"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.
I am not going to indulge the need to pretend the welfare of the slaves is what motivated this conflict. I also note how you focus in on that like it's a life line.
No, we're not buying that propaganda anymore. The North had slaves too, and was perfectly willing to keep getting that money produced by slavery, so pardon us if we think that dodge is not relevant.
That wouldn't have happened. Smaller free population. Less developed transportation network. Worries about slavery.
You can't wave it away. The Transportation networks which were developed in the North were the consequence of greater capital and greater population. Those things increase with time and money. Charleston would have had both if they had been left alone.
Charleston would likely never have developed into a port as well suited as New York, because of the Hudson river among other reasons, but it would certainly have developed sufficiently to seriously hurt New York's competing business. It probably would have taken at least half of New York's existing Trade.
With more capital, the South could have built more rail lines and other improvements.
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.
Again, being 800 miles further South made it less appealing from a European trade standpoint, but that would have been offset by sufficient financial incentives in the form of low duties. They would have made it worthwhile to divert that trade the extra 800 miles.
And Yes, New Orleans was/is a grand port, but again, it didn't have the internal distribution system that New York had, and again, mostly from lack of capital. New Orleans did however, control the access to the Mississippi, and through that could have carried much trade and traffic to the West and Midwest.
If it had been allowed to do so.
Again, the question is where the money ends up and who collects it.
Slave labor undercut free labor,
And *THIS* I believe is the dominant reason why so much of the Northern population hated it. It wasn't out of concern for the black man, it was out of concern for their own labor and wages issues. I can think of nothing more offensive to a man who works for a living than the thought that someone else gets free labor, and through it gets rich.
Southern cities were still troubled by summer heat and humidity and diseases and weren't considered the best destinations for free labor.
And that is absolutely true. The South never had the potential to grow like the North until the advent of air cooling systems. It was great for plants, but horrible for humans.
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.
Salem has all the other ports to compete with. Charleston mostly had just Savanna. (On the East coast.) Being the closest port to the European traffic, Charleston would have seen massive growth.
Or consider the islands of the West Indies, once fabulously wealthy due to sugar, yet never world economic powerhouses.
Sugar started getting produced in lots of other places, and that hurt the West Indies.
Thanks for a great response!
Sadly, DiogenesLamp seems utterly consumed by his anti-historical fantasy of Charleston SC suddenly becoming an economic rival to New York, or any other major US ports.
There's just no evidence suggesting Charleston could ever, even under conditions of peace between US & Confederacy.
But that doesn't stop DL from letting his imaginings run wild.