AHC: Replace the main cash crop of the CSA / Southern USA
- Thread starter Slime_blob
- Start date
unprincipled peter
Donor
According to wiki, rice was extremely profitable.
Rice production in the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Ditto for naval stores.
By the time of USA, much of the timber of Europe was already harvested. The only reason forestry wouldn't be just as profitable in the US as elsewhere is shipping (if local supply is exhausted, US supply is viable), and specie variety. IF there are trees available for harvest, it's economical. They need to be cleared anyhow for planting crops (or they grow in a land not suitable for crops, in which case the industry is in addition to the plantation economy).
I don't see anything in that article that indicates the south could replace cotton with rice. If I had to guess, I'd assume that the US domestic market was the primary consumer of southern rice. That goes away with secession. There's a difference between a resource being merely economical and being able to sustain an economy. There are many profitable donut shops in the US but that doesn't mean the US economy could be sustained by donut sales.According to wiki, rice was extremely profitable.
Rice production in the United States - Wikipedia
Ditto for naval stores.
By the time of USA, much of the timber of Europe was already harvested. The only reason forestry wouldn't be just as profitable in the US as elsewhere is shipping (if local supply is exhausted, US supply is viable), and specie variety. IF there are trees available for harvest, it's economical. They need to be cleared anyhow for planting crops (or they grow in a land not suitable for crops, in which case the industry is in addition to the plantation economy).
Europe had no shortage of lumber thanks to Canada, Russia, and Scandinavia.
unprincipled peter
Donor
I merely point out that rice, OTL, was quite profitable. Why wouldn't it compete on a global market? with or without secession, the north is going to be a market for the south.
Why is US lumber not competitive with Canada? That is completely specie dependent.
The reality is that it is quite hard to replace cotton as king in the real world, but if you hand wavium bring on the space bats and make cotton impossible, the south can easily sustain a profitable economy.
It is also helpful to remember that the south was not one big monolithic geography. Cotton wasn't king everywhere. Wet rice cultivation did not compete with cotton, except in the need for slaves. Tobacco was king in other areas. Cotton was a huge industry, but it wasn't 100% of the southern industry.
I once thought about making a TL where marijuana was the main cash crop of the South, and the CSA seceded because TTL's abolitionists wanted to ban weed or something. It was going to be called "In High Cotton."
Vahktang
Donor
The number two and three cash crops at the time and in that place were tobacco, and sugar.
Sugar, though, took a large capital outlay to become profitable.
These days, oil-yielding crops (e.g. soybeans) are big in Southern climates as a cash crop.
Maybe introduce a serious chocolate habit and have coca grown,
And, as @unprincipled peter said, different crops for different areas were king.
As a matter of fact, as cotton depleted the soil, it had to move to new lands in the west.
Maybe a rotation crop?
A good nitrogen fixer, then to a cash crop.
Stagger it by area and the cash crop stays in high quantity, but is never a bumper crop to depress prices.
Sugar, though, took a large capital outlay to become profitable.
These days, oil-yielding crops (e.g. soybeans) are big in Southern climates as a cash crop.
Maybe introduce a serious chocolate habit and have coca grown,
And, as @unprincipled peter said, different crops for different areas were king.
As a matter of fact, as cotton depleted the soil, it had to move to new lands in the west.
Maybe a rotation crop?
A good nitrogen fixer, then to a cash crop.
Stagger it by area and the cash crop stays in high quantity, but is never a bumper crop to depress prices.
IIRC, sugarcane in Florida is possible only with very intensive irrigation and fertilizer application due to poor soil; using 19th century technology/infrastructure, profitable sugarcane is only possible in Louisiana and Mississippi.
unprincipled peter
Donor
nix cocoa as well. growing areas are very limited.
Why do so many people think the south is tropical?
Why do so many people think the south is tropical?
Really? Florida has such poor soil? What's wrong with it? Too acidic? I said Florida because it's latitude range is where the sugar belt exists around the world from 30 degree North to 30 South.
Looks like I misremembered-you can grow sugar on a small scale throughout Florida, and sugarcane is grown commercially south of Lake Okeechobee. However, it only really took off after massive canal projects to drain the Everglades in the 1920's and the Cuban Revolution led to an embargo on Cuban sugar, cutting out the competition. The main challenge isn't soil quality but frosts-yes, most Florida winters aren't cold enough to frost, but it happens often enough that relying on such a capital-intensive crop as sugarcane is too risky.
This is according to the Florida Historical Society.