But they didn't actually. They were a part of the slave trade and a part of the cotton trade, but they never dominated either. Both were international and there were plenty of other players who had a larger role in both.
That is why I am preoccupied with this map.
Obsessed is more like it.
That is contrary to what this book is alleging. This book is making it clear that the importation concession was to "New England" interests.
So you believe your book rather than the people who were actually there in the room when the Constitution was being debated and voted on? Go here for example.
Southern Wealth and Northern Profits by Thomas Prentice Kettell was a tract that purported to show that Northern wealth depended on the cotton planters. Stephen Colwell examined the same data in Five Cotton States and New York and came to the conclusion that it was the cotton states that were dependent on New York.
Planters from the Deep South states bought things from New York and invested their money there and acted like they hadn't actually given the Northerners money for the things they bought. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
The bigger picture is that the regions were interdependent, but the physiocratic or mercantilist idea that agriculture or foreign exchange was the sole root of wealth is seriously flawed.
Anyway, all this stuff is old hat. Everything has been discussed to death over the years and nothing you've said is particularly new or interesting or valuable.
“Anyway, all this stuff is old hat. Everything has been discussed to death over the years and nothing you’ve said is particularly new or interesting or valuable.”
Actually this is just the opposite of the truth.
Of all the threads on this topic in my years here, this is the closest to the truth I have witnessed. Kettell’s book unravels the complexities with brevity, and Diogenes’ self described evolution is encouraging.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
You are grasping for straws. What other countries had prominent influence in the Southern Slave and Cotton trade in the 1850s? The Navigation act of 1817 made it ruinously expensive for Foreign merchants or ship builders to engage in such trade.
Obsessed is more like it.
And why shouldn't I be? It demonstrates at a glance that something is *SERIOUSLY* wrong with this picture. It only becomes obvious when people know the source of the bulk of Trade Exports. Most of those coins stacked on Top of New York would be stacked at New Orleans if the trade conditions were normal. That is where much of the products represented by those coins were exported.
The Map is upside down in terms of money and profits by regions for normal trade conditions. That map is the lynchpin of evidence as to why the Union invaded the South to stop their independence.
Stephen Colwell examined the same data in Five Cotton States and New York and came to the conclusion that it was the cotton states that were dependent on New York.
I have no doubt that someone can come to that conclusion, but again they are examining artificial conditions imposed on the South, and not contemplating how those conditions would change in the absence of the onerous laws which created them. Yes, the South depended on New York to ship their cotton, because all the laws had been Jiggered to favor New England Shipping/Insurance/Banking/Warehousing. They couldn't use foreign Ships without paying ruinous rates, so they were left with no other choice than to depend on New York/New England shipping.
You are getting stuck in the mud because you only contemplate conditions as they existed, and seemingly have no interest in contemplating what differing conditions would have resulted had the South been able to maintain independence. Eliminate the barriers to Trade, and they would have less and less need to depend on New York/New England shipping with every passing year.