You miss the point. Foreign imports are only half of the trade equation. Trade, by definition, requires the full equation of imports and exports. The southern economy was trade based and accounted for 75% of the entire nation's exports. If trade dies because a law creates a barrier to it, which is exactly what protectionist tariffs do, a trade based economy will be destroyed.
That a fledgling nation was trying to protect its nacent industries from foriegn competititon was rational.
No. It is irrational bunk. First, the United States in 1860 was not a "fledgling nation." It was well endowed with resources, growing in population, and had been around on stable footing for 75 years. Second, the "fledgling industry protection" claim is economic nonsense and an illegitimate argument for protection. It is a fact of economics that protective tariffs hurt the nation as a whole more than they help any given industry because of the dead weight loss from the protective tariff. This has been known since the 1810's when David Ricardo developed the modern economic concepts of trade.
That the southern supremists did not diversify their ecomony to keep more of their own capital in the south was not.
Much to the contrary. That the south developed its agricultural industry was perfectly rational and consistent with free market capitalism. Capitalist trade economics dictate that countries are best served by and tend toward production in markets where they have a comparitive advantage. The south's resources made gave it such an advantage and, as a result, its market developed around agriculture.
Yes, but rather than being a strength that was a weakness.
Nonsense. The whole of the nation's foreign trade was dependent upon the south's agricultural export ability. Without it, little trade would occur and without trade, the country as a whole is significantly worse off.
The south exported cotton to mills in europe and the north where the value added by manufacture equaled the price the raw cotton brought the south. The south then imported 2/3 of its clothing and other finished goods from the north or abroad.
There is nothing wrong with the importation of manufactured goods. Countries and regions specialize where they have comparative advantages. If the south is comparatively better able to produce cotton, and Europe is comparatively better able to produce textiles (as was the case in the 1860's), it serves the interest of both and results in greater overall welfare for both to specialize in the area of that comparative advantage. That fact is the basis of our entire concept of trade in free market capitalism. Granted, if you do not like free market capitalism, you are free to advocate something else. I'll simply note that human experience has shown that capitalism is the best economic system available and the one system that is most compatable with conservative sensibility and the maximization of liberty.
No, I'm afraid you have it all backwords.
Much to the contrary. The economic "theory" you have asserted in your post best resembles a combination of the fallacious arguments offered for tariffs today by labor unions and the long abandoned mercantilist garbage of previous centuries. The concepts you peddle were debunked in the 1810's by David Ricardo and abandoned in his wake due to their incompatability with capitalism.
Compared to the "foreign competition" in trade, (Britian, France, Spain and Russia) mid 19th century United States was a fledging. With regard to protective tariffs being "economic nonsense" lets see what Adam Smith had to say.
In manufactures, a very small advantage will enable foreigners to undersell our own workmen, even in the home market. If the free importation of foreign manufacturers were permitted, several of the home manufactures would probably suffer, and some of them, perhaps, go to ruin altogether, and a considerable part of the stock and industry at present employed in them, would be forced to find out some other employment. -Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations)
The whole of the nation's foreign trade was dependent upon the south's agricultural export ability. Without it, little trade would occur and without trade, the country as a whole is significantly worse off.
Your premise (that foreign trade in and of itself was good) is wrong. As the south's own experience proved, lack of economic diversity yeilds dependence on others for basic needs. The plantation economy survived solely on its ability (through slavery) to produce a raw material, cotton. I've already shown you how little real capital the south gained from this immoral practice.
That the south developed its agricultural industry was perfectly rational and consistent with free market capitalism.
-Yes, thats why the south was so dependent on the north for finished goods. Even the British ships would stop in northern ports first, because the market for their goods there was greater. Free labor produces consumers, slave labor does not. Were you asleep during economics in college?
From the experience of all ages and nations, I believe, that the work done by free men comes cheaper in the end than the work performed by slaves. Whatever work he does, beyond what is sufficient to purchase his own maintenance, can be squeezed out of him by violence only, and not by any interest of his own. -Adam Smith
The concepts you peddle were debunked in the 1810's by David Ricardo and abandoned in his wake due to their incompatability with capitalism.
Lol! The concepts you peddle are being debunked right here on this forum. I'll take free labor economics over slave labor economics every time. I'll take Adam Smith and "Made in America" over Ricky Ricardo and "Made in Communist China" any day of the week.