Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
The South may have been bound to secede, but not bound to succeed.
by this i am not sure what you mean.
__________________ "You can have anything you want - if you want it badly enough. You can be anything you want to be, have anything you desire, accomplish anything you set out to accomplish - if you will hold to that desire with singleness of purpose." -Robert E. Lee
Though simplified, the great differences between te North and the South practically made secession unavoidable.
Must disagree here, Laurn. Real differences were small. The wealth on both sides was based on agricultural production and the products and services it required. The vast majority of both sides worked farms or were engaged in related services and production. The farmers of Iowa were as different from Pennsylvania farmers as Mississippi farmers were from their Virginia counterparts. Kentucky and Tennessee style was closer to their neighbors across the Ohio than they were to their neighbors on the gulf.
Gary Gallager explains the gulf by saying there no real differences, but the people thought there were. The fire-eaters and radical abolitionists were quick to use natural human suspicion and rivalry to drive a wedge between the areas. Gotta hand it to them -- an unbelievably effective snow job.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The fire-eaters and radical abolitionists were quick to use natural human suspicion and rivalry to drive a wedge between the areas. Gotta hand it to them -- an unbelievably effective snow job.
I've got to agree with you, ole. War may have been avoided had cooler heads been allowed to prevail, but these "extremists" played on people's worst nightmares whether they were actual threats or not.
Quote:
The wealth on both sides was based on agricultural production and the products and services it required. The vast majority of both sides worked farms or were engaged in related services and production.
This may be true, but to me the wealth in the North seemed to be a bit "top heavy" to me. It may have been based in agriculture, but it didn't stay there; rather, it went to the industrialists who profited from it and stayed there.
~ Highfly
__________________ ~ Highfly
If you want to catch the Devil, if you want to have fun, if you want to smell hell, jine the cavalry!
This may be true, but to me the wealth in the North seemed to be a bit "top heavy" to me. It may have been based in agriculture, but it didn't stay there; rather, it went to the industrialists who profited from it and stayed there.
That's the way things work, Highfly. The wealth moves up. Meanwhile, a whole bunch of people have jobs so they can buy the bread. And when the money gets to the top, it goes back out in investments -- more jobs. I find it hard to resent the top dogs. They created and invested (and risked) and made work and opportunity for thousands. I figure they earned their fine homes, fancy carriages and servants.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
This may be true, but to me the wealth in the North seemed to be a bit "top heavy" to me. It may have been based in agriculture, but it didn't stay there; rather, it went to the industrialists who profited from it and stayed there.
Hi,
Is it your impression that a concentration of wealth was confined to a smaller percentage of people in the North as compared to the South?
This may be a topic ripe for a new thread, Distribution of wealth, South vs. North.
My general impression would be that the North had a larger 'middle class' than there was in the South, so that there would be a larger 'wealth gap' in the South than in the North.
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
My general impression would be that the North had a larger 'middle class' than there was in the South, so that there would be a larger 'wealth gap' in the South than in the North.
Mine as well, Sam. My original take was that there was no southern middle class, but that's much like saying "always" and "never."
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Early in the war, the Confederate leadership indicated that the goal was to have all the slave states, except Delaware, in the Confederacy. Add to that the U.S. Territory of New Mexico, which covered the now states of New Mexico and Arizona. The goal never was just the states of the original Confederacy.
The Confederacy never had a chance to control for long the Ohio River and the Mississippi River. That meant many areas of the South were undefendable by Confederate forces. Western Virginia was the first loss. Within weeks much of western Virginia, west of the Allegheny Mountains, was lost. Only the occasional raid in Western Virginia by Confederate forces in 1861 to 1863, saw occasional occupation by Confederate armies. By 1863, the Confederacy was getting squeezed between the Mississippi River and the blockaded Confederate ports. Without naval power, the Confederacy had no chance to protect much of its territory, that it considered Confederate territory.
The Civil War did not start by accident, it started as the result of direct action by the Leaders of the south, who knew very well what they were fighting for and why.
There were, indeed, two separate societies occupying separate geographical area's within the Continental United States. With one society based on a slave economy and the other on a 'free' labor economy, how could there Not be a significant difference?
While it is true that nothing is written in stone concerning future events that have not happened, I do think,that we are so impressed by how hard the South fought the war, that we tend to not notice how great the industrial base of the North war compared to that of the south. It has been argued (by me, among others) that the war lasted as long as it did, was mainly the result of the almost total unpreparedness of the U.S. Gov't, both structurally, organizational and especially intellectually, to fight 'Any Kind' of war, much less a war based on mass armies and lavish industrial output. With Lincoln as President, the south needed to win early or be crushed by the superior numbers and industrial production of the north.
IMO the best odds for the south winning was 50/50, occurring after either the 1st or 2d battles of Bull Run.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
