports to get Cotton/Agriculture Shipments from them. Transporting these cargoes overland wasn't practical, so those ports had to be used to access that territory's products.
Going independent would allow foreign trade ships to stop in New York, and then go on to Charleston, and the packet shipping, (which mostly benefited New York) would have taken less of a cut of the trade traffic.
Also the reduced import duties that would have been available from Charleston would have boosted traffic there dramatically.
There's more to it, but this is a quick stab at explaining it. An Independent South would have made Charleston (and surrounding area) a far more wealthy city, and it would have come at the expense of New York and to a lesser extent Boston and Philadelphia.
So then you're saying the whole reason for separation was slavery?
The Vast bulk of European trade went through New York.
Imports yes. But the vast bulk of Southern exports, which made up the large majority of U.S. exports as a whole, left from New Orleans, Mobile, Savannah, and Charleston.
In addition, laws were in effect to more or less force trade to go through New York. Foreign ships were not permitted to carry goods between American ports. Only American ships were permitted to do that.
True, just like only British ships could carry goods between British ports. But that restriction did not apply to ships bringing goods into the U.S. from abroad, or ships taking goods from the U.S. directly to foreign ports.
Point of trivia, that law is still in effect. Which is why if you take a cruise from Los Angeles or San Diego to Hawaii and back the ship makes a brief stop in Mexico.
New Orleans and Mobile were busier because people HAD to go to these ports to get Cotton/Agriculture Shipments from them. Transporting these cargoes overland wasn't practical, so those ports had to be used to access that territory's products.
They were busier because they were the most convenient port to export cotton and other agricultural products from.
Going independent would allow foreign trade ships to stop in New York, and then go on to Charleston, and the packet shipping, (which mostly benefited New York) would have taken less of a cut of the trade traffic.
Nothing stopped foreign ships to go directly to Charleston or New Orleans with imports prior to the separation.
Also the reduced import duties that would have been available from Charleston would have boosted traffic there dramatically.
That makes no sense at all. If they were separate countries then what difference would Confederate tariff rates have on U.S. imports?
An Independent South would have made Charleston (and surrounding area) a far more wealthy city, and it would have come at the expense of New York and to a lesser extent Boston and Philadelphia.
And I don't think you make your case at all. In an independent Confederacy the same exports that left from Mobile and New Orleans would continue to leave from there; Charleston wouldn't take from them so if any cities expanded and grew more important in an independent South it would likely be those two. And imports destined for the North would continue to flow through Boston, New York and Boston. Separation wouldn't change that.