DiogenesLamp:
"The import export equation must balance. You can play games with the history, but you can’t play games with math." Sure, but only broadly speaking.
In fact, in the 1850s the US usually ran large trade deficits, typically $50 million per year.
These were paid for by exports of specie (i.e., gold) which brought the books back into balance.
So, for example, in 1860 total exports of goods and specie came to around $400 million, of which cotton was just under $200 million or 50%.
These paid for imports of $377 million, leaving a trade/specie surplus about $23 million.
Bottom line big picture: hundreds of large cargo ships in dozens of ports from Galveston, Texas through Norfolk, Virginia picking up cotton for direct shipment to Europe.
Yes, sure, some of it was accumulated in smaller coastal packet ships, but they would carry it no further than the closest deep-water port.
Large ocean-going ships carry cotton directly to Europe, not through New York.
After delivering their load, like any good truckers today, they looked for return loads, and they delivered those loads to the ports which would buy them.
And those would be New York, or Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore or Boston, certainly not backwater Charleston, SC.
Point is: all of these commercial relationships were voluntary, people had many choices and selected those which made the most sense to them.
If they chose Southern owned shippers over Northern carriers, that was their business.
Cotton packet ship, Atlantic crossing ship:
This message from you is more rational than most, so I'll wade in.
Sure, but only broadly speaking. In fact, in the 1850s the US usually ran large trade deficits, typically $50 million per year. These were paid for by exports of specie (i.e., gold) which brought the books back into balance.
You've mentioned specie many times in your rebuttals, but specie is more a product of California and Nevada, and therefore does not have anything to do with trade which was the bone of contention between the North and South.
So, for example, in 1860 total exports of goods and specie came to around $400 million, of which cotton was just under $200 million or 50%. These paid for imports of $377 million, leaving a trade/specie surplus about $23 million.
But specie does not belong in the equation. It is not a replenishable resource and does not represent any value of Northern produced goods. Specie export cannot be sustained indefinitely as a major component of trade balance.
The only question that matters is how much foreign trade represented as a percentage of the New York/New England economy. Stuff mined in California and Nevada was irrelevant to the New York/New England economic engine.
Bottom line big picture: hundreds of large cargo ships in dozens of ports from Galveston, Texas through Norfolk, Virginia picking up cotton for direct shipment to Europe. Yes, sure, some of it was accumulated in smaller coastal packet ships, but they would carry it no further than the closest deep-water port. Large ocean-going ships carry cotton directly to Europe, not through New York.
Where it originated and where it went and how it got there is irrelevant to the point that New York controlled it and made a sizable chunk of money off of it.
The only components that matter are those that change with Southern Independence. By splitting into another nation, the South could use foreign ships and crews to move their goods, and thereby avoid the artificially inflated prices the New England shipping people were charging them. They could buy foreign products at lower prices than they were receiving from the "protected" products of Northern manufacturers. They would have not only gotten more money for their exports, they would have gotten cheaper prices on their imports than they would otherwise receive. (Their money would have gone further. It was a double benefit.)
Likewise, the Southern Ship building industry would have been given a shot in the arm too, and so would have Southern Banks, Insurance companies, Warehouses, factories and everything else.
Economic Independence for the South represented a *DIRE* threat to existing interests in New England. The loss of trade was just the immediate impact. The eventual creation of competing industries was another, and even more deadly threat to the well connected Elite of New York.
Point is: all of these commercial relationships were voluntary, people had many choices and selected those which made the most sense to them. If they chose Southern owned shippers over Northern carriers, that was their business.
And this is the only weak point that I haven't yet been able to nail down. Why did the Southern Shipping/Ship Building industry languish? Was the Northern Shipping / Ship Building industries utilizing unethical tactics (such as undercutting every bid for a Southern built ship) in order to keep Shipping under the control of the North?
That the South didn't use much of it's own ships or shipping industries is pretty evident. *WHY* they didn't use their own ships and shipping industries is not.