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

To: Oorang
The Southern states produced 73% of the US entire trade product at that time, and all the money to pay for it was being funneled into New York because of the Navigation act of 1817.

If all of the imports were funneled through New York as you claim then why weren't all of the exports funneled through New York as well?

Worse still, European manufactured goods would have flooded the continent through Southern ports at prices deeply undercutting the North Eastern manufacturers, and thereby causing a double financial whammy to the power barons who would have lost significant market share and income.

You claimed that all those European goods were already flooding in through New York because of the Navigation Act or some such reason. What would have changed that would have made it cheaper to bring them in through southern ports? And why wasn't that done prior to the rebellion?

The existing power structure in New York and Washington DC, then as now wanted all the nation's money funneling through their pockets, and when the South threatened to take control of their own trade and finances, this was more than the existing power structure could tolerate, and so they launched a war to subjugate the South.

How would the south do that?

The whole affair is a lot more complex than people realize...

So it would seem.

Also, the Northern powers were mostly English, and the Southern powers was mostly Scottish...

Yes, where would the Confederacy have been without Robert MacLee, Stonewall MacJackson, Jefferson MacDavis? And without their traditional haggis and grits meals to keep them going. Utter nonsense.

155 posted on 07/19/2022 2:35:10 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: DoodleDawg; Oorang; x; DiogenesLamp
Oorange: "The Southern states produced 73% of the US entire trade product at that time, and all the money to pay for it was being funneled into New York because of the Navigation act of 1817."

"73%" is a bogus number, the real number is roughly 50% of US exports were Deep South cotton, everything else claimed as "Southern products" was produced in whole or in part in Union states.
The value of cotton exports in 1860 was approx. $200 million.

Southern cotton growers were typically paid for their products, sometimes ahead of the harvest, by middlemen called "factors" who then typically arranged for "ginned" cotton to be transported to a dock for export.
So before cotton ever left his property, the cotton grower was paid.

Who were these money-men "factors"?
Some were Southern bankers, some were Northerners, some, doubtless, represented major European buyers.
And once the cotton grower is paid for his products, the methods & routes of transportation to foreign (or domestic) manufacturers is utterly irrelevant to the grower.

But, as it happened, in the vast majority of cases, cotton shipped directly from a major Southern port -- i.e., New Orleans or Mobile -- to its customers in Europe or New England.
And once the ship-owners unloaded & sold their cotton, then, naturally, they looked for paying cargoes for their return trips.
These returning cargoes included the raw materials and luxury goods needed by American businesses & wealthy people.
And the largest concentration of such businesses & wealthy people was in New York City, or could be quickly & cheaply reached from NY via America's railroads & river steamboats.
So NY is where those return ships stopped first & sold their cargoes, imports which then went into special bonded warehouses, which by law did not have to pay import duties until sold & shipped elsewhere?
The total value of those imports was circa $400 million in 1860.

So how many of those $400 million in imports ended up in the hands of Souther cotton growers?
Answer: very little, a tiny percentage, and the reasons are obvious.
Nearly everything Southerners imported, they "imported" from the North.
And those "imports" from the North were neither raw materials nor foreign luxury goods, but mainly basic manufactured cotton & woolen clothing, shoes, iron stoves, hats, farm tools & railroad iron, etc.

Bottom line: in 1860 Southern cotton exports of $200 million amounted to roughly 5% of the US total GDP of $4.4 billion.
The entire Southern economy amounted by roughly 15% of the US $4.4 billion GDP, about $650 million.
And these numbers were instantly removed from the US economy in 1861, resulting in serious economic issues, not least because New Orleans was closed to Union traffic.
But the Union economy did quickly adjust & recover and by war's end had more than doubled.

And of course, none of this had anything to do with events at Fort Sumter, SC, or the Confederacy's Declaration of War on the United States, May 6, 1861.

164 posted on 07/19/2022 4:43:08 PM PDT by BroJoeK (future DDG 134 -- we remember)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies ]

To: DoodleDawg

You’ve had all that explained to you before. You won’t learn anything because you refuse to learn anything.


194 posted on 07/19/2022 8:42:58 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies ]

To: DoodleDawg

You’ve had all that explained to you before. You won’t learn anything because you refuse to learn anything.


195 posted on 07/19/2022 8:43:02 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | 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