Some of my ancestors immigrated directly to Texas from Europe, but their ship stopped in New Orleans where they were processed before going to Galveston. Do they count as immigrants to Louisiana since that is where they were processed?
A further thought on the shipment of goods. As I mentioned before trans-Atlantic ships may have carried goods bound for both North and South. Once goods bound for the South arrived at a Northern port, they could be offloaded and consolidated onto domestic ships headed for Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans. That way shippers could take advantage of the lower cost of shipping by sea versus shipping overland.
The Southern railroad network, designed to move cotton to market, just as easily functions in reverse to distribute goods inland from the Southern ports.
But if 80 to 90% of your cargo is headed to southern consumers, as is constantly claimed, then where does this make sense? Wouldn't it make more sense to go directly to the southern ports and tranship the tiny percentage of goods destined for the North from there? A lot of the ships are destined for there anyway to load cotton and such. Why drop off at New York and then head down the coast. Unless (gasp) there just wasn't that much demand for imported goods down south. You don't suppose that could be the reason, do you?
But if 80 to 90% of your cargo is headed to southern consumers, as is constantly claimed, then where does this make sense? Wouldn't it make more sense to go directly to the southern ports and tranship the tiny percentage of goods destined for the North from there? A lot of the ships are destined for there anyway to load cotton and such. Why drop off at New York and then head down the coast. Unless (gasp) there just wasn't that much demand for imported goods down south. You don't suppose that could be the reason, do you?