Replies

And for southern exports and imports, and for access to the west via the Mississippi, much less so. And since the tables Pea gives us in the #779 link show that 1,918 ships visited New Orleans in the 12 months prior to August 31, 1860 ( a figure that doesn't include steamboats, btw), it's pretty clear that New Orleans was a thriving, major port.

"And since the tables Pea gives us in the #779 link show that 1,918 ships visited New Orleans in the 12 months prior to August 31, 1860 ( a figure that doesn't include steamboats, btw),"

If you reread the tables, the 1,918 number does include steam boats.

New Orleans was indeed a thriving port. One thing that held it back, though, was the unhealthy climate. In particular there were serious epidemics of yellow fever. Like New York, New Orleans was hit by cholera on occasions, but had fewer resources to combat the disease. We also know about the danger of tropical storms and flooding to the city. It was to be expected that the city would fail to fulfill the great commercial potential that it had in theory, at least until the problems of diseases and flooding could be solved.

But there's something unreal about the whole debate. Northerners who read DeBow's or heard Hammond's speech about "King Cotton," knew very well that the South of the 1850s and 1860s wasn't about to turn itself into an industrial powerhouse. The betting was on cotton, and industry and commerce were to be servants of agriculture, not rivals or masters.

Also, it's not just a question of what Charleston or New Orleans was preparing to do in the 1850s. Dredging and canal and railroad building where going on all across the country, and there's little reason to believe that one city's joining in would bring it all the goodies. There would always be competition. And planned "great leaps forward" often come to nothing.

Indeed, 21st century New Orleans may have some real problems with economic development and survival, even without the threat of yellow fever.