[DiogenesLamp]

So DiogenesLamp's argument here is that high Morrill tariffs, in normal peace-time, would have driven 90% of Northern trade, not just south, but specifically to the port of Charleston, SC.

If you are going to cite my position, get it right. Charleston would benefit more than other Southern ports simply because it was closer to the normal trade routes. The Other Southern ports would have also benefited, but to a lesser extent.

Also you are in error in claiming my position is that *ONLY* the tariffs that would drive trade South. That is *NOT* my position. Tariffs were only part of it. The elimination of the "navigation act of 1817" and other Northern Biased Laws, would have a substantial effect, as well as the fact that Southerners wouldn't have to use New York Shipping, Warehousing, Insurance, Banks, and so forth to handle their traffic. (With New York's commensurate cuts out of their Profits.)

But for the laws making it easier to send all the import trade through New York, they could have made more profits by doing it themselves and/or using Foreign ships.

*PROFIT* (Not just that caused by tariff differentials) would have sent trade to the South. (predominantly Charleston)

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The elimination of the "navigation act of 1817" and other Northern Biased Laws, would have a substantial effect..."

Can you cite the times when Southern representatives in Congress/Senate, or Southern born Presidents ever attempted to "re-jigger" those allegedly "anti-South" laws?

To my knowledge, it never happened which means all your conjecture and speculations on this are just that, fantasy.