Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
On various other threads there have been posts related to the relative disparity of wealth both in the South and the North. These posts have used this issue as: a reason for advent the war, for reasons why one side or the other had an advantage, which society was more in keeping with the Constitution, class distinctions, who took advantage of who, "Rich man's war, poor man's fight", etc.
Anyone wish to comment on this issue?
__________________ -
"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
Could be an interesting topic, Sam. Seems that the wealthiest men in America was heavily weighted toward the southerner. (I wanted to say the 60 wealthiest were southerners, but that would be barking without seeing anything.) Did I read that the per-capita wealth was greater in the south than the north?
Olmstead made an interesting observation (a sweeping one, as it were, because he wasn't working with much of a statistical sample) that does fit quite nicely; to wit, the wealthy southerner invested his excess in more land and more slaves. He might have six or seven or more large plantations scattered over several states.
If Olmsted is correct, not much if any of that investment created jobs for the locals. The wealthy planter had little use for the crossroads grocery or the village smithies -- they'd bring in what their slaves couldn't make, grow or butcher by wagon train from the nearest RR. (Note that pork and poultry was the primary meat -- beef and mutton took up entirely too much space that could be planted.) In the village, if there was a village, there would not be the wherewithal for a school.
Another Olmsted observation: the size of the plantations, which might be two, three, or more square-miles, naturally limited the upper class population in any geographic area, say, county. Consequently, a school or two would be necessarily small and too far away to be practicable. Not to worry; private live-in tutors could be hired.
Now this sounds like a screed on how the slave economy depressed the opportunities for nearly every southerner. Will stop there and wait for other more interesting responses. Just wanted to kick-start the thread.
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
On various other threads there have been posts related to the relative disparity of wealth both in the South and the North. These posts have used this issue as: a reason for advent the war, for reasons why one side or the other had an advantage, which society was more in keeping with the Constitution, class distinctions, who took advantage of who, "Rich man's war, poor man's fight", etc.
Anyone wish to comment on this issue?
The following excerpt from the work of Hinton R. Helper(The Impending Crisis of the South: How to Meet It by Hinton Rowan Helper of North Carolina, pages 325-330, A. B. Burdick, New York, 1860), might get the ball rolling. The book was noticed by Northern Abolitionists and Republicans, who then financed a wide-spread distribution. In the South it was banned, confiscated and burned. It was a major controversy at the time. Non-Slaveholding Whites! Look Well to Your Interests!
Hinton Helper
In 1856, there were assessed for taxation in the State of
NEW YORK
Acres of land ............ 30,080,000
Valued at ................ $1,112,133,136
Average value per acre ... $36.97
NORTH CAROLINA
Acres of land ............ 32,450,560
Valued at ................ $98,800,636
Average value per acre ... $3.06
It is difficult for us to make any remarks on the official facts above. Our indignation is struck almost dumb at this astounding and revolting display of the awful wreck that slavery is leaving behind it in the South. We will however, go into a calculation for the purpose of ascertaining as nearly as possible, in this one particluar, how much North Carolina has lost by the retention of slavery. As we have already seen, the average value per acre of land in the State of New York is $36.97; in North Carolina it is only $3.06; why is it so much less, or even any less, in the latter than in the former? The answer is, slavery. In soil, in climate, in minerals, in water-power for manufactural purposes, and in area of territory, North Carolina has the advantage of New York, and, with the exception of slavery, no plausible reason can possibly be assigned why land should not be at least as valuable in the valley of the Yadkin as it is along the banks of the Genesee.
The difference between $36.97 and $3.06 is $33.91, which, multiplied by the whole number of acres of land in North Carolina, will show, in this one particular, the enormous loss that Freedom has sustained on account of Slavery in the Old North State. Thus: -
32,450,560 acres at $33.91 .... $1,100,398,489.
Let it be indelibly impressed on the mind, however, that this amount, large as it is, is only a moity of the sum it has cost to maintain slavery in North Carolina. From time to time, hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars have left the State, either in search of profitable, permanent investment abroad, or in the shape of profits to Northern merchants and manufacturers, who have become the moneyed aristocracy of the country by supplying to the South such articles of necessity, utility, and adornment, as would have been produced at home but for the pernicious presence of the peculiar institution.
...
Helper, BTW, had a phobia about Negroes and wanted to expel them from the country.
Helper, BTW, had a phobia about Negroes and wanted to expel them from the country.
Lest that be taken as evidence that Helper's work was motivated by a desire to eliminate Negroes, as opposed to slavery, most of the work tries to prove that slavery was dragging down the economies of the slave states.
Unfortunately, he winds up with some wild-eyed ranting about punishing the slave-owner. If his arguments against slavery didn't upset the slave-owners, his recommendations certainly would have.
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
I'll try to comment a little on the disparity of wealth in each section. If the acreage of a farm can be an indication of the wealth of its owner, then it seems apparent that the South had a higher ratio of large landowners to middle class than the North. This does not address the value of those farms, North and South, only the tendency of wealth to become concentrated. A sample:
While looking through the Census I was reminded of the huge difference in free population between the sections. I was well aware of the total difference before, but didn't realize that, for instance, New York alone had a greater population than all the seven states of the original secession wave, and if you add in just Illinois, the two still had more than the entire CSA.
How are those New York and North Carolina numbers divided by (free) population? Total wealth of one state vs. another is not the same as the disparity between the top and bottom, or the distribution in between.
__________________ -
"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
Many thanks for that statistical evaluation of comparative farm size. Hate to drop in a complexity, but there is a factor that might need consideration:
The cotton planter rarely had his entire acreage planted in cotton. Cotton depletes the soil so completely that after 7 years of cotton, nothing in the way of a crop can be grown. In 14 years, the land will have regenerated to the point where cotton can again be grown. By that time, brush and second-growth forest will have grown and clearing required. In effect, the long-time cotton planter had one-third of his acreage planted in cotton at any given time. Hence the pressing need for new land.
Now that's a sweeping generalization but it does demonstrate that comparing acreage can be deceptive.
Cotton planted, tended, harvested and ginned by slaves was enormously profitable (during the few years when the soil was fresh). It was also incredibly risky. A bad year could cripple a planter; two in a row could drive him into receivership.
The planter (I refuse to call him an agriculturalist, or even farmer) functioned on credit. When a crop was sold, 30 percent, if not 40 or 50 percent, did not belong to him.
Southern wealth was very much on paper and built on a shaky foundation. Diversification didn't yield as much as cotton -- no diversification of investments, no protection for the wealth. Without more slaves and new lands, the planter faced certain ruin. It's no wonder they were frightened.
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
Many thanks for that statistical evaluation of comparative farm size. Hate to drop in a complexity, but there is a factor that might need consideration:
The cotton planter rarely had his entire acreage planted in cotton.
Understood. My intent however was not to compare the value of a Northerner's acreage with a Southerner's, but the percentage of farmers in each section that rose to have enormous acreage, and presumably wealth, as compared to their neighbors. Maybe I'd have been less of my usual confusing self if I'd just listed some percentages. As a sample, here are some percentages of landowners who rose to acreage that I am arbitrarily considering to be a threshold of wealth:
The bulk of landowners in both sections owned between 20 and 499 acres, but its easy to see that if comparing land to wealth, the pendulum didn't swing as far in the North as in the South - agriculture wise.
Quote:
Now that's a sweeping generalization but it does demonstrate that comparing acreage can be deceptive.
Yep. I'll note too that the above figures only allow a broad estimate. I know all too well in the region I live that 100 acres of river bottom land is worth 500 acres of clay hillside, but it's my experience that that is not how things work out. The farmer that gets by on his 100 acre hillside farm stays that size, and the fortunate farmer who prospered on his 100 acre river bottom farm soon owns 600 acres of river bottom. So, in the end, I tend to think the numbers do paint a fairly accurate picture. But I'm certainly open to being persuaded differently.
As for the comparison of wealth adding in the "industrialist" I wouldn't know where to start. I'm not sure I can even define "industrialist" for the purpose of comparing wealth. Where do you put the miner, the shipper, the railroader, the merchant, the banker, the sugar refiner, the broker? And how is the "industrialist" any different from the agriculturalist anyway? Both use labor, capital and risk to create a product and hopefully a profit. Are we just referring to the owners? Separating the factory owner and his formen from the laborers reminds me of the planter and his foremen and laborers. What's the difference? (besides the type of labor employed)
This seems to indicate that the average run of the mill southern soldier really didn't benefit from the particular institution all that much? Neigh, I think it is sayin' he didn't benefit from it at all and more'n likely suffered directly as a result of it and knew it too.
I've always maintained that slavery might've been a faorite topic in the Antebellum Mansions and the Cotton Exchanges, but it was not a happy subject in the General Stores or Local Mercantiles. The southern people didn't like slavery or the slaves one little bit.
They (Poor and Middle Class White folks) couldn't compete in the marketplace against the southern aristorcracy and their black african slave laber. There may have been some small modicum of trickel down economics, but for the most part the great backbone of the Confederate States Army didn't benefit from it at all.
So isn't that why they say "Rich man's War, but Poor man's Fight"? Cause the rich were the one's that stood to benefit from Secession and the poor were the one's who fought for it.
I've got so much I think about this matter......
Last edited by Ozark Iron John; 01-10-2007 at 04:47 PM.
John:
You have just said what many of us have been saying for years. The soldiers didn't fight for or against slavery (well, maybe a few). Each had his own reason. At any rate, after the kickoff, the benches emptied.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Distribution of Wealth: North vs. South 
Linear Mode
