The price of cotton was bound to go down as new producers, both at home and abroad, got into the game. Prices only recently reached the level they were at in 1870, and this has been a boon to the world's largest producers -- China and India. But they are both too smart to think that producing a raw commodity like cotton could be the sole base of a major world economy.
But in what way are you alleging that the CSA was more statist than the USA?
You could do your own research. Suffice it to say that the Confederate economy was closely controlled by the government in a system that has been described as "war socialism." You even had to have a government-issued travel permit to take a railroad trip. The CSA wasn't any kind of libertarian utopia. You can say it was because of the war, but a slave-based economy necessarily involves tight control over travel and the labor force.
So how did you go the opposite way from me?
I was precocious, I guess. I went through the adolescent rebel stage -- at least when it came to politics -- back when I was in high school, and then I grew up. Maybe you will too some day.
I've addressed this point several times. Without that blockade, it would have been difficult to create alternative producers, because they had such control of the market that they could have kept running anyone else out of business.
Ignoring the immorality of slavery, who can compete against free labor if they have to pay for their labor? Economically, it's impossible, unless you use slavery yourself.
The only thing that made foreign competition possible is Union ships blockading shipments to Europe. New areas of Domestic production would have either been controlled by, or allied with the existing producers.
You could do your own research. Suffice it to say that the Confederate economy was closely controlled by the government in a system that has been described as "war socialism."
And you some how believe that the "War" system was going to be the "Peace" system too? You can't use the artificial conditions created as a consequence of having to fight off an invasion as proof that they would have done the same thing if they hadn't been trying to fight off an invasion. Their arguments for Federalism indicate that their intent was to do no such thing, but they turned to more control as a necessity because of the war.
You and others keep trying to compare "Peace" conditions with "War" conditions, as if they would have been exactly the same.
No. If Lincoln hadn't launched his war, they would have taken over the Trade with Europe, and then they would have been racking up piles of money, and they would have been subjected to far more immigration in pursuit of jobs that came as a result of the extra money.
They would have been able to stave off foreign competition, because, let's face it, you can't get cheaper than "free" when it comes to labor.
You even had to have a government-issued travel permit to take a railroad trip. The CSA wasn't any kind of libertarian utopia. You can say it was because of the war, but a slave-based economy necessarily involves tight control over travel and the labor force.
Did you have to have such a government-issued travel permit before the war?
I was precocious, I guess. I went through the adolescent rebel stage -- at least when it came to politics -- back when I was in high school, and then I grew up.
I was naive. I used to accept what people told me. Then I found out a lot of what people told me, turned out to not be true. Eventually I became cynical, and don't believe anything people tell me unless it is supported by some sort of evidence.
Cynicism is what made me realize the civil war was no noble cause launched by the milk of human kindness. It was a war for power and money, launched for greed, same as most wars.