But "specie" is included in this 1960 National Bureau of Economic Research "Trends in the American Economy in the Nineteenth Century" page 605, from the Conference on Research in Income and Wealth.
And there is no doubt that "specie" exports grew hugely from 1849, when gold was discovered in California through 1860.
And far from being economically insignificant, as you suggest, "specie" obviously had a huge effect on US balance of trade, and helped to pay for imports which our pro-Confederates always insist could only be bought from the earnings on Southern cotton, tobacco, hemp, sugar, etc.
Proof that pro-Confederate claims are not true came with the Civil War, which ended all Confederate states exports, but failed to end US foreign trade.
Doubtless "specie" exports are one reason why.
PeaRidge: "And it is spelled specie."
I note that you enjoy nit-picking, so I'll be sure to leave plenty of nits around for you to pick. ;-)
It might amuse you to learn the spell-checker only helps me to correct about 90% of my mistakes, so think how many nits you'd find if I turned it off!
PeaRidge: "Your they is Kettel, DeBow, United States Treasury, Dept. of Commerce, Statistical History of the US and the US Census.
Are you saying all of them are making a mistake and you are not? Really? No kidding??"
Doubtless they did careful work, but, for example, cotton today is grown in such non-former-Confederate states as Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico and Arizona.
Tobacco is grown in Northern states like Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Ohio and Indiana.
Yes, sugarcane was/is only grown in the Deep South, but has never been exported, due to foreign competition.
And everything else you listed as "Southern Exports" was more likely to have been produced outside the Deep or Upper South.
PeaRidge: "The offloads if destined other non domestic ports would be inventoried and temporally stored.
But the value of those products would not be entered into the US Treasury records as being part of US commerce."
But your argument here is that I must be including such transactions, because my numbers are higher than yours.
I'm saying, based on what seem to me entirely legitimate numbers, if we don't look at "specie", then there is no way to understand what was really going on.
Just to pick on 1860, as an example:
Bottom line: you cannot discount "specie" as an important trade factor in 1860.
PeaRidge: "Those figures are accurate.
They originate with data from the US government.
And the percentages are accurate."
No, those figures, as you interpret them, are inaccurate and incomplete, as I've demonstrated.
Your comment: "But 'specie' (data) is included in this 1960 National Bureau of Economic Research “Trends in the American Economy in the Nineteenth Century page 605."
Your statement is only partly correct and likely intended to mislead. “Specie” data is a part of the chart, but not included in the export data as you have been attempting to prove.
Even your own chart and report states flatly that the Treasury reports stopped combining specie with goods in 1821. And YOUR OWN report gives the reason for factoring out the specie data from merchandise: "The overwhelming importance of merchandise trade during this period makes accurate import and export values essential" pg.601
Specie was exported, i.e. shipped overseas but was not included in either export or import data for the purposes of studying and tracking the overall trade process.
You go on to say: “And there is no doubt that “specie” exports grew hugely from 1849, when gold was discovered in California through 1860."
That is nonsense. Specie export had nothing to do with "discovery" or mines in California. Specie was transferred for debt and partly a function of supply.
You said: “And far from being economically insignificant, as you suggest (which I did not, Brojoke), “specie” obviously had a huge effect on US balance of trade, and helped to pay for imports which our pro-Confederates always insist could only be bought from the earnings on Southern cotton, tobacco, hemp, sugar, etc.”
Brojoke, specie was not, I REPEAT NOT, part of the trade picture, and was not used to buy products. Here AGAIN from your own report is a brief explanation of the report on specie: "Interest and dividend payments to foreigners represent the largest single debit after imports, mainly for the interest charge upon state securities in the early period, with little for U.S. Bank stock and private securities." (583)
When you make wild statements like “had a huge effect on US balance of trade” you are making things up out of whole cloth.
You already said you don't understand it, so here goes: Specie was precious metals, partly owned by the US Treasury, partly by private interests, and partly by overseas entities. It was being sent overseas to pay Federal debt and interest payments. The Federal debt had grown immensely during the 1850s, and Treasury was paying the loans back.
There were also large investments in railbonds and banking stocks that were being paid back to overseas investors.
So that you will understand, here is a a quote from your own National Bureaus of Economic Research from page 627:
"The estimate of Ezra Seaman in Hunt's Merchants’ Magazine (December 1857, p. 664) is on top of a rough balance of payments estimate in which he has an aggregate indebtedness of $393.5 million in 1857. He goes on to say that U.S. debt was certainly not $450 million, maybe $425 million, but at least $400 million. He considered that over onethird of it was mercantile debt and almost two-thirds securities indebtedness which accounts for the figures of $150 million and $250 million respectively. Cleona Lewis's (p. 522) estimate of short-term indebtedness in 1857 at $155 million was discussed above.
Now I know that the paragraph is out of context, but given to you so that you could see the amount of debt and that YOUR own report shows specie being sent to Europe to pay DEBT, not product.
Then pulling out your whole cloth again, you say about your ill-conceived comments above: “Proof that pro-Confederate claims are not true came with the Civil War, which ended all Confederate states exports, but failed to end US foreign trade. Doubtless “specie” exports are one reason why.”
That is a class one non-sequitur and has nothing in your reference material to support that.
Then you credited me with telling you that: “And it is spelled specie”, while adding that: “I note that you enjoy nit-picking, so I'll be sure to leave plenty of nits around for you to pick. ;-).
That was mentioned to you to let you know that I realize that you are not reading any of your own sources. If you had read what you were quoting and from where you were drawing supercilious conclusions, you would have seen that word "specie" dozens of times and would have known how to spell it.
When you wax: “No, those figures, as you interpret them, are inaccurate and incomplete, as I've demonstrated.”, that is nuts.
What you demonstrated is that you think you are using data from a report you cite to refute what was given you.
What you fail to notice is that the data I gave you was from the exact same source as your paper....”The Statistical History of the United States”. If you will look at your own report, you will see the Statistical History cited and quoted in a dozen locations, INCLUDING YOUR FAVORITE CHART.
Brojoke, you are factually retarded, and gifted in posting canards.