Replies

For years you have continued to argue the ignorance you display here. Your arguments were rebutted here:

Oh please.

But I will give you this one more time...

Oh, goody.

In the early days after the invention of the cotton gin, the American South had controlled its own cotton industry. Southern cotton was shipped directly from southern ports by its owners to the textile mills of England.

I will grant you the shipped direct to overseas markets. Even in 1860 over 90% of all cotton exported left from southern ports.

The laws also discouraged the Southern businessmen from becoming involved in the shipping business by prohibiting the purchasing of finished ships from overseas.

I'd be interested in the details of these alleged laws. But assuming that you are correct, did such laws prohibit them from purchasing ships constructed in the United States, or from building ships in southern ports if such a demand existed? The U.S. shipbuilding industry dated from long before the Revolution. Nothing prevented southern businessmen from getting involved in the shipping business, if there had been an interest on their part in establishing or financing such a business. There apparently was none.

Therefore, Northern shipping companies, with the aid of Federal laws, came to dominate the carrying trade of the South.

You have shown where, with the aid of Federal laws, American shipping companies dominated trade in the U.S. You have shown nothing that discouraged southern businessmen from establishing such lines. If there was such a large demand for imports into the south, why didn't southern interests join in and start importing their own goods to their own ports? Millions of bales of cotton going out, and next to nothing coming in. Why? The only possible answer to that is lack of demand or lack of interest on the part of southern money. Not some Northern conspiracy.

As the trade in cotton increased, northern and particularly New York traders had seen their opportunity and begun sending agents south to purchase all the cotton they could, and ship it themselves by packet ships to England and Europe.

I'm sure that middlemen predate your conspiracy, though it may be true that many were from the North. But again, it begs the question of why didn't southerners step up and fill the role of the cotton brokers? The answer is, of course, many did. And they shipped that cotton, not on packets to New York, but on ships directly to overseas customers. But why weren't those ships then loading up on imports and then sailing back to southern ports to unload all those foreign goods you claim that they clammored for? Instead, why did those ships arrive empty only to load cotton?

This direct purchase of cotton by the “factors” enabled the Southern growers to quickly turn a profit instead of waiting months for the cotton to be sold, and the money to return to them...This benefit also cut their profits.

Dealing with middle men can do that. But as you pointed out, they were faced with the choice of dealing with people who had established customers or trying to do it on their own. They found it more financially benificial to deal through brokers. They got their money right away, they limited their risks, they didn't have to deal in areas they were not accustomed or qualified to deal in. Where is that a conspiracy or some sort of burden on the south. All it is is the market at work. People find a demand for services and they fill that demand. The cotton growers saw this service as a benefit and they took advantage of it. Where's the crime in that?

The plantation owners that could retain ownership and ship independently found themselves in a bind. If they wanted to ship their own cotton to market, the packet ship owner would charge them very high rates that were slightly under the rate of the foreign ship rate, plus the Federal shipping penalty that would be added.

But you have not answered the question of why, if so many plantation owners wanted to retain ownership and ship independenty, they did not then form shipping lines, purchase ships, and do so.

With these technical advancements, cotton was loaded onto the coastal packets, shipped to New York via these fast boats, offloaded to warehousing, and shipped out on the large V-bottomed ships that sailed the high seas to Liverpool.

Facts show that you are completely wrong in this. In the year prior to the rebellion over 1.75 million bales of cotton were exported from New Orleans, over 456,000 from Mobile and over 300,000 from Savannah. But fewer than 250,00 were exported from New York. If your story was true then the opposite should be true. All that cotton should have been put on ships to New York and shipped out from there. But they weren't. So your story thus far is basically a fairy tale.

With the control of the transportation trade business being dominated by Northern interests, and now being vastly aided by the Warehousing Act, southern planters began to complain.

More nonsense. What the Warehousing Act states is that goods imported into the United States and destined for shipment again overseas can be stored up to a set period of time under bond, but without paying tariffs. Should those goods be sold to the U.S. market then the tariff is applied. Should they be exported then the bond is refunded and the owner is not out of any money. How anyone can take that simple premise and somehow turn it into a tool against southern consumers is beyond me. And it does nothing to answer the burning question of why, if the overwhelming majority of imports were destined for southern consumers as you and others claim, those goods did not go directly to southern ports. If wasn't lack of adequate ports. The fact that over 90% of all cotton exported left from southern ports show how stupid that claim is. It wasn't the Warehousing Act, that gave no advantage to Nortern merchants who chose to warehouse goods for a period of time instead of shipping them immediately to southern consumers. The only possible, reasonable explanation is that there was, in fact, little demand for imported goods in the south. And if there was little demand, then the tarrif did not unfairly impact them. And if the tariff did not unfairly impact them, then how can any reasonable person present that as a logical explanation for the southern rebellion.

Back to the drawing board, Pea. Your post was entertaining but, when all is said and done, still crap.