If you are arguing that they were getting gouged on both ends of the exchange, I would think they would find that even more objectionable, don't you?
Those merchants then took on the expense and risk of shipping and warehousing that cotton and selling it on the global market. When they sold that cotton to foreign buyers, they got the foreign currency which they used to purchase foreign goods, while also paying the tariff on imports. That is why the lion's share of tariffs were collected in New York.
So you are arguing that the New Yorkers were making more money off of Cotton than were the Southern producers? Why would anyone object to that?
That presumes you were getting gouged to begin with.
So you are arguing that the New Yorkers were making more money off of Cotton than were the Southern producers? Why would anyone object to that?
Isn't that what business is? Buying something for one price, selling it for another, and profiting off the difference?
You do have a penchant to twist words and obviously do not understand how free markets work. The merchants didn’t make more money than the planters. They provided a service that the planters were both unable, and unwilling to provide. It is neither unethical nor illegal to provide services to others. The wealthy people of the south chose to invest in land and slaves. Those in New York invested in ships, warehouses and banks. They both made profits.
You do have a penchant to twist words and obviously do not understand how free markets work. The merchants didn’t make more money than the planters. They provided a service that the planters were both unable, and unwilling to provide. It is neither unethical nor illegal to provide services to others. The wealthy people of the south chose to invest in land and slaves. Those in New York invested in ships, warehouses and banks. They both made profits.