ole wrote: Secession was ill-advised from the get go. I think the pushers knew that and went ahead anyway. The more I look into it, the more confused I get. There was a system that worked just fine. It was a system that could have been evolved more toward benefitting the south than the north, But it wasn't done. South Carolina had a good port in Charleston that needed only some improvement and maintenance. That wasn't done. Savannah? Ditto. There were no merchants to purchase, warehouse, and wholesale the imports. Why not? If you had the wherewithall, you invested in more land and more slaves. Something got derailed somewhere in there. Why wasn't there a merchant class in the south? Why didn't the imports flow into southern ports? The solution to the south's problems ought to have been obvious. Nothing was done to correct it. Why? Looks like I've screwd up the response.
Why was 'Union' valuable to the North, but not to the South?
Your're saying that the Union was not valuable to much of the South? That's pushing supposition a bit far, isn't it?
They did secede. With what amounts to criminal impetuosity. Do we need to go through the procedures state by state? More than a few states rammed secession through without consulting their people
Let's look at some reasons: * With secession the South controlled roughly 75% of the coastline.
And it was going to what with that coastline? There was no southern merchant fleet and,
There was a merchant fleet in Europe. You know, the ones that imported cotton You missed the part where that merchant fleet put into northern ports with its cargo, and went to southern ports to pick up cotton. How was that going to change?
with the exception of New Orleans, the ports were substandard.
A mattter that could changeI was a matter that "could" have changed at any time, but it wasn't. What makes you think it was a situation that could be turned around in a year?[/shadow]
Along that majority of coastline, recount for me the yards capable of building a sea-going vessel.
New Orleans, Mobile, Savannah, Charleston, and a few places in Virginia. Agreed. They COULD have established a shipyard. But they didn't. Any idea how long it takes to build a shipyard and staff it?[/shadow]
* The South controlled the outlet of the Mississippi River.
And when the river was closed, the northwestern farmers switched to railroads. The closing was damaging, but not a coup de gras.
Cost more.Yes, it did. And it irritated the farmers no end. How to win friends and influence people .... not.
* The profits the North derived from trade with the South was cut off- ...several hundred millions per year to zero.
What the North got from the south was cotton, tobacco, rice, and a dab of sugar ... and the shipping and financing thereof. (See above; no southern merchant fleet.)
Yes, that is part of what they lose. The shipping will be replaced by England, France, and others.
An English or French ship brings in the imports, returns to Europe with cotton. No Yankee middleman. No shipping, no commissions. No imports to sell South Those ports had decades of opportunity to work on that problem. The basic thing to overcome was that the goods were bought in the north and then transhipped to the few in the south that bought them. Imported goods go to merchants that buy; the south had little structure in the mercantile field. This was going to change overnight?
I'd agree that Northern income might suffer a dip, which was why the industrialists pleaded with Buchanan and Lincoln to not start a war, (they figured the business would come back)
That was their stance for a while until they finally realized how much they were going to lose. They were the ones who paid for the war. Correction: They were not the only ones who paid for the war. 620,000 paid for the war. The funds came from those who bought bonds. Upon the loss, Confederate bondholders got stiffed; Union bondholders got their money back. With whatever interest was promised.[/shadow]