Why are the Deep South’s sea ports not that populated compared to NYC and Boston?
Houston has 1/10th of NYC’s population

New York is a convenient port for shipping between the US and Europe and California is a convenient port for shipping between the mainland US and East Asia. Who the fuck is the South going to trade with? Mexico? lmao

>>17903033 (OP)
wrong latitudes
NYC is on about the same latitude as places as relevant as Rome, Beijing and most importantly my country Georgia

>>17903033 (OP)
the coastal areas of the deep south are all swampy shitholes

>>17903082
>relevant
>"my country Georgia"
The US State of Georgia has a larger population and economy than the Country of Georgia lmao

>>17903082
Ah yes, the lovely straight line that you can sail between Beijing and New York

A lot of big cities in the south boomed in the air conditioned post WWII era when water transportation was not as important. Dallas/Ft. Worth and Atlanta aren’t even on navigable rivers. Port cities like New Orleans and Charleston were once major American cities but with the decline of shipping they’re now running on past nostalgic glory. New York has the best natural harbor on the Atlantic which spurred centuries of growth but the economy there now has very little to do with shipping. All those containers pouring into Los Angeles full of Chinese consoomer goods make up a small percentage of local economic activity. It’s not On the Waterfront where armies of burly men are needed to move shit around.

>>17903033 (OP)
>Houston has 1/10th of NYC’s population

Only if you compare Houston proper to the Greater NYC area.

Houston is a lot more sprawling and spread out. Greater Houston is only about 1 million less than NYC proper.

>>17903033 (OP)
New York has a near perfect location for a sea port. It became big for a reason

Don't believe these retards. What fueled the north was their obsession with infrastructure spending that they could skim off the top of and enrich themselves with. They followed a French philosopher I can't remember the name of where they believed that productivity was infinite and you just need to keep putting in infrastructure to ensure that.

Political machines revolve around ports and the larger the port the more wealthy the machine. So of course the machine would be interested in expansion. Not only that but the state, even if it disagreed with the machine that ran the often left wing port, would want them to continue doing what they were doing in order for them to gain power from it.

One of the main things they were doing was probably smuggling, but they were definitely profiting off of the importation of state welfare dependants and they were using them to increase their population in for representatives in the house

>>17903964
>projecting modern liberal politics onto the 1850s republican party
Right. Now tell me what caused the Fall of Rome.

>>17903991
>He thinks Whigs have changed at all in 400 years

Cause New England was far more populous and wealthy than Texas for the last 300 years.

New Orleans was a very major port back in the 18th century, since it sat on the Mississippi River which was the main artery of trade into the continental US west of the Appalachian mountains. Basically, if you wanted to send goods to or from the Midwest it was cheaper to float it down the Mississippi and ship out from New Orleans than to try crossing Appalachian hinterland by wagon.

Then they built the Erie Canal, finished in 1825, and there was a more or less straight waterway connecting the Midwest to the Atlantic Ocean through New York, and trade became even more focused in New England.

There's also the fact that New England was industrialized, so it produced a ton of manufactured goods while also consuming a lot of raw materials for making those goods. The South, meanwhile, was a largely agrarian export economy. Their ports were busy shipping out cash crops and the like, but the only thing the south imported in huge numbers for 200 years was slaves.

>>17903082
Who would forget Georgia when discussing maritime history? Not I.

>>17904048
You can argue they were expansionist without trying to paint them as liberals. Economic expansion to meet yet-undefined demand, and monetary expansion to keep pace with the global economy are two fundamentally different ideas.

>>17904090
You sound like a retarded commie

>>17904177
I'm not bashing monetarism, so no.

>>17904082
>There's also the fact that New England was industrialized, so it produced a ton of manufactured goods while also consuming a lot of raw materials for making those goods. The South, meanwhile, was a largely agrarian export economy. Their ports were busy shipping out cash crops and the like, but the only thing the south imported in huge numbers for 200 years was slaves.


this is cope, the reason the south seceded ideologically was because of the north's tariffs, through an elaborate scheme the money that the "federal" government was taxing out of the south was ending up in northern banks and then used to fund northern infrastructure projects. The south was having to pay upwards of double the price for certain items and this was to pay for northern rail etc.

They were also more industrialized than most of europe which is another reason why lincoln decided to invade and cut the head off the snake, turning the US into a failed state empire where might is right

>>17904197
>the ideological difference was tariff policy
>something that can be lobbied pretty damn easily
>not the wage/electoral politics surrounding slavery
>perhaps the single thing the southerners cared about retaining, even after they lost
>all of this cope is totally about 160-year old tariff policy

>>17904231
Tariff policy and territory division. Simple things to upkeep in an expanding state, something the north apparently didn't like. The original purpose of tariffs was to punish England for still treating the US like a colony and to fund the war. Not to have high during peace. The Democrat republicans like Henry Clay were essentially bought by northern interests to push for a central bank and permanently high tariff rates as they saw it heavily benefited them. So what was once the party of neutrality became the federalist party reborn. This is what caused people to elect Jackson to destroy the bank.

>>17904241
...Are you just pretending not to see the issue that comes with crashing wages and maintaining a low tariff policy in half of your country?
You might as well be a British colony for all the good that actually does.
Just a way for British merchants to own slaves without having to sign their names on any documents.

>>17904251
>yeah crank up the taxes on the people settling the country for you
lol okay, oh wait that's probably on purpose because they'd rather drain the south and west dry than have it exist for a reason other than their own benefit

>>17903033 (OP)
I live in North Carolina which isn't deep south but still very much a southern state. I know for a fact our coastal waters tend to be very shallow and unfit for large or deep boats. Which is why for a long time shipping went to Charleston (south of us in SC) or Norfolk (north of us in VA) because they had deeper water. Most of the coast is on a very shallow part of the continental shelf with sandy bottoms that shift around, which is why we have a lot of barrier islands, the Outer Banks, and is is also one of the less developed areas on the Eastern seaboard of the US for this reason.
Our only "major" port is Wilmington and even then it's not a particularly large city compared to places like Charlotte or Raleigh-Durham.

>>17904258
>yeah crank up the taxes on the people settling the country for you
Do you mean the homesteaders, or the slaves, who obviously pay no taxes because they have no income?
Either way, you're retarded and your identity is just a front for British companies that likely don't exist anymore. Anyone can see that the Northern industrialists were right in every sense.
Everything that followed the Civil War proves that in ways CSAtards will never reconcile with.

>>17904272
tariffs increase the prices farmers have to pay for goods. It's a tax that politicians can vote for that the average retard wouldn't understand. it's not income taxes.

the entire history of the US is the over-extension of settlers without enough resources. the north pushed for this type of development by colonizing the midwest with the eerie canal and railroads. What this meant was that if you were going to be successful you had to give your money to the railroad/canal company to get the land in the nice areas. Then the railroad would deliver massively price inflated goods and tell you it was "tariffs or something" and you would be forced to pay it. This was why industrial magnates were called robber barons.

This would eventually lead to the main trade ways along these railroads to become industrialized themselves and the farmers would be shifted further and further west until you get to minnesota and it's just a bunch of swedes and germs

during the civil war most of the people that fought the south were from the midwest and most of these people were settlers from the south. there was also just a massive bank panic and a lot of people lost their farms in the midwest so they would be drawn to military service for a steady meal

>>17904307
>tariffs increase the prices farmers have to pay for goods
Yeah, I know, but that's obviously not going to be proportional, especially when you're a low-income country still in the process of building up an industrial base.
>the entire history of the US is the over-extension of settlers without enough resources. the north pushed for this type of development by colonizing the midwest with the eerie canal and railroads. What this meant was that if you were going to be successful you had to give your money to the railroad/canal company to get the land in the nice areas. Then the railroad would deliver massively price inflated goods and tell you it was "tariffs or something" and you would be forced to pay it.
Obviously, if the goods aren't imported, that's not an issue.
>This would eventually lead to the main trade ways along these railroads to become industrialized themselves and the farmers would be shifted further and further west until you get to minnesota and it's just a bunch of swedes and germs
Oh, would you look at that? Successful economic policy. Brazil averted.
>during the civil war most of the people that fought the south were from the midwest and most of these people were settlers from the south. there was also just a massive bank panic and a lot of people lost their farms in the midwest so they would be drawn to military service for a steady meal
Is there a point you're trying to make? It sounds like you're just vaguely complaining in the direction of Northerners and tariff policy, but you're failing to make a case.

>>17904323
>It's not an issue giving land to industrialists for free which exceeded the value of what they were creating
It was to the south

>>17904353
>It's not an issue giving land to industrialists for free which exceeded the value of what they were creating
Physical goods are not the concern of the state. People and their welfare are.
Tax-evading slavers don't create jobs. Industrialists do.

>>17903033 (OP)
>Houston has 1/10th of NYC’s population

You miss understand things when you compar a southern city to cities like NYC and Boston. Those places have undergone consolidation with the smaller cities around them, that is not the case with southern cities most of the time.

Thus you need to compare metro areas to metro areas. NYC metro is 23.5 million and Houston's is 7.12 million. Thus a bit under 1/3. When you start looking at it that way southern cities are still a good deal smaller then northern cities but not at the same level a first glance would give.

I think the honest truth it that newer ports generally are more functional and thus need fewer people to keep them going. The port of Houston moves a lot more tonnage per year then the port of NYC.

>>17904359
How is "the state" giving hundreds of millions of acres to industrialists for free about general welfare?

>17904407
No more (You)s, CSAfag.

>>17904420
Brown and dumb

>>17903964
>The north is le corrupt
I’ve been to both and I can say with certainty that both regions are controlled by a small selection of families only the South also has a ghettoized underclass of black/white hybrids

>>17904197
Tariffs are good commie. MAGA and cry about it

>>17904636
thanks for the input ellis island brownoid

>>17903033 (OP)
>Why are the Deep South’s sea ports not that populated compared to NYC and Boston?
Houston and Miami are both significantly larger cities than Boston.

>>17904659
t. Jamal Smith

>>17903033 (OP)
The Lower South is mostly swamp and the Upper South is the Graveyard of the Atlantic.

>>17903082
Georgia superpower 2030

Galveston was growing into a large and prosperous port city in the late 1800s and might have become one of America's great ports, but it got wiped off the map by a hurricane in 1900. It had to be rebuilt from scratch and never really recovered.

>>17903043
Mexico, central america, colombia, brazil, argintina, chile and Bolivia. All those places have tons of farmland and recources like gold and copper.

>>17904059
Pretty sure oil changed texas alot. Without oil texas would still be texas. But with 1/3 less gdp.

>>17903033 (OP)

I always imagined that if the Confederates had won the Civil War, ports like Savannah, New Orleans, and Houston would be aggressively competing with their Northern counterparts to have cheaper imports and docking fees.

>>17905243
>third world shithole, third world shithole, third world shithole, third world shithole, third world and shithole. All those places have virtually no relevant exports.
Cool beans man
I think the bigger issue though is the Gulf of America just doesn't make as much sense for shipping routes, ships need to go to port, turn around and navigate around Florida before heading North towards Europe. The US Eastern Seaboard just makes more sense, ships can travel up along the coast until they reach Northern Latitudes and then head for Europe. Shipping profit margins are too small for them to be wasting fuel dicking around the Gulf. The Gulf states are more known for Cruise ships

>>17905350
>Hypothetical country ruled by slave dependent planters who are ideologically opposed to the idea of industry and whose main political project is to Larp as medieval European feudal lords.
>Building up port infrastructure and industry.

>>17905378
>why would a country dependent on bulk cotton exports build up ports to load the cargo ships to send it overseas and import amenities

It's truly a mystery...

>>17905369
>I think the bigger issue though is the Gulf of America just doesn't make as much sense for shipping routes
Pre-Panama canal yes but not post.

>the Gulf of America