[x]

The idea that the South was struggling and economically oppressed by the North before the Civil War is absurd. The South prospered greatly in that era due to its highly efficient production of cotton using slave labor.

Well said. The argument that Northerners were ripping off the South was just the bellyaching of the rich, like when oil millionaires in Texas or Saudi Arabia complained about having to pay some of their money to buy things that weren't produced at home. Once slavery became a serious issue, proslavery militants and secessionists started hunting for grievances and reasons to feel exploited.

Would there have been some great bonanza for the cotton-producing states if NYC had been cut out of the picture? Well, the planters wouldn't be satisfied. They'd still be in hock to the cotton brokers. And it was always possible to ship cotton directly to Europe, and it was done. Greater shipping costs would be involved. Costs in general might go up without the competition of NYC firms in the picture. And if slaveowners could foresee a big bonanza from cutting NYC out, couldn't they foresee that the cotton boom would eventually end as new producers came on the scene? British merchants with abolitionist tendencies had already started developing cotton-growing in other parts of the world.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well said. The argument that Northerners were ripping off the South was just the bellyaching of the rich, like when oil millionaires in Texas or Saudi Arabia complained about having to pay some of their money to buy things that weren't produced at home.

Well yes it is. The Southern producers could certainly live without that 60% of the money they produced, but it *GALLS* normal people to pay people for something you don't want, but that they force you to pay for it anyway.

That you can afford it doesn't enter into the question. Nobody wants to pay for something at a higher price than they can get elsewhere, and being *FORCED* to pay the higher price just strikes everyone as wrong.

Also the percentages! When the parasites are getting *MORE* than the people who produce the money, most people would object. I recall some famous British actor who was a big Labour supporter saying that when the tax rate got to 50%, he would leave England. And so he did.

There is something in human nature that resents other people getting paid more than you are for *YOUR* industry.

They'd still be in hock to the cotton brokers. And it was always possible to ship cotton directly to Europe, and it was done. Greater shipping costs would be involved.

Pretty sure that would change. I'm sure they would have honored the existing contracts, but it had become obvious to the Cotton producers that they didn't need the New York brokers to run their industry. They could run it themselves and keep more of the profits.

And it was always possible to ship cotton directly to Europe, and it was done.

It wasn't cost effective to do it with American ships because they were all controlled by the Northeast, having ran the Southern shipping companies out of business by collusion and government subsidies until few to none were left. They could have hired European ships at a great discount from what the Northeastern shipping companies charged, but not so long as they remained in the Union and had to abide by the laws of the Union.

Separating from the North changes the economic landscape greatly for them, and all to their benefit.

...couldn't they foresee that the cotton boom would eventually end as new producers came on the scene?

I'm not sure I can see that now, 160 years after the fact. What makes you think anyone could predict that the demand for cotton would wane? I'll bet it never did. I'll bet it steadily increased from the 1850s all the way to the invention of polyester in the 1960s or so. Clearly the world uses more cotton today than it did in 1860, so it would seem to me that it would be a safe bet to predict the demand for cotton would continue rising indefinitely.

British merchants with abolitionist tendencies had already started developing cotton-growing in other parts of the world.

Don't mislead people. The British were looking out for their own interests. The British developed plantations in Egypt and India because the *US GOVERNMENT* had cut off supplies from their normal suppliers in the South. Without the blockade, it would have been completely unprofitable to create new plantations in other countries.

This was a market distorted by artificial government interference with the normal market. Without that interference, the South would have continued to dominate in the global market for Cotton. (And tobacco, indigo, sugar, etc.)