Replies

I'm a little confused as to what Herbert is trying to say here. On page 148, after detailing the huge difference between the tariff collections in New York and the Southern ports, he says, "And a massive amount of the exports going out of New York were from Southern plantations." Is he saying that the reason for the tariff collections was because of the export of Southern goods? That doesn't make any sense.

I see you are still playing the same games you played in your previous FR life. Certainly the South provided the bulk of US exports back then, somewhere between 70 and 75 percent. Tariffs weren't collected by the US on exports from the US, but exports made it possible for the US to import goods from Europe. Without those Southern exports the US would have had a balance of payments problem.

Or is he saying that all that cotton and rice was shipped to New York and other northern ports for export? That is contradicted by the records of the time that show well over 90% of all cotton was exported from Southern ports. I imagine that the percentage for rice was the same.

Herbert doesn't say "all." He says on page 147, "Southern cotton exported to Europe did not typically go from Southern ports to Europe. It went from Southern ports to Northern ports to Europe." Perhaps one reason for that was that the North owned 80 percent or more of the registered shipping tonnage capacity in the US. It made sense for Northern shipping firms to drop off some cotton bales for Northern mills, then consolidate shipments to Europe before crossing the Atlantic. I have no doubt that cotton and rice originated in the South and the majority got shipped out of their ports, perhaps with other goods meant for the coastal trade. Where it went from those Southern ports is another question. Herbert provided the answer.

Others have commented on New York's role in the cotton trade. See Link for the following quote:

New York City, not just Southern cities, was essential to the cotton world. By 1860, New York had become the capital of the South because of its dominant role in the cotton trade. New York rose to its preeminent position as the commercial and financial center of America because of cotton. It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters. The trade with the South, which has been estimated at $200,000,000 annually, was an impressive sum at the time.

I see you are still playing the same games you played in your previous FR life.

Not sure what you mean by that, but I'm just asking questions on the source you provided. I assumed you had read it and knew the point the author was trying to make.

Certainly the South provided the bulk of US exports back then, somewhere between 70 and 75 percent.

No disagreement there. I've seen some sources that put it a little lower, and some that put it a little higher. Safe to say the South provided the overwhelming majortiy of U.S. exports.

Tariffs weren't collected by the US on exports from the US...

No disagreement there either.

...but exports made it possible for the US to import goods from Europe. Without those Southern exports the US would have had a balance of payments problem.

A balance of trade imbalance, yes. But impossible to import goods from Europe? I'm not sure I would agree with that. U.S. imports continued through the Civil War and afterwards with none of the South's pre-war exports or comparatively little.

Regardless, what was his point in linking exports with tariff revenue? Any idea?

Herbert doesn't say "all." He says on page 147, "Southern cotton exported to Europe did not typically go from Southern ports to Europe. It went from Southern ports to Northern ports to Europe."

Iread a book one time on blockade running that detailed that over 90% of all cotton exported from the U.S. left from Southern ports. Only about 5% or 6% was exported from New York and only a miniscule amount was exported from other U.S. ports. So I'd be curious on where Herbert got his figures from. Any idea?

Perhaps one reason for that was that the North owned 80 percent or more of the registered shipping tonnage capacity in the US. It made sense for Northern shipping firms to drop off some cotton bales for Northern mills, then consolidate shipments to Europe before crossing the Atlantic.

But then those goods would have been exported from New York, right? That doesn't agree with the source I mentioned.

Others have commented on New York's role in the cotton trade.

No disagreement with that, either. But your quote speaks of New York's role in the business end of the cotton trade. Banking. Insurance. Brokering. New York banks probably funded a lot of the cotton producers. New York companies insured the cotton and the New Yorkers no doubt owned many of the ships it travelled on. New York companies likely played a major role in selling the cotton overseas. Northerners did all that because Southern alternatives didn't exist. Still, that doesn't mean all that cotton flowed through the port of New York because it didn't make sense for it to do so. If it was destined for Europe then it made more sense for it to go from the closest Southern port direct to the continent. Wouldn't it?