I do not doubt that these particular examples support your claim, but where do they fit in the overall picture? What percentage of the total do these few anecdotal examples represent?
You have never in all our debates, posted the name of a single New York banker raping Southern interests, nor any Northern cotton factor buying from Southern planters, with any specifics how they somehow managed to take away all this ridiculously high percentage of profits that you claim. Not a single one.
I never considered it particularly important since you joined the discussion relatively recently. I have some years ago listed a bunch of names of movers and shakers that pretty much ran the major industries of New York back in this era, but I don't keep up with it much because the names don't really matter to me. Who are the people running the deep state today? We don't know their names, but we can certainly see what they are doing, can't we?
You can tell by looking at the money flow that something was seriously wrong, and it didn't really matter who did it. You can look up for yourself who was running what industries of that time, and which companies, and therefore which specific people would have been financially destroyed by the South's secession.
On the other hand, I have shown you the exact range of percentage charges that cotton factors and bankers charged the Southern plantation owners. All of which were completely reasonable and in line with normal capitalist practices.
If the charges were reasonable, than the Southern exporters would have continued to use them, but if the charges were reasonable, why did the US Government have to implement protectionist policies like the Navigation Act of 1817 and succeeding versions all the way up to the Jones Act of 1922?
How do you explain that the North wasn’t financially destroyed by Southern secession?
“ I never considered it particularly important since you joined the discussion relatively recently”
We had this same debate a couple of years ago. You’ve never given specifics.
“ If the charges were reasonable, than the Southern exporters would have continued to use them, but if the charges were reasonable, why did the US Government have to implement protectionist policies like the Navigation Act of 1817 and succeeding versions all the way up to the Jones Act of 1922? ”
Sales commissions and lending fees have nothing to with navigation. Furthermore, the purpose of such legislation was to protect domestic industries, the same as virtually identical laws in many other countries.