Looking for a source on imports

cedarstripper

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
1,275
Location
western New York
#41
U.S. Mail coming in and out of the country was required to go through the Port of New York. Packets were being paid to take mail to Europe in otherwise empty ships, where they loaded manufactures and transported them home at the going rate.
The first mail packet contracts went to Cunard line for service out of Boston. They didn't start shipping out of NY until 1848.

They figured out they could take Southern cotton (and other commodities) at rock-bottom prices with them and they did so. It's because of this that goods were shipped to New York, unloaded on the docks and re-loaded onto ships whose passages to Europe were being subsidized by the Postal Service.
Mail contracts with the US Government for transAtlantic packet service were only made for steamship service. These steamships carried mostly mail and passengers and some limited cargo of typically higher value than raw product. That was the value of the ocean steamer packet service - departure and arrivals on a somewhat fast and timely service - something not necessary for bales of cotton which typically shipped by sailships which could haul larger loads.

You might be confusing ocean steamer packet service with coastal packets, which did routinely haul cotton to northern ports, and as it was discovered, despite having a relatively shallow draught did a fair job in transAtlantic service too.

If you have examples of steamer mail packets under contract with the Navy of Post Office hauling cotton, I would be interested in them.

Even if mail packets had hauled cotton out of NYC, in the cotton shipping season (Oct - March) of 1859-60 for example, there were only four lines hauling mail - the Cunard Line, the Vanderbilt Line, the Havre Line and the Inman Line and a combined total between all four of only 44 departures - 34 to Liverpool and 10 to le Havre. That doesn't put much of a dent in the approx. 4.5 million bales of cotton exported from the US.
 
Last edited:

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#44
FWIW Link to Google Book

here is a chart that included imports by American as well as foreign vessels. Sometimes in the tariff arguments, the assertion is made, but the goods were transferred to the South after paying duties, therefore, the South indirectly paid vast amounts of duties. This exhibit details the tonnage of American Vessels entering States's ports for evidence in such discussions.
1552428841935.png
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
19,353
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
#45
Because so-called Packet Traders out of New York were being subsidized by the federal government.

U.S. Mail coming in and out of the country was required to go through the Port of New York. Packets were being paid to take mail to Europe in otherwise empty ships, where they loaded manufactures and transported them home at the going rate.

They figured out they could take Southern cotton (and other commodities) at rock-bottom prices with them and they did so. It's because of this that goods were shipped to New York, unloaded on the docks and re-loaded onto ships whose passages to Europe were being subsidized by the Postal Service.

Not bad work, if you can get it.
I don't believe they were
FWIW Link to Google Book

here is a chart that included imports by American as well as foreign vessels. Sometimes in the tariff arguments, the assertion is made, but the goods were transferred to the South after paying duties, therefore, the South indirectly paid vast amounts of duties. This exhibit details the tonnage of American Vessels entering States's ports for evidence in such discussions. View attachment 296604
The links thread is locked? This post really needs to be archived
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#46
I don't believe they were

The links thread is locked? This post really needs to be archived
I am working on a spreadsheet on that figure and sort by North and South. I am hoping for a combined imports and US imports into Southern ports spreadsheet, but then there will be but the railroads carried the difference. That post can be CWT bookmarked and I am keeping a local file of important stuff also. There is a CWT bookmark link next to the report link. Click it and you have a bookmark list in your profile.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,809
#47
The first mail packet contracts went to Cunard line for service out of Boston. They didn't start shipping out of NY until 1848.

Mail contracts with the US Government for transAtlantic packet service were only made for steamship service. These steamships carried mostly mail and passengers and some limited cargo of typically higher value than raw product. That was the value of the ocean steamer packet service - departure and arrivals on a somewhat fast and timely service - something not necessary for bales of cotton which typically shipped by sailships which could haul larger loads.

You might be confusing ocean steamer packet service with coastal packets, which did routinely haul cotton to northern ports, and as it was discovered, despite having a relatively shallow draught did a fair job in transAtlantic service too.

If you have examples of steamer mail packets under contract with the Navy of Post Office hauling cotton, I would be interested in them.

Even if mail packets had hauled cotton out of NYC, in the cotton shipping season (Oct - March) of 1859-60 for example, there were only four lines hauling mail - the Cunard Line, the Vanderbilt Line, the Havre Line and the Inman Line and a combined total between all four of only 44 departures - 34 to Liverpool and 10 to le Havre. That doesn't put much of a dent in the approx. 4.5 million bales of cotton exported from the US.
Well, you offered no source for any of your assertions, but here is mine. Walter Johnson is a history professor at Harvard University and published this work in 2013. The text photos are from page 258 alone.

RDD.Johnson Cover.jpg
P. 258 Johnson.jpg
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,809
#48
I would like a source from @cedarstripper that shows the U.S. Government gave Britain's Cunard Line a contract to carry U.S. Mail. Stranger things have happened, but I won't believe it until I see it.
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
3,069
Location
Use-ta be: Zinn-zä-nätti o-HI-o The BIG city.
#49
Walter Johnson is a history professor at Harvard University and published this work in 2013.
As further info an excerpt from a review of River Of Dark Dreams: Slavery And Empire In The Cotton Kingdom :

Though divided into 14 overlapping chapters, the book contains three braided themes. Each theme connects to a historiographical debate and in every case, the author looks to deal reigning interpretations with a body blow. The first five chapters of the book detail the settlement and the American mastery of the Mississippi River Valley: a region which lay on the littoral of the imperial Atlantic. The author takes aim in this section at the ways in which historians have written about the development of American capitalism. Whereas the literature so often points to the northeastern United States as the engine of the American market revolution, Johnson looks to the periphery and finds the real beating heart of transformation on the Mississippi River. Moreover, by connecting this place to an energetic plan of territorial expansion, Johnson argues that understanding American manifest destiny is impossible without making sense of the relationship between capitalism and the imperial dreams of planters.
According to Johnson, however, the Mississippi River Valley represented something more than an imperial will to power. It became, rather, the great laboratory of American capitalism, and the site where an emergent international capitalist system mingled effortlessly with the imperial dreams of its first planters. There, international capital flooded the region, creating a cosmopolitan master class who imagined the Mississippi River as an economic umbilical cord which would connect the region to the markets of the world. To make the dream real, Americans perfected innovations in cotton planting and harvesting and built steamboats which defied gravity: all to collapse time and space, to bring goods closer to markets and to maximise profits. The combination of imperial ambition, capitalist drive and technological innovation represents one of the great strengths of this book. Seen through the prism Johnson constructs, it would be hard to imagine America’s early national history in quite the same way.
To be sure, the violence necessary to make the whole system operate required that both planters and slaves live in an environment where ordered society teetered on the edge of chaos. The book’s first chapter begins with a slave rebellion in 1811 which threatened to upend all the promise of a cotton empire, and in successive chapters, Johnson is clear that life at the centre of capitalist transformation was as likely to kill as it was to make someone rich. As he illuminates in a particularly revealing third chapter on steamboats, the lure of a quick buck pushed steamboat owners and engineers to push their contraptions to the outer limits, resulting in explosions on the river which killed by the score. Just like Herman Melville and Mark Twain before him, Johnson also detects an instability to life on the Mississippi River; an instability which was tolerated, but required constant vigilance. Though Johnson does not break new ground when he focuses on the confidence games which lay at the heart of American capitalism – the trickster cons which propped up so much of a system where so many economic transactions could not be trusted – he does show how slaves played confidence games of their own: passing as respectable, all in a bid for freedom.

If the first five chapters of the book detail the creation of one of the 19th century’s most important emerging markets – with all the technological innovation and social instability that emerging markets always seem to possess – the middle chapters of the book take up the camera lens, both to understand what made the cotton empire work, and what connected it to a broader world. These chapters make up the core of the book, and they show Johnson’s real talent for interpretive insight and the telling anecdote. Throughout, the author focuses attention not only on the ruthless system planters built for themselves, but on what slaveholders dreamed; what they imagined when they looked out on their lands and looked to their river. It is this focus on the speculative – on the fantasies and anxieties of a master class – which gives Johnson’s work much of its interpretive power. Added to this, however, River of Dark Dreams shoves the gritty, lived reality of slavery to the foreground.
While the prevailing turn of the literature on slavery has, of late, concerned itself with the relative agency of the slaves themselves, Johnson is keen to set aside dry, intellectual concerns and focus on the real power at the heart of the plantation complex. There is talk of dirt, fizzle, sweat and blood; the breaking down of simple human processes into brutal units of market measurement. In Johnson’s first book, Soul by Soul, a focus on the base, carnal gaze of slaveholders was evident. In River of Dark Dreams, however, the focus becomes a key part of his argument, which collapses the distinctions between capitalism and slavery. In Johnson’s hands, slaveholders were masters of Fordism, decades before Model Ts rolled off the assembly lines. Planters quantified every scarred black hand and every boll of cotton picked, all to turn the American Cotton South into one of the richest monocultures in world history. The middle chapters of the book, which deals with the labour of slaves, is shorn of the romanticism which has, of late, crept into the study of slaves. Rather than interpreting them as a proto-peasantry, using their culture and their wits to subvert a master’s control, Johnson places slaves at the centre of a system of total, coercive domination. It was this control which sustained the South, the American republic and an emergent international process of industrialisation, stretching from New Orleans to Liverpool and beyond.

Full review can be found here:
https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1496

p.s. looks interesting, indeed.
 

cedarstripper

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
1,275
Location
western New York
#51
Well, you offered no source for any of your assertions, but here is mine. Walter Johnson is a history professor at Harvard University and published this work in 2013. The text photos are from page 258 alone.
Lets back up a bit here. Your claims in post #40 weere all about subsidized mail packets filling their empty holds with cotton and shipping at reduced rates as being responsible for "southern overseas trade being conducted through New York." To that I pointed out that government subsidized contracts for overseas packet mail service were only given to steamers and that these steamers carried more valuable loads than being filled with bulk cotton. I also pointed that there were in total not that many departures from New York during a typical cotton shipping season.

If you'll look again you'll notice that Walter Johnson was writing about ocean packet service in general, which in the earlier years he mentions (1818) these ships were purely sailing ships. What made them "packets" was merely that they left on regular dates - once or twice a month, and certainly they did try to fill their holds with whatever cargo they could. He only includes the government granted monopoly on mail service to Great Britian as part of a sentence, after noting the volume of trade between New York and Liverpool." The US government didn't subsidize any mail packet service though until 1845 with Edward Mills which didn't actually start until about 1850 - New York to Bremen. His claim does not rely on steamer mail packets, which were relatively few and not until later on, but on sailing packets which started with the Black Ball Line and who did not carry mail under contract with the US government. Your claim however was all about subsidized mail packets.

Below is the source for the departures by date for mail packets out of New York from 1840 -75.
https://d2jf3tgwe889fp.cloudfront.n...ntic_Mail_Sailings_1840-75_with_Revisions.pdf
 
Last edited:

cedarstripper

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
1,275
Location
western New York
#52
I would like a source from @cedarstripper that shows the U.S. Government gave Britain's Cunard Line a contract to carry U.S. Mail. Stranger things have happened, but I won't believe it until I see it.
I was incorrect and sloppy to write they were under contract. What I was trying to point out was that the mails were not resticted to shipping out of NY harbor. The Cunard Line did ship the US mails and under the Postal Conventions with Great Britian were paid a set amount per piece by the US Postmaster. Of course these rates applied both ways when US carriers finally got up and running. C. Johnson, the Postmaster General complained that Cunard steamers were hauling in and out of Boston nearly 600,000 letters annually, while the number they hauled in and out of New York probably exceeded a million. His advertisement for American bids for service to Europe was all about relieving the payments made every year to Cunard Line, and terms for bidding was that the steamers had to be at least as fast as the fastest of the Cunard ships.
You can find references to payment and arrangements in the several Annual Report of the Postmaster in the 29th and 30th Congresses and some mention of it on page 6 of North Atlantic Mail Sailings 140-75 as linked in my previous post.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,809
#55
You can find references to payment and arrangements in the several Annual Report of the Postmaster in the 29th and 30th Congresses and some mention of it on page 6 of North Atlantic Mail Sailings 140-75 as linked in my previous post.
I appreciate your response, but it amounts to, "read a book." I know my friend @jgoodguy would not accept that in a CWT thread. The source you site is a hundreds of pages-long work from a stamp collecting club in Ohio. Did this go through any kind of academic peer review? I doubt it.

If you can be really specific in pointing us to evidence that New York was not granted a monopoly on mail service (I've posted evidence it was) or at what point that may have happened, it'll be much easier for most of us to grasp.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#56
I appreciate your response, but it amounts to, "read a book." I know my friend @jgoodguy would not accept that in a CWT thread. The source you site is a hundreds of pages-long work from a stamp collecting club in Ohio. Did this go through any kind of academic peer review? I doubt it.

If you can be really specific in pointing us to evidence that New York was not granted a monopoly on mail service (I've posted evidence it was) or at what point that may have happened, it'll be much easier for most of us to grasp.
Fascinating book lots of nice illustrations.
1552608585930.png

1552608665089.png

However, I fail to see where 600 tons of Cotton can be put on a packet. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,809
#57
However, I fail to see where 600 tons of Cotton can be put on a packet. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
Meh, 600 tons is really not as much as it sounds for a well-found cargo ship in the 19th century. Remember, "packet" refers to a ship's sailing schedule and not what it was capable of carrying.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#60
You're not happy with Walter Johnson, from whose work I posted pictures, above?

MmmKay....
No. It does not say mail packets shipped cotton on a close reading. What mail packets did ship were financial instruments in the mail. The carried all the financial documentation and instruments needed for the Cotton Trade.
The assertion was about mail packets not any other kind of packet.

Because so-called Packet Traders out of New York were being subsidized by the federal government.

U.S. Mail coming in and out of the country was required to go through the Port of New York. Packets were being paid to take mail to Europe in otherwise empty ships, where they loaded manufactures and transported them home at the going rate.

They figured out they could take Southern cotton (and other commodities) at rock-bottom prices with them and they did so. It's because of this that goods were shipped to New York, unloaded on the docks and re-loaded onto ships whose passages to Europe were being subsidized by the Postal Service.

Not bad work, if you can get it.
From
Boodry, Kathryn Susan. 2014. The Common Thread: Slavery,
Cotton and Atlantic Finance from the Louisiana Purchase to
Reconstruction. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.

They consigned cotton intermittently to Liverpool until 1845. After that point, they were effectively no longer involved in the article at all, opting instead to focus on letters of credit, currency, exchange and the operation of the Collins packet lines. In 1845 the Liverpool branch’s commission revenues on cotton consignments totaled $53,000. By 1852 these revenues had dropped to around $5,000, a reduction of 90 percent. Other firms in the industry adopted their system of making consignments during the 1840s and took up a good deal of the consignment business the Browns left behind. Through their operations in cotton, both purchasing and making consignments, the Browns developed an expertise in the handling of letters of credit and bills of exchange, a business they came to dominate after 1845 as they had the consignment business earlier. For this house, their involvement in a commodity produced for a commercial market with slave labor in the antebellum South.​

If we expand to non subsidized generic packets, then that is a different proposition.

The cotton trade also supported a multitude of people not directly employed in the mills. Britain exported 2,776 million yards of cloth and 197 million pounds of yarn in 1860. Yarn and cloth accounted for one-half of the value of all British exports. Handling that staggering quantity of cotton provided employment to a vast number of seamen, railroad workers, stevedores, clerks, etc. Cotton dominated the United States’ economy as well. In 1858, the total value of all U.S. exports was $238 million; $161 million, or a staggering 68 percent, was cotton. In the decade before the Civil War, more than 2,000 U.S. merchant ships, totaling 1,100,000 registered tons, and 55,000 seamen were employed in the coastal navigation that brought cotton from Southern ports to New York. Another 800,000 tons of American shipping and 40,000 seamen were employed in the transoceanic cotton trade. Even the fast New York to Liverpool passenger packets relied upon cotton to fill their cargo holds on the eastbound voyage across the Atlantic. Without cotton outbound ships would have had to cross the ocean empty, other American exports being insufficient to fill the cargo space that on westbound crossings was taken up by British manufactured goods. Banks, ship-owners, railroads, and merchant houses in Great Britain and the Union states were all heavily invested in or dependent in one way or another upon the cotton trade.304​

Cotton not mail were on the passenger packets on return. Mail packets carried mail AKA financial papers. Big ships carried most cotton.
 

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top