Replies

Another poorly drawn analogy that doesn't fit the circumstances here.

A perfectly drawn analogy.

The South was as geographically challenged in the area of European trade as mondern-day Iowa or Kansas are in the mining of coal. As such, any federal subsidy or favoritism to the coal industry is bound to favor West Virginia more than Iowa or Kansas; no different from favorable trade laws in the mid-1800s.

Combine that with generations of infrastructure development in Northeastern shipping, and it did not make economic sense for the South to invest in trying to catch up. It has already been stated that investment of the Southern dollar saw a higher return when invested in the plantation & slave labor system, so it should be no surprise that's where their dollars went, and their rhetoric focused on it's justification as our friends MEspinola, Colonel Kangaroo have pointed out. I'm sure if one looked, one could find similar (but not as well-publicized) quotes from Northeasterners with respect to the slave trade, but history has chosen to bury them.

"The South was as geographically challenged.."

That sounds like a PC pinko term is there ever was one.

"I'm sure if one looked, one could find similar (but not as well-publicized) quotes from Northeasterners with respect to the slave trade, but history has chosen to bury them."

The North had treasonous Copperheads and other pro-slavery rabble, but it was the center of Plantation Inc in South Carolina which triggered the Civil Wa, since they thought their slave based cotton empire was threatened. You know, the side you continue to support, the "Confederates".

"It has already been stated that investment of the Southern dollar saw a higher return when invested in the plantation & slave labor system.."

Is that the method of investment return the Confederate leadership was involved with?

"so it should be no surprise that's where their dollars went, and their rhetoric focused on it's justification as our friends MEspinola, Colonel Kangaroo have pointed out."

Truth hurts?

Are you going to go crying to Admin again like a little rat?

The South was as geographically challenged in the area of European trade as mondern-day Iowa or Kansas are in the mining of coal.

False premise. Charleston and New Orleans are just two examples of Southern seaports active in international trade. Both cities had shipbuilding traditions, and both ports were hundreds of miles closer to the cotton.

If the South really did purchase most of the imported goods and by consequence pay most of the tariffs on them as your side has repeatedly asserted, then there was no good reason why the South couldn't compete for shipping as well. We all know there was no Federal law preventing them from doing so.

I do not think these people read at all. If they do, they do it with their eyes closed.

You are right about the challenge of the geography and your analogy.

Prior to the development of affordable, reliable ship's chronometers, longitude was guesswork and shipping tended to flow from Europe to the safety of the southerly trade winds dominated routes.

Changes in knowledge changed the routes of the trade shipping.

Benjamin Franklin published a correct outline of the Gulf Stream. Sailors discovered that while ships were moving, they could measure the temperature variations in the waters as they traveled overseas. From this they established tables that showed average temperatures by calendar for the colder northern seas and the areas affected by the Gulf Stream.

They learned to navigate more direct routes and with improvements in ships' rigging that allowed the vessels to point closer to the direction of wind, the trade routes became more straight line. Direct shipment from Liverpool to New York using the improvements in navigation and sail configuration cut the shipping time by over 50%, thus ensuring the dominance of New York over Southern seaports.

In 1816, Jeremiah Thompson established a direct packet schedule from New York to Liverpool. Gradually they and others in New York began to dominate East Coast commerce with Europe.

The success of New York packet lines ensured the regression of the Southern ports and their shipping.