Replies

In case you did not see it, among the many sources I have provided to our friends on the great success of New York for the clarification of their errors is this piece from Harvard, address below.

Here is one of my favorite passages from the Harvard Address you referenced.

"Despite these advantages, the growth of New York during its first 130 years was relatively modest. Generally, New York was America’s third or fourth busiest port. In tonnage, it lagged behind Boston and Charleston in the early 18th century and behind Boston and Philadelphia in the late colonial period."

In 1786 Charleston alone shipped 1.5 million lbs. of cotton overseas. Those who claim the South didn't have an established shipping business when the First Congress of the United States enacted protective laws toward domestic shipping are either being sloppy or willfully deceptive.

"Despite these advantages, the growth of New York during its first 130 years was relatively modest. Generally, New York was America’s third or fourth busiest port. In tonnage, it lagged behind Boston and Charleston in the early 18th century and behind Boston and Philadelphia in the late colonial period."

Does "busiest port" mean, "leader in international shipping?"

Those who claim the South didn't have an established shipping business when the First Congress of the United States enacted protective laws toward domestic shipping are either being sloppy or willfully deceptive.

But you also keep telling us that the reason New York became preeminent was because of its superior location, superior harbor depth, superior transportation links to the interior and capitalists who were willing to take more risks. And that they had warehouses. Add up all of those and the navigation laws seem pretty small potatoes, especially since there was nothing in them that would have prevented southern business interests from taking advantage of the same laws, had they cared to so invest their capital. But they didn't. Instead they concentrated on agricultural production and enjoyed the highest per capita income in the country because of it.

Ah, yes, the old you are "sloppy or willfully deceptive" tactic.

Good for you, Gianni. You finally got him to read something for a change. This has got to have a major impact on his I.Q.

Oops, I mis-spoke. Look at this from our old pal:

"In 1786 Charleston alone shipped 1.5 million lbs. of cotton overseas."

Then his next sentence begins with "those who claim the South didn't have an established shipping business".

He has quoted a statement that alone sounds impressive, and would lead to all sorts of conclusions, including the wrong ones.

Mac, you are quoting a volume shipped, but offer no evidence on what it was shipped. Therefore that quote only has relevance on some amount of cotton shipped, and not the shipping business.

So, how about some truth. According to Coker, Charleston shipped its first load of cotton to Liverpool in 1785.

"But a second shipment arrived in Liverpool the following month via New York, and that was the beginning of the roundabout trade that was to swell to such tremendous proportions in the next century...By 1822 some 55 percent of New York's exports to Liverpool were Southern products, most notably cotton and naval stores."

Then you say:

"Those who claim the South didn't have an established shipping business when the First Congress of the United States enacted protective laws toward domestic shipping are either being sloppy or willfully deceptive."

It would seem that you are the one being sloppy.