It didn't produce a lot of cotton, did it? Try not to be such a d*ck if you can. New York City was the East Coast's greatest natural port and thus the natural point of export for much of America's agricultural surplus.
Wipe out your competition and the pickings are much easier. Who's left to oppose you? Who could have challenged you economically?
What are you blathering about? The Southern states were competition in machine production and manufactured goods? Not very likely in the 1850s and 1860s. Even without a war, it would have taken some time for the Southern states to catch up, even if they wanted to.
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.
Some people would diversify. Most of them weren't cotton planters or running the Confederacy. You never responded to the Wigfall quote and the rest of my post on the unwillingness of Southern elites to go into manufacturing.
You wrote about Charleston's shipbuilding being "frozen out" of the market by Northerners. The truth, so far as I've been able to find out, is that plantation owners who were involved in shipbuilding early on realize that they could make more money growing cotton. They didn't need the bother of shipbuilding. Cotton was king. It's like that when you have a highly desirable product. You put all your money and effort into it and when it stops being highly desirable, it's too late to invest in something else.
My point was that New York was the focal point of all that traffic. It didn't produce exports, it managed exports that other people produced.
I would assume that New York produced no cotton at all, yet it managed the vast bulk of all cotton trade going both ways.
Try not to be such a d*ck if you can.
You see it as "being a d*ck." I see it as putting forth annoying facts and arguments which don't fit nicely into the official narrative.
New York City was the East Coast's greatest natural port and thus the natural point of export for much of America's agricultural surplus.
That it was the East Coast's greatest natural port is not the reason it had a virtual monopoly on all cotton trade going both directions. That it had a monopoly was mostly the doing of the Fed Gov, creating that artificial monopoly by the jiggering of the existing laws to favor New York and New York industries.
This could not be changed within the Union because the powers supporting this monopolistic and protectionist policy toward's the North East could not be defeated in congress.
What are you blathering about? The Southern states were competition in machine production and manufactured goods? Not very likely in the 1850s and 1860s.
No they weren't, but if you dumped an additional 60 million dollars per year into the South's economy, they would have run out of cotton related projects to spend it on and whether they liked it or not, they would be forced to diversify into other industries, of which shipping and manufacturing is the most obvious.
You can make the desert flower if you put enough capital into it. Look at Saudi Arabia.
Even without a war, it would have taken some time for the Southern states to catch up, even if they wanted to.
You forget that the money which would have flowed into the South's economy would have come at the price of it leaving the North's economy. The North would have gone through a pretty serious recession/depression if they had lost the bulk of the trade to the South, and then had to compete with the South for exports.
Some people would diversify. Most of them weren't cotton planters or running the Confederacy.
With too much money running around, diversification will simply occur. Money poor people will migrate to wealthy areas in the hopes of earning a living, and they will be a diverse lot with diverse skills. It's an "Adam Smith invisible hand" thing.
You never responded to the Wigfall quote and the rest of my post on the unwillingness of Southern elites to go into manufacturing.
I must have missed that. I haven't read one of your messages, perhaps it is in the one I haven't looked at yet.
You wrote about Charleston's shipbuilding being "frozen out" of the market by Northerners. The truth, so far as I've been able to find out, is that plantation owners who were involved in shipbuilding early on realize that they could make more money growing cotton.
They were still getting gouged on their shipping costs, and they were still losing a huge amount of money to New York because of legal conditions which favored the industries in that state. (Banks, Insurance, Warehousing, Packet Shipping, etc.)
They didn't need the bother of shipbuilding.
Their ship building industry did, and it would have been more able to compete without having to deal with subsidized monopolies in the North.
Cotton was king. It's like that when you have a highly desirable product. You put all your money and effort into it and when it stops being highly desirable, it's too late to invest in something else.
Yes, but once more money than you can sensibly spend on increasing production starts rolling in, you won't have a choice but to invest it in something else.