Replies

The shift of so much land and effort into cotton-growing meant that the people of the South relied on the West for much of their food and livestock, and on the North Atlantic states for most of their clothing and machinery.

I must have missed the law that forced the south to give up all their other crops and any more than a token attempt at industrialization in order to grow cotton. No, the south willingly turned to cotton, because it was more profitable than anything else they could grow, and they were apparently unwilling to diversify their economy.

Northern factories based their profits on a steady flow of cotton.

And auto plants rely on a steady flow of steel. What's your point?

Northern bankers grew rich by extending liberal (but risky) credit to Southern planters against next year's crop.

Again, I'm missing the law that forced southerners to borrow money. And why were there no southern banks from which they could borrow?:

The ships of Boston bulged with it as they crossed the Atlantic, and their owners looked forward to increasing production on the slave plantations, which meant increased profit for them.

So? Any shipper at any time hopes for lots of cargo. That's their business. And why were there no southern ships for them to ship on?

All you've done is point to an integrated national economy in which everyone was profiting. If cotton farming was such a money-losing proposition, why was so much of the south dedicated to it?

What's your point?

I made the statement in an earlier post that one of the multitudes of cause for the CW was based on economics and that the North profited from the slave trade, from slavery, from cotton and from the south in general.

I was attacked and ridiculed for saying that. I was accused of lacking intelligence and of making absurd claims.

Now, you are responding to say "so what" when I give documentation and credible evidence that what I said was true. I cannot explain, in this limited forum, nor do I want to take the time to explain all of the whys and wherefores of the economic interdependency between the North and the South. Instead I will state what should be obvious to any historian of the war, but seems to not be to many who post here on the side of the North:

" The North and South's economies were dependent upon each other to a significant degree. The South grew tired of the fact that much of their money flowed North and wanted to seek ways to have a greater control over their money. This factor was one of many that led to the decision to secede."