Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: SoCal Pubbie; rustbucket
Because of course all those costs go away after secession, and the infrastructure cost of increasing shipping fleets and port facilities would have been negligible./s

The shipping costs would have been massively reduced by the employment of foreign ships to carry the cargoes. This was prohibited in the Union because of the "Navigation Act of 1817.".

Some years ago I had a good series of message exchanges with a man who's family was involved in the Cotton trade and Shipping industry of New York. He confirmed that the whole enterprise was set up to transfer as much money from the South as possible.

If I could remember his name, I could probably go back and find those messages where he explained how the whole system worked. Rustbucket, was it you? If not, do you remember who it was?

As for the dock costs, the warehousing costs, the harbor improvements, and so forth, that would have been money directly improving the economy of the Southern cities where improvements were undertaken.

It would have been money not going to the North, and instead being spent in the South. If you read about the boom in Charleston after secession was declared, you could understand that it was going to be massively profitable to them.

415 posted on 08/01/2021 3:06:07 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp

“Some years ago I had a good series of message exchanges with a man who’s family was involved in the Cotton trade and Shipping industry of New York.”

So how old was this guy, 250? Really, he knew all about the ins and outs of the cotton trade in the 1800s because he worked in it. Oh boy!

“ As for the dock costs, the warehousing costs, the harbor improvements, and so forth, that would have been money directly improving the economy of the Southern cities where improvements were undertaken.”

And this wasn’t the case in 1825, or 1850, or 1861? But a ruinous war was a boon to the economy!


417 posted on 08/01/2021 3:09:48 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp
The shipping costs would have been massively reduced by the employment of foreign ships to carry the cargoes.

How do you know?

This was prohibited in the Union because of the "Navigation Act of 1817.".

Complete nonsense. The Navigation Act prevented foreign ships from carrying cargo from one U.S. port to another. It did not prevent them from calling at Charleston, loading with cotton, and taking it to the United Kingdom.

422 posted on 08/01/2021 3:29:29 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp; PeaRidge
Some years ago I had a good series of message exchanges with a man who's family was involved in the Cotton trade and Shipping industry of New York. He confirmed that the whole enterprise was set up to transfer as much money from the South as possible.

If I could remember his name, I could probably go back and find those messages where he explained how the whole system worked. Rustbucket, was it you? If not, do you remember who it was?

No, it was not I, and I don't remember seeing a post of someone whose family was involved in the cotton trade and shipping. There are a number of old posts that deal with how much was being transferred from the South to the North before the war. Here are some examples:

From PeaRidge, who might be the person you are remembering: A breakdown of Northern profits that were about to be lost due to the secession of the South

A 2002 post by 4ConservativeJustices, who later posted as 4CJ

The immediate effect of the Morrill Tariff on Northern ports

Effect of the Morrill Tariff on the value of imports to the North from 1860 to 1865 expressed in 1860 dollars by taking inflation into account

How the war was really brought about by the potential loss of revenue by the North

426 posted on 08/01/2021 9:32:46 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp; DoodleDawg; rockrr

“warishellaintityall” was apparently “Historian Doris Kearns Goodwad,” a notorious joker, who posts under another name as well. I wouldn’t necessarily believe his supposed family history.


485 posted on 08/04/2021 4:13:09 PM PDT by x (Colossus: In time you will come to regard me not only with respect and awe, but with love. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson