The idea that the New York coalition had gamed the congress into passing laws that destroyed Southern shipping and ship building industries for the benefit of the New York controlled coalition, wasn't worthy of consideration, because it's just too easy and too satisfying to malign people you don't like anyways.
Not objective, but completely understandable from a human emotion sort of perspective.
Oh, and of course we trot out that Wigfall commentary. Another example of the preference for Union apologists to let one man speak for everyone else, simply because what that man said reinforces the narrative they wish to project; that slavery was the only thing people in the South wanted.
New York still ran the industry, and this allowed New York robber barons to basically control 230 million dollars of income in 1860. Control of money that would be removed from their grasp if the South became independent and was no longer constrained by laws favoring New York.
“laws that destroyed Southern shipping and ship building industries.”
If you were referring to the Navigation act, (you usually do) which sections of the law discriminate against Southern ship owners from transporting cargo from any port in the United State to any other port in the United States.
The Southern ship building industry did not die due to legislation it died due to a reluctance on Southern capital investors to invest in the technology to build ships with iron hulls and steam power. The Southern shipbuilding industry was competitive with Northern shipbuilding through the 1840s. As long as ships were wood hulled and sail powered. The South had bountiful resources in oak timber for hulls and tall straight pine for masts and spars. Their shipyards could build coastal ships as well as any in New England. But the ship building scene was changing, iron framed and plated hulls and steam power (either side-wheel or screw propeller)were replacing ships of wood and sail.
The South lacked the resources nearby such as iron ore, anthracite coal, iron foundries and machine shops to produce the structural shapes, plating, boilers and machinery that the new ships were being built out of.
Southern investors and entrepreneurs simply were unwilling to spend the money to build the foundries and mills to meet the needs for their ship building industry. It had absolutely nothing to do with any legislation out of DC
There was no southern shipping or shipbuilding industry to destroy. The south NEVER developed one.
Another example of the preference for Union apologists to let one man speak for everyone else, simply because what that man said reinforces the narrative they wish to project
It must be easy to make an argument when you simply wave away things you don't like, whether it be a southern politician and secessionist leader's statements, or the southern Declarations of Causes. .
Just to be clear, which statements by historical figures will you allow and which will you not allow?