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.