1860 exports and motivation for the Union desire for Union.

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,900
Location
los angeles ca
If the North had let the South slide away without stepping in so quickly, she may have amounted to something, but foreign influence had much to do with success, whether quick or slow.
Lubliner.
Good point. If the Confederacy became independent then foreign nations could establish military bases that might threaten the United States.
Leftyhunter
 

Drew

Major
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,855
Seriously, the Confederate States Army was never short of arms, powder or shell. She was short of food sometimes, but not guns.

Now, back to the topic at hand. Somewhere in my pile I've got crazy historian Howard Zinn's work. He said the North was going to destroy the power of the South, it was just a matter of time and circumstance.

I'll need to dig out exactly what he said, but his point is well taken. They couldn't stand it and they were going to end it. There was too danged much money hinged upon the place.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
10,131
The cotton economy and the tariff income were large enough that the Confederacy could have built up a threatening military. The loss of income to the US was not crippling. During reconstruction, when cotton stagnated and the south fell behind, by 1879, the US entered a boom. But they did so not having to face any serious military threat in the western hemisphere. The Civil War was violent enough. If the Confederacy had been able to build up its armaments industry and navy, the result would have been aggravated. No one could be sure that the border areas would reject secession, and the US would recover its strength as fast as it did.
I reckon not. Stolen cotton kept their ball rolling.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,527
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Seriously, the Confederate States Army was never short of arms, powder or shell. She was short of food sometimes, but not guns.

Now, back to the topic at hand. Somewhere in my pile I've got crazy historian Howard Zinn's work. He said the North was going to destroy the power of the South, it was just a matter of time and circumstance.

I'll need to dig out exactly what he said, but his point is well taken. They couldn't stand it and they were going to end it. There was too danged much money hinged upon the place.
Food seemed to be the limiting factor for CSA forces.

We have had a thread on the conflicting civilizations and it is likely the Northern Capitalistic free labor ideology would replace slave labor ideology-after all that has happened everywhere. Would the conflict be violent or just gradual is impossible to tell after all the South shot first and eliminated all other options.
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,260
Location
Denver, CO
Food seemed to be the limiting factor for CSA forces.

We have had a thread on the conflicting civilizations and it is likely the Northern Capitalistic free labor ideology would replace slave labor ideology-after all that has happened everywhere. Would the conflict be violent or just gradual is impossible to tell after all the South shot first and eliminated all other options.
Food and forage were substantial problems for the Confederates. They always did better in late Spring and Summer. By fall the logistical advantage always asserted itself. The paid labor states had numerous cities and the economy was set up to feed people and sustain horses at some distance from the farm land.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,260
Location
Denver, CO
I don't question that cotton exports made US dollar currencies stonger and paid tariff revenue to the US Treasury. That goes a long way to explaining the continuing power of the cotton region from 1820-1860. By 1860 the railroad and iron industries were about to take off and northern Republicans could win without the south. When Republicans replaced Whigs, and enacted a higher tariff, and sponsored a national railroad, the cotton growers were no longer dominant.
 
Last edited:

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,260
Location
Denver, CO
The 7 state cotton Confederacy would have been treated with more deference than the 11 State Confederacy. The 7 state Confederacy would have been fought with a blockade and a limited action in South Carolina. The 11 state Confederacy was a direct threat to the US and directly threatened the legitimacy of the Republican party. The US went without most of the cotton generated trade revenue for 3 years, instituted an income tax, borrowed $2.2B and issued $400M in currency and financed a major war thereby. Thus the trade revenue was only important to the extent it could finance an independent nation with an army and navy.
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,260
Location
Denver, CO
https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/agriculture/1860b-09.pdf?#
Fun to think about cotton as a cash crop. But when a war breaks out the 6.2m horses, 1.2m mules, 18M tons of hay, and 172M bushels of oats, living or produced in the US in 1860 take on a heightened importance. The amount of cash generated by cotton can be measured, but the amount of garden produce, poultry, milk and butter consumed on the farm and in town is not subject to accurate measurement.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,492
Seriously, the Confederate States Army was never short of arms, powder or shell. She was short of food sometimes, but not guns.
@DaveBrt has written that...

Still repeats the old line that no battle was lost because the Confederacy was short of arms or equipment.

As always, this ignores the thousands of men sent home from the call up of Tennessee men in 1861. The Governor, Harris, sent them home because he had no weapons for them and the Confederacy could not provide weapons. What would the impact have been if another 35,000 men had been armed and in the western army in Jan. '62?
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/civil-war-blockade-papers.149497/page-3#post-1940127
317

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,260
Location
Denver, CO
And how many of those guys in W. Tennessee thought it over by the time Confederate conscription was enforced, and got to someplace in the northern states?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

DaveBrt

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
2,455
Location
Charlotte, NC
Food and forage were substantial problems for the Confederates. They always did better in late Spring and Summer. By fall the logistical advantage always asserted itself. The paid labor states had numerous cities and the economy was set up to feed people and sustain horses at some distance from the farm land.
The Confederacy produced enough food and forage at all times -- the problem was the transportation from the farm to the soldiers. The first problem was transportation from farm to RR depot, especially in 1864, with so many horses and wagons impressed and with the men called up to the militia to defend against Union raids. The second problem was the insufficient capacity of the railroads to get the food from the growing areas to the war zone armies and cities, from early 1863 to the end.
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,260
Location
Denver, CO
The Confederacy produced enough food and forage at all times -- the problem was the transportation from the farm to the soldiers. The first problem was transportation from farm to RR depot, especially in 1864, with so many horses and wagons impressed and with the men called up to the militia to defend against Union raids. The second problem was the insufficient capacity of the railroads to get the food from the growing areas to the war zone armies and cities, from early 1863 to the end.
The loss of Kentucky and then central Tennessee carved a big hole in food production. When the Confederates lost the Richmond-Chattanooga railroad connection, they were reduced to allied sections, instead of a coherent nation. Texas could do its own thing and make money on independent cotton.
The southern economy was set up to do one thing very efficiently: get cotton on an ocean going ship. Supplying cities and the working horses and mules was not something that was necessary to make money.
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,260
Location
Denver, CO
Cotton export income was important. But the United States had changed from a coastal community attached to world trade, to a rapidly growing domestic market.
Its not a coincidence that the telegraph connected to California in November 1861, and the national railroad was completed just four years after the war. The ability to build and operate through railroads created new physical conditions in which the different regions could not operate separate economies.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

DaveBrt

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
2,455
Location
Charlotte, NC
The loss of Kentucky and then central Tennessee carved a big hole in food production. When the Confederates lost the Richmond-Chattanooga railroad connection, they were reduced to allied sections, instead of a coherent nation. Texas could do its own thing and make money on independent cotton.
The southern economy was set up to do one thing very efficiently: get cotton on an ocean going ship. Supplying cities and the working horses and mules was not something that was necessary to make money.
Sorry, I don't see the connection between what I wrote and your reply. Please explain.
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,260
Location
Denver, CO
Sorry, I don't see the connection between what I wrote and your reply. Please explain.
It relates to the original topic only to the extent that the northern states were already set up to be a self-supporting economy. The cotton belt was set to be an export economy, without large cities other than Baltimore, St. Louis and New Orleans, which quickly were lost.
The idea that the north needed the cotton economy is contradicted by the fact that the US fought an expensive war without the cotton economy. It also returned to a budget surplus and financed an Transcontinental railroad well before cotton production was completely restored.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,260
Location
Denver, CO
When cotton production was restored by 1879, it helped the US economy, but the south never regained its economic position. In 1860 there was some evidence that the cotton economy was a critical pillar of the US economy. It had been such a pillar in the past. But the evidence from 1860-1890 shows that moment was passed. Cotton was only a factor. Finance, centered on New York, Philadelphia and Boston, was king.
 
Last edited:

Drew

Major
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,855
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top