"Geographically located"? That might apply if the south didn't have a coast, but last time I looked it did.More than the northeast, it looks like.
But I'll grant that some government laws favor some more than others. Sugar subsidies don't do much for me, personally, since I don't grow sugar. That doesn't mean that I think I can secede over it. And I think that in the case of the navigation laws (which were modeled on Britain's similar laws), there's a greater national good to be obtained. The encouragement of a vigorous trading fleet is a good thing, and after a period of protection it might stand on its own. The development of domestic industry is a good thing over a reliance on foreign imports for manufactured goods in a world that can quickly turn hostiile. Don't forget that in 1860, the French were throwing their weight around in Mexico and Canada was still part of the British Empire--an empire with whom we'd fought two wars in our brief history and some members of which still had at least dreams of reclaiming us (e.g. Cecil Rhodes).
In the end, this comes down to a free trade absolutism vs. some degree of protectionism, and I come down on the protectionist side. With the benefit of hindsight, I think it's clear that an industrialized, post-slavery United States was much better positioned to become a world power than it would have been if the south had had its way.
And besides, it's not like the south was being impoverished, as the previously stated statistics about average income and wealthiest men show. Ultimately, if this debate is going to come down to northern greed vs. southern greed, each cloaked in some version of idealism, I'll take the northern variety.
San Francisco is on I80, but I rarely see a lot of them eating at the Brown Bottle (Iowa City).
The encouragement of a vigorous trading fleet is a good thing, and after a period of protection it might stand on its own. The development of domestic industry is a good thing over a reliance on foreign imports for manufactured goods in a world that can quickly turn hostiile. Don't forget that in 1860, the French were throwing their weight around in Mexico and Canada was still part of the British Empire--an empire with whom we'd fought two wars in our brief history and some members of which still had at least dreams of reclaiming us (e.g. Cecil Rhodes).
As mac pointed out, the laws were on the books for 80 years, and purchase of foreign vessels was still forbidden. When could New York - dominant trade worldwide, stand on it's own?
Protectionists talk a good game, but in the end it's just state sponsored wealth for the few.
Always.
I come down on the protectionist side.
Don't feel bad, so do Non and Mac (and avowedly so). I'm sure your intentions are good, but the system is rife with abuse, as is necessary when hiring from the human race. Even good people are corrupted by power, and my distrust of powerful people just won't allow of it.
The original Navigation Act of 1789 was one of the first laws passed by the newly constituted United States for a reason. When you consider that ocean going sailing ships were the most complex, technologically advanced modes of warfare and troop transport of that time, it was wise to protect and develop a domestic shipbuilding industry.
As far as I know we still don't let France or China build our aircraft carriers or space rockets.