[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.)

[x]

Let’s say I am a wheat grower, and my world revolves around wheat. I cherish the money I get for my wheat and resent the money that goes into taking it to market and the money I have to pay for agricultural equipment and fuel and living expenses. So I might come to think of the people I buy things from as “parasites” on the wheat trade. They aren’t. They provide me with things I can’t or don’t or won’t produce at home. The world doesn’t revolve wholly around wheat or cotton anymore than it does around plows and hoes or insurance and wearhousing.

Cotton producers relied on brokers to sell their cotton — and to tide them through bad times and often to advance them money for seed. The planters weren’t likely to set up a cooperative and get lower prices in Manchester or Brussels. People on the spot at the cotton markets did a better job estimating and negotiating the prices. Until slavery had heated things up, cotton planters got along well enough with cotton brokers in Charleston or New Orleans or New York, London, and Liverpool.

The Navigation Acts had nothing to do with transatlantic commerce. They applied only to US coastal navigation from US port to US port. Southern slaveowning planters and merchants were able to charter European ships to send cotton directly to Europe.

Economics is about supply and demand. If the supply increases more than the demand does, prices go down and the boom is over. Prices were going to go down as new lands got into cotton manufacturing: India, China, Egypt, Brazil, etc. British merchants, already tired of dealing with slavery were already reaching out to bring new lands into cultivation.

Slaveowners wanted slavery in the territories, so people who pointed that out weren’t lying. Arizona’s and New Mexico’s resources weren’t yet exploited by American settlers. In time they would be. The Spanish had made use of Indian — and African — slaves in mining operations in various colonies. If it were necessary to establish slavery in the territories, slaves would be used in the mines.

The mines would be profitable enough to keep slavery going. Slavery continued in Virginia even after much of the state gave up on tobacco farming, which wasn’t anywhere near as profitable as cotton production. The political will was there to keep it going, so it kept going.

But of course, none of this is going to convince you, you’ve been brainwashed — or you’ve brainwashed yourself — enough that nothing gets through to you.