Not sure what you mean by that, but I'm just asking questions on the source you provided. I assumed you had read it and knew the point the author was trying to make.
Certainly the South provided the bulk of US exports back then, somewhere between 70 and 75 percent.
No disagreement there. I've seen some sources that put it a little lower, and some that put it a little higher. Safe to say the South provided the overwhelming majortiy of U.S. exports.
Tariffs weren't collected by the US on exports from the US...
No disagreement there either.
...but exports made it possible for the US to import goods from Europe. Without those Southern exports the US would have had a balance of payments problem.
A balance of trade imbalance, yes. But impossible to import goods from Europe? I'm not sure I would agree with that. U.S. imports continued through the Civil War and afterwards with none of the South's pre-war exports or comparatively little.
Regardless, what was his point in linking exports with tariff revenue? Any idea?
Herbert doesn't say "all." He says on page 147, "Southern cotton exported to Europe did not typically go from Southern ports to Europe. It went from Southern ports to Northern ports to Europe."
Iread a book one time on blockade running that detailed that over 90% of all cotton exported from the U.S. left from Southern ports. Only about 5% or 6% was exported from New York and only a miniscule amount was exported from other U.S. ports. So I'd be curious on where Herbert got his figures from. Any idea?
Perhaps one reason for that was that the North owned 80 percent or more of the registered shipping tonnage capacity in the US. It made sense for Northern shipping firms to drop off some cotton bales for Northern mills, then consolidate shipments to Europe before crossing the Atlantic.
But then those goods would have been exported from New York, right? That doesn't agree with the source I mentioned.
Others have commented on New York's role in the cotton trade.
No disagreement with that, either. But your quote speaks of New York's role in the business end of the cotton trade. Banking. Insurance. Brokering. New York banks probably funded a lot of the cotton producers. New York companies insured the cotton and the New Yorkers no doubt owned many of the ships it travelled on. New York companies likely played a major role in selling the cotton overseas. Northerners did all that because Southern alternatives didn't exist. Still, that doesn't mean all that cotton flowed through the port of New York because it didn't make sense for it to do so. If it was destined for Europe then it made more sense for it to go from the closest Southern port direct to the continent. Wouldn't it?
Yes, US imports continued but declined significantly during the war, and there was inflation in the North. The North started printing paper money back then and there were war expenses, of course. Both contributed to inflation as did the import-export balance. Inflation in the South during the war was far worse than that in the North.
Let's look at the import-export balance of the North in 1863. From Appletons Annual Cyclopedia for 1863, page 190:
... the foreign commerce of the country had greatly contracted in face of improved harvest in Europe. ... The "balance of trade," so called, may then be approximated as follows: ... Excess Imports [rb note: imports over exports]: $74,295,706. Net specie export, direct: $54,689,903 [rb note: It's hard to read some of the last six digits on my copy. The North's exports were mainly food stuffs (and petroleum surprisingly) to Europe.]
Thirty percent of New Yorks imports in that year came from cotton, sugar, and wool (a cotton replacement).