Dynamic Population Growth

[wausaubob]

The population of the paid labor states was growing at the rate of 41% per decade and the population of the slave labor states was growing at the rate of 27% per decade.

https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/preliminary-report/1860e-03.pdf?#

It is this dynamic difference in population growth that made slavery difficult to maintain in a democratic society, and made the outcome pre-determined.
With the resources available to the US marshals in 1860, its doubtful they could have produced an accurate count in the rapidly growing areas of MN, IA, IL and WI, if they had so desired. It was probably impossible to get an accurate count when new people were arriving while the census was occurring, many of who spoke poor English and did not particularly want to be counted. But since an under count decreased the political apportionment to these frontier areas, its questionable that the static picture of the 1860 census was accurate. Regardless, by the time the war mobilization took place, another year of differential growth had occurred. When the states divided over secession, many counties in w. Virginia, many individuals in e. Tennessee and a large number of former Whigs in Louisiana dissented from the Confederate movement and would properly be excluded from the 5M white people apportioned to the Confederacy's available white manpower.

 

[wausaubob]

The dynamic change was occurring because the railroad and farm implement technical developments were affecting 3 of the primary industrial areas of the US in 1860, flour, liquor and beer.

The railroads and the farming equipment were about to steadily lower the cost of bread and liquor, which was going to leave more money for everything else including cotton goods.
And with respect to cotton goods, clothing, woolens and shoes, mechanical sewing machines were spreading throughout the US, which was going to dramatically lower the cost of goods in those industries.
Industry No. 14 was rolled iron. Experiments in England in 1857 and spreading to the US by 1864, demonstrated that steel rails were at least 17 times more durable than iron rails, and the north, particularly Pennsylvania and Ohio were set up to start the steel revolution in the US.
There was a reason that no matter what the Confederates did, there was always a new US army, better fed and better equipped than the one that had been defeated.
Nearly all of the major 19 industries were part of the mechanical revolution, or were going to have their costs cut and product improved by innovation. The standard of living was increasing and the population was booming and the war did not even deflect that process.

 

[wausaubob]

And the odd thing about it was because the population of the 4 Midwest states was growing so fast, they easily met there enlistment quotas. I believe Iowa never instituted conscription. That meant that people from the north or the south who wanted to avoid the war, moved to one of these states in which US conscription had the least impact. That meant young men with family priorities moved to those states. Which only made them grow faster.

 

[wausaubob]

In military industries like ship building and locomotive manufacturing the US had a huge advantage like 20:1 or even more. And the US strategy made that asymmetry much greater as they retained the five border areas and captured strategic locations within the Confederacy. In indicator industries like sewing machines and steel, all the production was in the north.
Therefore, no matter how well the Confederates fought, and they fought well, the US population, production, and logistical system was going to grow.

 

[wausaubob]

The Confederates had their courage and they had their weapons. But the US had an endless supply of gunboats, mountains of crates of hardtack and beans, and $2.4B in borrowing capacity. The US could absorb $400M in unbacked currency, and still only experience about 76% inflation. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economics-of-the-civil-war/

 

[wausaubob]

The Wiki article on sewing machines suggests that a seamstress with a sewing machine was about 14 times more productive than one without such a device.