Agree. Charles Dickens notes on America said that he met many Southern slaveowners who wanted out of the business but could not develop what they considered a workable plan for getting out of it. His advice? Just quit.
Agitation wouldn't stop because the slaveowners had their own country. Arguably it would have increased.
I think the social pressure was always going to increase, and I have long said that when the social pressure equalized with the reduced economic value of slavery, then *that* is when slavery would have ended naturally.
But here we are talking about slavery again, which I consider to be a complete dodge of the real issue of the war which was Northern domination and control of Southern economic output. Remember, they didn't care about slavery when they passed the Corwin amendment. They cared about continuing to keep the Southern economic output under their thumb.
The idea that the Confederacy would be flooded with British imports and that this would make the CSA rich is seriously misguided.
There were large tariffs on British (and other European) imports specifically because they were a threat to the much more politically powerful Northern interests. If people had the choice, they would buy the cheaper European goods for things they needed instead of paying for the higher priced goods that were inflated due to protectionist policies.
Selling cheaper goods in such a market is very likely to create great wealth because it would be taking that wealth away from the Northeastern wealthy. It appears axiomatic to me that the Southern merchants selling these goods and thereby displacing the Northeastern "robber barons" products would guarantee wealth for those who did it.
Nonsense. British workers, consumers, manufacturers and officials started looking for alternative sources of cotton when they realized that they'd have to do so or they'd have to tie themselves to a country dedicated above all to the defense and promotion of slaveowning.
They could have objected to slave owning by refusing to buy the product. They didn't. Now you may think people are really motivated by the milk of human kindness and that the British set up cotton plantations in Egypt and India out of concern for the poor slaves, but *I* believe people (and especially the British given what they have done in China and in India) are greed driven @$$holes who do what they do because they expect an increase in their own wealth and power. They were concerned about their manufacturing output, not about slaves. If you think otherwise, you are being deliberately naive.
It's also not at all clear that the costs of growing cotton in other parts of the world would be greater than they were in the American South, when you take currency values and standards of living into account. I believe small scale chocolate growers in Africa were more than able to compete with plantation owners. The same could have been true for cotton.
This is you looking for a Unicorn. You aren't going to beat slave labor with paid labor no matter how your currency values fluctuate. The only way Egyptian plantations could be made profitable was the forcible holding back of the Southern plantations.
This is a great place to start. Formal hostilities had started, but if it took time for Confederate forces to violate Kentucky's self-declared neutrality then obviously "everyone" had not "been doing whatever they could to win the war" before that.
Union forces took control of Missouri before that. For that matter, they pretty much occupied Maryland to prevent it from going over to the South. Both of these events happened before and in the very early states of the war.
The South was playing catchup when it attempted to go into Kentucky.
There were no US government designated shipping companies. You could set up your own if you wanted to, and many people did.
In the same manner you can set up your own Internet, social media platform, payment processing and banking centers.
The establishment inertia of the existing structures was far too great for any outside company to penetrate. Now to be clear, the government did not say "These are our official shipping companies", they rigged the laws in such a way that it had the same effect.
What "government forced patronage"?
You had to use Northeastern shipping companies or pay huge penalties for using anything else. These companies set their prices to just below what it would cost you to pay all the fines and penalties for using foreign shipping companies. They had an artificially created captive market.
Companies that had invested in trade and had experience in doing so got business. Those who wanted to set up their own businesses could do so and did so. An awful lot of cotton was shipped from New Orleans directly to Europe (bypassing the coastal trade and the Navigation Acts).
All of that shipping was controlled by New York. We've linked to many articles in the past that demonstrate this to be true, and I think even BroJoeK might admit that New York controlled all the cotton trade.
If imports came in through other ports it's because there was more of a market for them in cities with larger populations.
Once again, you are espousing a breakdown in your understanding of economics. It doesn't matter how big is your population or how urgent is their demand for products, if they don't have the *MONEY* they aren't buying the products. It is the people who have the *MONEY* who buy products, and that *MONEY* was coming from Southern exports to Europe.
How New York was getting all those imports was because they were getting the money away from the Southern producers.
That, and not the evil Yankees was a major reason why railroad construction lagged behind in the slave states.
I learned something a few months ago. Apparently Lincoln, when he was a member of the Illinois legislature, had been involved in this massive scheme for funding a railroad project in Illinois. From what I recall, it involved 13 million dollars, and was a complete boondoggle with the stated railroad infrastructure not getting built but with the taxpayers of Illinois still losing the 13 million dollars. A lot of Northern railroads were subsidized and created as government (including the Federal government) funded projects. You might also look at the railroad act of 1862 which Lincoln advocated and signed. Big payoff to his corporate Railroad buddies.
It is my understanding that Southern railroads were predominately paid for by private businesses, not government funding.
If the South were an independent country, Northern manufacturers would be able to "dump" goods there and undercut British imports
I understood the idea the first time you mentioned it, but clearly this would have cost them dearly compared to the profits they were making with the Federal protectionist policies creating higher prices for their goods. Even with your "dumping" idea, this still results in a massive loss of money for the Northeastern manufacturers compared to what they would have made with British products kept out by high tariffs.
If you go back and read carefully you may find that's what I said. But it goes against your whole theory, so it's not surprising that you missed it.
I didn't miss it, I didn't consider it a significant response for the reason I just mentioned above. Your "dumping" theory still results in a massive money loss for the Northeastern power barons.
Pretend that you are an American, a concerned citizen of the United States, if you can. Why don't we throw off all restraints to foreign traders? Why don't we let Chinese ships carry goods between American ports? Why don't we just let them do everything for us and control our entire economy?
I fully grasp the reasons for protectionist policies, and I have pondered the issues over the years. I note that the most strident Union (labor Union) protectionists all still bought Japanese television sets back in the 1980s instead of the much more expensive American made television sets.
What part of America do you believe deserves the most support? The producers of products or the Americans who need products?
Giving the producers higher prices is simply taking that money out of the pockets of Americans who need the products. Are these Americans of lesser value than those other Americans?
Now while we are on this topic, I will say that my position on this idea of protectionism has shifted over the years. Back in 1996 when Pat Buchanan was running for the nomination, he pointed out that foreign companies are not bound by our environmental rules, by our workplace safety rules, by our companies threats from litigation and various other difficulties our manufacturers face in making products in the USA.
He said he would institute a policy of adjusting tariffs on companies so that American companies would have an equal chance to sell products with foreign manufacturers. He said it is not fair to put all these regulation burdens on our manufacturers and then allow foreign companies the ability to escape these same burdens and then sell their products in the USA as a consequence of their lower production costs.
I think he makes a fair point. Our companies should not have to carry a heavier load and then be expected to compete with foreign companies which do not have to carry this same load.
Of course you do. Most people think your view is the complete dodge. It is. It was even a century and a half ago.
Remember, they didn't care about slavery when they passed the Corwin amendment.
It's been pointed out a thousand times that the Corwin Amendment didn't work because the slaveowners cared too much about slavery. Congress was willing to give them a guarantee but it wasn't enough for them.
But I reject the fallacy that because Northerners were willing to give slaveowners that guarantee they "didn't care" about slavery. They cared about keeping slavery out of the free states and territories. They cared about keeping the union together. You may "care" about things yet be willing to compromise and unwilling to give up everything to get your way.
There were large tariffs on British (and other European) imports specifically because they were a threat to the much more politically powerful Northern interests. If people had the choice, they would buy the cheaper European goods for things they needed instead of paying for the higher priced goods that were inflated due to protectionist policies.
You don't know that. European goods weren't necessarily better or cheaper. There were tariffs to develop American industry, to create jobs and to make the country stronger and less reliant on foreign manufacturers. Industry was very feeble at the beginning and couldn't have forced tariffs on the country.
They could have objected to slave owning by refusing to buy the product. They didn't.
They did, but you weren't paying attention. Lancashire cotton workers suffered terribly from cotton shortages, but they held meetings and circulated petitions and manifestos saying that they wouldn't work with slave cotton. That took guts. Politicians, diplomats, businessmen and colonial administrators weren't as visible but they recognized that trade with the slavers was unpopular and sought to get around it.
Now you may think people are really motivated by the milk of human kindness and that the British set up cotton plantations in Egypt and India out of concern for the poor slaves
Says the fellow who's always mentioning Charles Dickens. Like Dickens, Englishmen were capable of being horrible mercenary imperialists in some situations and also wanting to be or be considered loving humanitarians when it came to other matters.
You aren't going to beat slave labor with paid labor no matter how your currency values fluctuate. The only way Egyptian plantations could be made profitable was the forcible holding back of the Southern plantations.
The average Indian salary now is about $5000. The average Egyptian salary now is about $7000. People were even poorer back in the 1860s and survived on a lot less.
You sound almost gleeful thinking that slavery would always be cheaper and more profitable than free labor. But labor in many poorer countries wasn't that free. People were very poor and desperate for work. Landlords didn't need to feed and clothe them all year round -- only when they needed their work -- and they didn't have to invest large sums in buying workers. I'm not sure whether you'll be happy or disappointed to find out that slave labor wasn't always going to outcompete its competitors.
Union forces took control of Missouri before that. For that matter, they pretty much occupied Maryland to prevent it from going over to the South. Both of these events happened before and in the very early states of the war. The South was playing catchup when it attempted to go into Kentucky.
The Confederates definitely were trying break off slave territories in the US. They attacked Sumter and started the war because they recognized that Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee would join them if there was a war. Maryland and Missouri were still part of the US and the American government had the right to take steps to protect them. Kentucky was different. There had been an informal agreement to stay out and the Confederates broke the agreement. Big difference.
In the same manner you can set up your own Internet, social media platform, payment processing and banking centers.
Southerners did set up their own shipping enterprises. I have mentioned Charleston's Trenholm firm many times. There were others.
It is my understanding that Southern railroads were predominately paid for by private businesses, not government funding.
The tiniest bit of research would have paid off. Five or ten minutes would inform you that Southern states chartered and often financed railroads. The main North Carolina railroad was 75% state owned. Virginia bought about half the bonds of the states railroad companies and owned the original Blue Ridge Railroad outright. Alabama railroads benefited from federal land grants, like those in the West.
I don't know if Southern railroads got more state funding than Northern ones, but it seems likely, since Southerners weren't investing as much. There's no shame in government involvement: governments have always been involved with railroads because it's hard to acquire the right of way. But it is embarrassing to make claims that may not be true. Add to that the fact that slave labor largely built the railroads and that was quite a subsidy in itself.
Even with your "dumping" idea, this still results in a massive loss of money for the Northeastern manufacturers compared to what they would have made with British products kept out by high tariffs.
Doubtful. British products weren't necessarily better or cheaper or produced in such large quantities. Dumping worked at least in the short and medium run in many parts of the world. It's only sensible that more Northern goods would have made the rail trip down from Chicago than would have made the long transatlantic crossing. Neither would encourage Southern industry or lasting prosperity, though.
Giving the producers higher prices is simply taking that money out of the pockets of Americans who need the products. Are these Americans of lesser value than those other Americans?
It's creating jobs for Americans. In any case this wasn't the major issue it's made out to be. Americans didn't have much trouble balancing the wishes of producers and consumers. What happened in the 1850s and 1860s was that wealthy cotton and slave interests seized on passing complaints to try to tear the nation apart and get a country of their own.
There is much scholarship now focusing on the complex economic relations in antebellum America. North and South were closely linked and there were few heroes among the big economic actors. There was a very bizarre situation in which wealthy Southerners glorified in their cotton wealth, but also complained about poverty and complained that Northerners were moving head (at the South's expense) and leaving the South behind. It was a strange notion and obviously not a very rational one. You seem to have taken every complaint of the slaveowners at face value and found them justified. That's a pity. You could learn a lot if you didn't just parrot long discredited theories.
Sure, sure, that would have been true if the British who supposedly could undercut domestic producers and shippers had been let in. Good luck letting the British in and then trying to develop your own industries and shipping companies.
Most of the country doesn't make one part of the country into a permanent enemy. They recognize that businesses are very intertwined nationally and globally. They haven't fallen for the propaganda from slaveowning days.