And you would have lost your shirt. Egypt, India, Mexico, Brazil, and maybe Turkey, Central Asia and China coming on as major cotton producers would have doomed the dream of continuing fabulous wealth for the cotton states. Even without a civil war, that bonanza wasn't going to last much longer.
Meanwhile New York City went on to prosper spectacularly in the late 19th century. To be sure the Civil War had something to do with it, but so did Europe's demand for grain, flour, and meat, and the ability of Americans to sell machinery and manufactured goods in the wider world. For the North, too, cotton was never the king you make it out to be.
Many in the South saw him as a threat, and from their perspective this was all that mattered to them.
Yes, because politics is all about our unexamined feeelings. That's how wars start, countries become ungovernable and we end up in the messes we do. Thank goodness that people actually do have to argue and prove things with facts every now and then.
Did it ever occur to you that the artificially created condition of keep that product off the market stimulated the competition of which you speak? Without the Civil War holding back South produced cotton, would these markets have emerged as they did in it's absence?
Meanwhile New York City went on to prosper spectacularly in the late 19th century.
And why not? It had a symbiotic relationship with the seat of government, a condition that it has maintained ever since.
To be sure the Civil War had something to do with it, but so did Europe's demand for grain, flour, and meat,
New York City produces a lot of grain and meat does it?
and the ability of Americans to sell machinery and manufactured goods in the wider world.
Wipe out your competition and the pickings are much easier. Who's left to oppose you? Who could have challenged you economically?
For the North, too, cotton was never the king you make it out to be.
Without unraveling the artificial economic pressures on the existing system of that time, we can't say what would have happened. I am thinking that anyone in the trade with any sense would have diversified into other businesses like shipping and manufacturing. It is a poor theory that they would have simply chosen to do nothing else than keep planting cotton.
Extra capital would have created extra industries.
Yes, because politics is all about our unexamined feeelings.
It pretty much is. Did you see Hillary's vote totals?
That's how wars start, countries become ungovernable and we end up in the messes we do. Thank goodness that people actually do have to argue and prove things with facts every now and then.
And when does that happen? Doesn't the media just tell us what are the "facts" nowadays? You know, that media out of New York?
Didn't Hillary win 64 million votes? Was it on the "facts"?