I think they *WANTED* to be the Globalists of the day, but with all shipping and profits funneling through New York's control, the only way they could *BE* the Globalists of the day, is to get away from that New York Control.
They were willing to make their country subject to the ups and downs of the cotton market and dependent on British industrial production. That's globalism or globalization -- nineteenth century style. And they certainly were the Globalist Elite of the day.
I think those ups and downs would have been more than offset by the absence of the FedGov and New York's cuts of their profits.
Your whole argument about tariffs is based on the Nineteenth century version of globalization. You brag about the Southern ability to use the global economy to get around the tariffs that Northern manufacturers want to encourage home-grown industry. Where do you get off complaining about Globalists?
You touch upon a point I was going to bring up, but hadn't yet taken the opportunity. Had the Secession movement been successful and made Charleston a port city comparable or exceeding that of New York, we would today be dealing with the consequences of the Global elite operating out of Charleston, rather than New York. I doubt that would be any consolation.
On the other hand, if the commerce split between the two, perhaps the money concentrations would never become so great that people would become that arrogant?
The same empire and same process of globalization that they supported encouraged cotton production in other parts of the world -- and eventually, the cotton mills and clothing trade moved there. How come y'all didn't see any of that coming?
I think after their facilities, their fortunes, their lands and their workforce was destroyed, pretty much everyone saw that coming, they just couldn't do anything about it.
"Destroyed" workforce = freed slaves?
The handwriting was on the wall. Even if cotton stayed king, the cotton states had no monopoly on their chief export. War or no war, places like India, Egypt, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, and Central Asia were going to get into international cotton production. It was foolish to think the bonanza was going to last forever.
Had the Secession movement been successful and made Charleston a port city comparable or exceeding that of New York, we would today be dealing with the consequences of the Global elite operating out of Charleston, rather than New York.
That wouldn't have happened. Smaller free population. Less developed transportation network. Worries about slavery.
Charleston wasn't the main contender in 1860. New Orleans was. It was the 6th largest city in the country in 1860 (down from 3rd in 1840 -- Charleston was something like 22nd or so in 1860) and the second busiest port.
But being a major shipping port doesn't translate into being a major manufacturing city or a world financial center. That wasn't going to happen to New Orleans and it certainly wasn't going to happen to Charleston.
Slave labor undercut free labor, but slaves had to be policed and controlled to a degree that inhibited the development of industry. Southern cities were still troubled by summer heat and humidity and diseases and weren't considered the best destinations for free labor.
Being a successful seaport or export center doesn't always translate into economic growth. Consider Salem Massachusetts, once the 6th biggest city in the US. Or consider the islands of the West Indies, once fabulously wealthy due to sugar, yet never world economic powerhouses.
The important point to remember here is that 100% of those commercial relationships were voluntary, and they corresponded to their political alliance -- between the Southern Democrat Slave-Power and Northern Democrat big-city bosses -- i.e., Tammany Hall.
Politically, the slave-power dominated Southern-Democrats, while Southern-Democrats dominated the Democrat party and nationally Democrats were nearly always the majority in Congress, on the Supreme Court and elected Presidents.
That means: normally whatever the Democrat slave-power wanted from Washington DC, the slave-power got.
The election of "Ape" Lincoln and his "Black Republicans" in November 1860 was the first time ever even mildly anti-slavery people were to gain some power in DC.