The south was built on cotton, but the north was not. At the time of the Civil War there were only nine million southerners and over twenty million northerners. Three million southerners were black. Only a very tiny pct. of northerners were black, and none were slaves. The industrial revolution had progressed so fast since 1850 that by the time of the Civil War about ten years later, the gross domestic product of the state of New York by itself was greater than the total product of the rebellious southern states combined.
The industrial revolution was taking place mostly in northern states with very few blacks participating. But that doesn't stop millions of blacks today who believe that they are owed reparations for what happened to their ancestors in the south.
“The south was built on cotton, but the north was not.”
The New York and Boston bankers and insurance companies made millions financing slavery and the cotton trade that supported it. Northern companies provided working capital funding for the expansion of plantations. Northern textile companies turned the southern grown cotton into cloth. Northern merchants and their ships transported the cotton to factories in Massachusetts as well as European factories. Northern insurance companies insured crops and slaves.
Profits from the the slavery based cotton trade allowed the north to build an industrial base and diversify its economy. It is also telling the regional bias for the industrial investments of the northern banks was the north and west, not the south. Northern industrialists and their politicians wanted to keep the south’s economy agricultural and completely dependent on northern banks for financing and northern industry for its customer base. Many of the political battles leading up to the Civil War were over tariff policy with the south favoring low tariffs and the north imposing protectionist tariffs in order to force the south to buy from the expanding northern factories.
Had high tariffs not existed, the south would have bought cheaper European manufactured goods and the growth of manufacturing in the north would have been delayed or stifled. In 1860, the New York bankers would have been more dependent on southern agriculture and much less inclined to support a war targeted at their large agricultural customers.
Those who advocate low tariffs today should look at American economic history and the role high tariffs played, both before and after the Civil War, in allowing the US to build its industrial base and become a world power. Those who proclaim the moral superiority of the north should also look at the evolution of economic history. The north could “afford” to be anti slavery only after it had exploited the profits from slavery to diversify its economy while maintaining a chokehold on investment capital and tariff structure that would not permit the economy of the south to evolve.
“The south was built on cotton, but the north was not.”
Prior to the Civil War, New York and Boston bankers and insurance companies made millions financing slavery and the cotton trade that supported it. Northern companies provided capital funding for the expansion of plantations, the purchase of slaves, and the financing of annual crops. Northern textile companies turned southern grown cotton into cloth. Northern merchants and their ships transported the cotton to factories in Massachusetts as well as European factories. Northern insurance companies insured crops and slaves.
Profits from the the slavery based cotton trade allowed the north to build an industrial base and diversify its economy. It is also telling the regional bias for the industrial investments of the northern banks was the north and west, not the south. Building textile factories in the south, instead of New England would have been less costly and saved transportation expenses but northern banks wanted the jobs in the north.
Northern industrialists and their politicians wanted to keep the south’s economy agricultural and completely dependent on northern banks for financing and northern industry for its customer base. Many of the political battles leading up to the Civil War were over tariff policy with the south favoring low tariffs and the north imposing protectionist tariffs in order to force the south to buy from the expanding northern factories.
Had high tariffs not existed prior to 1860, the south would have bought cheaper European manufactured goods and the growth of manufacturing in the north would have been delayed or stifled. In 1860, the New York bankers would have been more dependent on southern agriculture and much less inclined to support a war targeted at their large agricultural customers.
Those who advocate low tariffs today should look at American economic history and the role high tariffs played, both before and after the Civil War, in allowing the US to build its industrial base and become a world power. Those who proclaim the moral superiority of the north should also look at the evolution of economic history. The north could “afford” to be anti slavery only after it had exploited the profits from slavery to diversify its economy while maintaining a chokehold on investment capital and tariff structure that would not permit the economy of the south to evolve.
It doesn't stop them from believing Hussein is actually black either.
Until we see a REAL BC, we just have to take his word for it, don't we?