One question is the impact of the repeal of the Corn Laws in the late 1840s whose effects would only become clear after the 1850 cutoff of this study. A second is where did all those exports go especially all those nick-nacks, beer etc.? The Empire was still on the rise in those days so was the volume helped along by captive colonial markets? Monopolistic control pushes the probability inference lower. Branding in the loosest sense is important too. The wealthiest people in the colonies were likely British or of British origin & thus habituated to British products. You could probably call the demand from the wealthy plantation sector of the US South "colonial" demand in this sense.
I have doubts, though, about an analysis of a historical period that begins with a dispute between two models. Historiography is not history. One problem with many, perhaps most, social science investigations is that they usually begin with a thesis, or two, rather than the data. We all have opinions and biases as well as a desire to say something new.
Nor is it clear that there is a right answer to a question about historical trends and influences. Both lines of argument in your example may be true to some extent; most likely, neither represents a realistic and full approach. Dry recitation of facts, to be sure, fails to really capture what was happening. A humble, open-minded appreciation of facts and interpretations seems most useful and more true.
One question is the impact of the repeal of the Corn Laws in the late 1840s whose effects would only become clear after the 1850 cutoff of this study. A second is where did all those exports go especially all those nick-nacks, beer etc.? The Empire was still on the rise in those days so was the volume helped along by captive colonial markets? Monopolistic control pushes the probability inference lower. Branding in the loosest sense is important too. The wealthiest people in the colonies were likely British or of British origin & thus habituated to British products. You could probably call the demand from the wealthy plantation sector of the US South "colonial" demand in this sense.
Fascinating.
I have doubts, though, about an analysis of a historical period that begins with a dispute between two models. Historiography is not history. One problem with many, perhaps most, social science investigations is that they usually begin with a thesis, or two, rather than the data. We all have opinions and biases as well as a desire to say something new.
Nor is it clear that there is a right answer to a question about historical trends and influences. Both lines of argument in your example may be true to some extent; most likely, neither represents a realistic and full approach. Dry recitation of facts, to be sure, fails to really capture what was happening. A humble, open-minded appreciation of facts and interpretations seems most useful and more true.