Replies

I believe it is apparent with the exhaustive list from Bacon on American shipping in the 1840s to 1850s that some points have been proved and some issues rendered irrelevant.

During this time, conversion from sail and side paddle to screw for intercontinental shipping was rapidly occurring, largely in the U.S. due to Federal subsidies that heavily encouraged and financed ship building.

Of course, this business, as shown, went to the North either to established shipping companies, or to those that were well connected and directly financed in New York.

It also appears that anyone connected to overseas trade accepted this government-private business relationship in the beginning due to the advantages to be gained over the English competitors.

It is also very clear that the relationship between the ship owner and the Southern grower became much more remote due to the intervention of factors and intermediary shippers. Thus , many growers just accepted the slowly increasing costs of getting product to buyer due to inability to manage costs directly.

This set the state for Northern shipping interests to gain a large measure of control when the warehousing act was passed.

The posts that were filled with rhetoric and photographs of the a coastal ship owned by a Southern shipper that attempted to make a point about Southern shipping development not being excluded by law were neither true nor applicable to the premise you presented.

The Navigation Law did, in fact, prohibit any American interest from buying a fully rigged sailing ship from a foreign builder. Therefore, anyone interesting in building that type of company would have to deal with American shipbuilders located in the North or build from scratch.

The argument that was continually being made was that Southern ship building was not prohibited, but the other side of the issue was never raised...and that being that just because a law does not exist does not mean that other factors did not weigh against Southern ship building.

As you saw in Bacon's descriptions, New York banking was the source of some revenue in shipbuilding, with Federal subsidies essentially being the collateral for loans. I can name only one ship owner in the South that had that type of relationship with banking in 1840.

Nevertheless, Southern interests became involved in the Coastal and River trade which grew New Orleans, Galveston, Mobile, and Charleston.

It was initially, and not by design, more of a free market symbiotic relationship, until the speed of the British ships forced the industry into government hands.

That was the beginning of the decline of Southern profits as control moved away from the growers.

Numbers regarding the value of Southern goods produced and exported have been thrown out without regard to accuracy. In order to fully appreciate the concern and apprehension of Northern business and the new President, the figures are presented from the original sources:

The US Treasury and Congressional Borrowing as reported to the US Congress in Dec. of 1859:

In preparation for the President’s state of the union report, Howell Cobb (of Georgia), the Secretary of the Treasury (Buchanan Administration), reported to Congress that based on projected spending, there would be dramatic increases in the debt of the government.

In his state of the Union report of December 5, 1859, President Buchanan’s Secretary of the United States Treasury issued his report stating that for fiscal year 1859, the total revenue of the US Treasury was $88,090,787. This was misleading, because $28,185,000 was ‘income’ from government borrowing. The actual total revenue from tariffs, and less the funds from the sale of public lands was $49,566,000. Tariff revenue contributed 92% of the total revenue of the country.

But the Congress spent $69,071,000, which was 29% more than it took in.

The value of total US exports for the year was $278,902,000. The value of the exports grown or produced in the South was 74% of the total. In order to understand the contribution of Southern agriculture to the trade, and thus tariff and taxation structure of the entire country, the following chart shows the percentage of the total value of exports contributed by the South for the year of 1859:

..................U. S. Department of Commerce
.................Agricultural Production of the South
........................Yearly Detail 1859

Value of : ......Cotton .........$161,434,000
.....................Tobacco ...........21,074,000
.....................Rice ....................2,207,000
.....................Naval stores........3,694,000
.....................Sugar.....................196,000
.....................Molasses.................75,699
......................Hemp.......................9,227
......................Other................8,108,000
__________________________
Total ...........................$196,797,926

Value of Southern manufactured
Cotton exports......................................... 4,989,000
Value of cotton component of Northern
Manufactured cotton exports (60%)..........3,669,000

_________________________

Total value of all Southern products.........................$205,455,926
Percentage of Southern Production to
the total US exports for 1859 of $278,392,000.

........................74%

PeaRidge: "During this time, conversion from sail and side paddle to screw for intercontinental shipping was rapidly occurring, largely in the U.S. due to Federal subsidies that heavily encouraged and financed ship building."

In fact, considering the many hundreds of ships used in 1850s US trade, those "subsidies" were minimal, applying to only a handful of the fastest carrying US mail, and even then did not cover all their costs, as evidenced by the bankruptcy of some owners.
So this whole "subsidized Northern shipping" meme is just a canard.

PeaRidge: "Of course, this business, as shown, went to the North either to established shipping companies, or to those that were well connected and directly financed in New York."

As your own post #640 shows, some of those owners came from Cincinnati and Philadelphia.
Ownership of the Charleston Line, you say, was strictly New Yorker Anson Phelpsz, but there's no reason to assume that wealthy investors from Charleston itself would not seek opportunities in a profitable firm with their own city's name on it.
If, that is, shipping was as profitable as you imply.

PeaRidge: "Thus , many growers just accepted the slowly increasing costs of getting product to buyer due to inability to manage costs directly."

In fact, relative to the prices paid for cotton, shipping costs declined as ships, on average, grew bigger and faster.
Indeed, the undisputed profitability of cotton growing can be measured in the dramatic increases in both numbers and prices of slaves.

PeaRidge: "This set the state for Northern shipping interests to gain a large measure of control when the warehousing act was passed."

Oh, yes, the 1846 US Warehousing Act, proposed by former Mississippi Democrat Senator, then US Secretary of Treasury under Tennessee Democrat President Polk -- that Warehousing Act.
The Federal act, along with the lower Walker Tariff, so inimical to Southern interests it... what?
Well, it was supported by Southern Democrats, opposed by Northern Whigs.

PeaRdige: "The posts that were filled with rhetoric and photographs of the a coastal ship owned by a Southern shipper that attempted to make a point about Southern shipping development not being excluded by law were neither true nor applicable to the premise you presented."

No, they are both true and applicable, your repeated denials notwithstanding.

PeaRidge: "Therefore, anyone interesting in building that type of company would have to deal with American shipbuilders located in the North or build from scratch."

And you have a problem with putting America First, why, exactly?

PeaRidge: "...just because a law does not exist does not mean that other factors did not weigh against Southern ship building."

But there was only one other factor which truly mattered: relatively fewer Southerners invested in the risky business of ship building, owning & operating because they had much better investments readily available for their funds: the highly profitable cotton production business.

PeaRidge: "I can name only one ship owner in the South that had that type of relationship with banking in 1840."

Remember, in the 1850s there were many hundreds of ships, of all categories and sizes, required for US commerce.
A mere handful were "subsidized" by government.
The rest made it, or failed, on their own.
The equivalent today would be our truckers, some owned by large corporations, but many owner-operators.
If you ever listened in on a CB, you know how many are Southerners.
So there's no reason to think there were not many Southerners transporting US products in the 1850s.

PeaRidge: "It was initially, and not by design, more of a free market symbiotic relationship, until the speed of the British ships forced the industry into government hands.
That was the beginning of the decline of Southern profits as control moved away from the growers."

A total fantasy, fabricated out of thin air, no confirming evidence whatsoever.
As with most of the Lost Causer mythology.

Mississippi Democrat Senator & Secretary of Treasury who proposed the 1846 Warehousing Act:

Tennessee Democrat President Polk who signed both the Warehousing Act and Walker Tariff.