Sure, arguably if the Confederacy had gotten its way the cause of emancipation would have been set back decades, but the pressure would still be there. Agitation wouldn't stop because the slaveowners had their own country. Arguably it would have increased.
My other point was that free trade is not always a path to prosperity. It can just as easily be a road to dependency. Britain was on the downswing in the late 19th century. The idea that the Confederacy would be flooded with British imports and that this would make the CSA rich is seriously misguided.
Here you go again trying to claim that events which happened *BECAUSE* of a war, would have happened without a war. Those other countries growing cotton only happened because of the war. With the Union navy cutting off supply, the manufacturers had no other choice than to pay higher prices and promote cultivation elsewhere.
Nonsense. British workers, consumers, manufacturers and officials started looking for alternative sources of cotton when they realized that they'd have to do so or they'd have to tie themselves to a country dedicated above all to the defense and promotion of slaveowning.
It's also not at all clear that the costs of growing cotton in other parts of the world would be greater than they were in the American South, when you take currency values and standards of living into account. I believe small scale chocolate growers in Africa were more than able to compete with plantation owners. The same could have been true for cotton.
Well there you go. This was after the war started, and everyone was trying whatever they could to win the war. You tried to make this analogous to the South invading other states without provocation, but that is clearly not the case here.
You asked me in the other post to point out the fallacies and illogicalities in your arguments. This is a great place to start. Formal hostilities had started, but if it took time for Confederate forces to violate Kentucky's self-declared neutrality then obviously "everyone" had not "been doing whatever they could to win the war" before that. What you are saying is illogical and special pleading for your personal favorites.
You could lose everything if you tried to go around the US government's designated shipping companies.
There were no US government designated shipping companies. You could set up your own if you wanted to, and many people did. Why anyone would want to favor foreigners over their fellow citizens is beyond me.
Tariffs weren't the whole picture. Government forced patronage resulted in a great deal of money going into the connected Northern pockets.
What "government forced patronage"? Companies that had invested in trade and had experience in doing so got business. Those who wanted to set up their own businesses could do so and did so. An awful lot of cotton was shipped from New Orleans directly to Europe (bypassing the coastal trade and the Navigation Acts). If imports came in through other ports it's because there was more of a market for them in cities with larger populations.
I don't know how often stuff like that was purchased, but my understanding is that the dominant things bought by the South were metal items and machines. Engines for their ships and trains as well as steel rails could have come from England, but for the protectionist policies forcing them to come from the North.
Did the bad Yankees also make them build railroads of different gauges? There was a lot of incompetence in 19th century railroad building, especially in the South. Others have argued that railroads didn't matter much because the South relied on river transport. A lot of people thought that way at the time. That, and not the evil Yankees was a major reason why railroad construction lagged behind in the slave states.
If they could easily undersell British products, why did they need the tariffs? Why did they need the "navigation act of 1817"? Why did they need all those laws passed to help them compete and why did they need subsidies?
Notice that I mentioned "an independent South." My point was that companies protected by tariffs and other restraints of trade (German and American in the late 19th century, Japanese in the late 20th century) earn their profits in the domestic market and can therefore afford to "dump" or sell products cheaply in foreign markets. If the South were an independent country, Northern manufacturers would be able to "dump" goods there and undercut British imports (or Southern manufacturers if the CSA didn't adopt protective tariffs of their own). If you go back and read carefully you may find that's what I said. But it goes against your whole theory, so it's not surprising that you missed it.
Why did they need the "navigation act of 1817"? Why did they need all those laws passed to help them compete and why did they need subsidies?
Pretend that you are an American, a concerned citizen of the United States, if you can. Why don't we throw off all restraints to foreign traders? Why don't we let Chinese ships carry goods between American ports? Why don't we just let them do everything for us and control our entire economy? What could possibly go wrong there? It's not hard to come up with an answer if you actually care about America.
Agree. Charles Dickens notes on America said that he met many Southern slaveowners who wanted out of the business but could not develop what they considered a workable plan for getting out of it. His advice? Just quit.
Agitation wouldn't stop because the slaveowners had their own country. Arguably it would have increased.
I think the social pressure was always going to increase, and I have long said that when the social pressure equalized with the reduced economic value of slavery, then *that* is when slavery would have ended naturally.
But here we are talking about slavery again, which I consider to be a complete dodge of the real issue of the war which was Northern domination and control of Southern economic output. Remember, they didn't care about slavery when they passed the Corwin amendment. They cared about continuing to keep the Southern economic output under their thumb.
The idea that the Confederacy would be flooded with British imports and that this would make the CSA rich is seriously misguided.
There were large tariffs on British (and other European) imports specifically because they were a threat to the much more politically powerful Northern interests. If people had the choice, they would buy the cheaper European goods for things they needed instead of paying for the higher priced goods that were inflated due to protectionist policies.
Selling cheaper goods in such a market is very likely to create great wealth because it would be taking that wealth away from the Northeastern wealthy. It appears axiomatic to me that the Southern merchants selling these goods and thereby displacing the Northeastern "robber barons" products would guarantee wealth for those who did it.
Nonsense. British workers, consumers, manufacturers and officials started looking for alternative sources of cotton when they realized that they'd have to do so or they'd have to tie themselves to a country dedicated above all to the defense and promotion of slaveowning.
They could have objected to slave owning by refusing to buy the product. They didn't. Now you may think people are really motivated by the milk of human kindness and that the British set up cotton plantations in Egypt and India out of concern for the poor slaves, but *I* believe people (and especially the British given what they have done in China and in India) are greed driven @$$holes who do what they do because they expect an increase in their own wealth and power. They were concerned about their manufacturing output, not about slaves. If you think otherwise, you are being deliberately naive.
It's also not at all clear that the costs of growing cotton in other parts of the world would be greater than they were in the American South, when you take currency values and standards of living into account. I believe small scale chocolate growers in Africa were more than able to compete with plantation owners. The same could have been true for cotton.
This is you looking for a Unicorn. You aren't going to beat slave labor with paid labor no matter how your currency values fluctuate. The only way Egyptian plantations could be made profitable was the forcible holding back of the Southern plantations.
This is a great place to start. Formal hostilities had started, but if it took time for Confederate forces to violate Kentucky's self-declared neutrality then obviously "everyone" had not "been doing whatever they could to win the war" before that.
Union forces took control of Missouri before that. For that matter, they pretty much occupied Maryland to prevent it from going over to the South. Both of these events happened before and in the very early states of the war.
The South was playing catchup when it attempted to go into Kentucky.
There were no US government designated shipping companies. You could set up your own if you wanted to, and many people did.
In the same manner you can set up your own Internet, social media platform, payment processing and banking centers.
The establishment inertia of the existing structures was far too great for any outside company to penetrate. Now to be clear, the government did not say "These are our official shipping companies", they rigged the laws in such a way that it had the same effect.
What "government forced patronage"?
You had to use Northeastern shipping companies or pay huge penalties for using anything else. These companies set their prices to just below what it would cost you to pay all the fines and penalties for using foreign shipping companies. They had an artificially created captive market.
Companies that had invested in trade and had experience in doing so got business. Those who wanted to set up their own businesses could do so and did so. An awful lot of cotton was shipped from New Orleans directly to Europe (bypassing the coastal trade and the Navigation Acts).
All of that shipping was controlled by New York. We've linked to many articles in the past that demonstrate this to be true, and I think even BroJoeK might admit that New York controlled all the cotton trade.
If imports came in through other ports it's because there was more of a market for them in cities with larger populations.
Once again, you are espousing a breakdown in your understanding of economics. It doesn't matter how big is your population or how urgent is their demand for products, if they don't have the *MONEY* they aren't buying the products. It is the people who have the *MONEY* who buy products, and that *MONEY* was coming from Southern exports to Europe.
How New York was getting all those imports was because they were getting the money away from the Southern producers.
That, and not the evil Yankees was a major reason why railroad construction lagged behind in the slave states.
I learned something a few months ago. Apparently Lincoln, when he was a member of the Illinois legislature, had been involved in this massive scheme for funding a railroad project in Illinois. From what I recall, it involved 13 million dollars, and was a complete boondoggle with the stated railroad infrastructure not getting built but with the taxpayers of Illinois still losing the 13 million dollars. A lot of Northern railroads were subsidized and created as government (including the Federal government) funded projects. You might also look at the railroad act of 1862 which Lincoln advocated and signed. Big payoff to his corporate Railroad buddies.
It is my understanding that Southern railroads were predominately paid for by private businesses, not government funding.
If the South were an independent country, Northern manufacturers would be able to "dump" goods there and undercut British imports
I understood the idea the first time you mentioned it, but clearly this would have cost them dearly compared to the profits they were making with the Federal protectionist policies creating higher prices for their goods. Even with your "dumping" idea, this still results in a massive loss of money for the Northeastern manufacturers compared to what they would have made with British products kept out by high tariffs.
If you go back and read carefully you may find that's what I said. But it goes against your whole theory, so it's not surprising that you missed it.
I didn't miss it, I didn't consider it a significant response for the reason I just mentioned above. Your "dumping" theory still results in a massive money loss for the Northeastern power barons.
Pretend that you are an American, a concerned citizen of the United States, if you can. Why don't we throw off all restraints to foreign traders? Why don't we let Chinese ships carry goods between American ports? Why don't we just let them do everything for us and control our entire economy?
I fully grasp the reasons for protectionist policies, and I have pondered the issues over the years. I note that the most strident Union (labor Union) protectionists all still bought Japanese television sets back in the 1980s instead of the much more expensive American made television sets.
What part of America do you believe deserves the most support? The producers of products or the Americans who need products?
Giving the producers higher prices is simply taking that money out of the pockets of Americans who need the products. Are these Americans of lesser value than those other Americans?
Now while we are on this topic, I will say that my position on this idea of protectionism has shifted over the years. Back in 1996 when Pat Buchanan was running for the nomination, he pointed out that foreign companies are not bound by our environmental rules, by our workplace safety rules, by our companies threats from litigation and various other difficulties our manufacturers face in making products in the USA.
He said he would institute a policy of adjusting tariffs on companies so that American companies would have an equal chance to sell products with foreign manufacturers. He said it is not fair to put all these regulation burdens on our manufacturers and then allow foreign companies the ability to escape these same burdens and then sell their products in the USA as a consequence of their lower production costs.
I think he makes a fair point. Our companies should not have to carry a heavier load and then be expected to compete with foreign companies which do not have to carry this same load.