The core subject was whether or not Northerners feared establishment of Southern commerce and international trade, thus circumventing what had become (effectively) an abusive monopoly.
Outlined from Pearidge:
1. New York was the center for international trade.
2. Their position was strengthened by federal restrictions.
3. Their domination of shipping led to extortionate rates (40 cents/dollar).
4. The South intended to make necessary improvments to compete (Charleston Harbor).
Non and Heyworth attempted to discredit the argument by claiming that Southern participation was well established prior to secession (the point currently engaged).
Mac_truck, in addition to cheerleading and sniping, has emphasized that laws favorable to trade did not exclude Southerners, thus could not have strengthened the position of an established giant such as New York (a non-sequitur).
Heyworth (1076) argues that "busy" is somehow a measure of international trade, to the point where it requires inclusion of intra-continental shipping of goods upriver from New Orleans - also a non-sequitur.
Odd that the only argument that has not been a non-sequitur came from, yes, non-sequitur.
BTW, what have you got against rodeo clowns?
Bwahahaha!
I just quoted Pearidge directly on what the core subject was clown-boy, remember? Right after you told Heyworth that...
" Nobody said this. Anywhere. Ever."
After making such an uninformed mis-statement, I'd say your ability to define what we're debating here is..zilch.
Now run along and get lost would ya...?
If that's the case, then you and Pea haven't come close to making it. The fact that New Orleans and Charleston saw a busy international trade, and that no laws specifically prevented the south from participating in the shipping business makes the position untenable. Moreover, those tensions had existed for decades, but it was only with the election of Lincoln that the south seceded, endlessly citing the protection of slavery and rarely mentioning these other factors that you champion. Apart from a couple of NY newspaper editorials, you haven't shown anything about the north fearing southern competition in commerce and international trade. Pea's whole discussion of the dredging of Charleston harbor somehow panicking New York interests, for example, is utterly without support other than his say-so.
Heyworth (1076) argues that "busy" is somehow a measure of international trade, to the point where it requires inclusion of intra-continental shipping of goods upriver from New Orleans - also a non-sequitur.
No, quite the opposite. I excluded the 3000+ steamboats docking in N.O. in those years. It's Pea who insisted that the number presented included those arrivals. But his argument only makes sense if you believe that only 300-some steamboats docked at New Orleans in 1859-60. And yeah, I think that a busy port is a pretty good indicator that it's doing well. When close to 2000 ocean-going ships are coming in and out of a harbor in a year (not to mention those steam boats), I think that any argument that southern ports were somehow not involved in international trade because they were being crushed by the New York capitalists kinda falls apart.
And you pinged me why?