Economic Aspects Of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861 Russel

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#21
Economic Aspects Of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861 Russel
University of Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences, V11, No. 1-2, March-June, 1923
Economic aspects of southern sectionalism, 1840-1861Emphasis mine.
PP 27-30

I will skip over a bunch of pages of miscellaneous suggestions. The attached PDF has those pages split from the main document. A lot of these suggestions seem to be of the nature of let someone else do them and of course, no one did.

Interesting pieces.
P30
As were the rapid building of railroads, canals, and turnpikes, the direct trade movement was a manifestation of the spirit of progress and enterprise which had seized upon East, West, and South alike. The movement came to a temporary close when general stagnation of business settled upon the country in 1839 and continued for several years thereafter.60​
Slavery will enter these conversations in the 1840s

P30-31

It is noteworthy that these direct trade conventions were concerned almost exclusively with economic conditions and means for improving them. The slavery question, which was being given considerable prominence about this time both in Congress and out by reason of the debates in Congress upon the exclusion of abolition literature from the mails and the treatment of abolition petitions in Congress, was rarely mentioned. A decade later no direct trade convention could be held, no plan for achieving commercial independence proposed, nor, for that matter, for erecting a cotton mill, building a railroad, opening a mine, or in any way promoting the material progress of the South, without consideration of, or due advertence to, its relation to the sectional struggle over slavery and the extension thereof. The argument would then without fail be advanced that the South must develop her strength and resources and achieve commercial and industrial independence in order to be prepared to defend her rights and honor in the Union, or, if worst came to worst, her independence out of it.​
 

Attachments


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#22
Economic Aspects Of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861 Russel
University of Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences, V11, No. 1-2, March-June, 1923
Economic aspects of southern sectionalism, 1840-1861Emphasis mine.
PP 31-32

So why did these conferences fail to do anything? Only three States were interested.

Several reasons may be advanced to explain the comparatively little interest displayed in the direct trade movement outside the three states of Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia. North Carolina had no seaport which was considered to have the requisite natural advantages for becoming a great Southern emporium. Most of her exports and imports were made by way of Virginia and South Carolina. Her population was conservative and comparatively devoid of state pride. Alabama and Louisiana had seaports in Mobile and New Orleans. Both states were young, and were growing rapidly in population. Their agriculture had been prosperous. Just before the financial panic of 1837, both had enjoyed several years of speculative prosperity, which had been fully shared by Mobile and New Orleans. The rapidly growing population of the two towns consisted largely of immigrants from the North of Europe; civic pride had not yet developed. The crash of 1837 was more severe in the Southwest than in the older Southern states, and the time was not auspicious for interest in any new movements.​

The importance of these conventions is that they were a manifestation of Southern discontent with their economic progress. The conventions tended to blame external agents and not Southern ones. Important to us is that the conventions brought southerners together to organize. The examples and participants will be used as the framework for later meetings. This is the beginnings of Southern identity as a section and eventually will lead to nationalism and secession.

The direct trade conventions accomplished no tangible results in the way of changing the course of Southern commerce. They afford evidence of discontent in the older states of the South with their material progress. They show that the belief was held, and no doubt they contributed to its spread, that commercial dependence was an evidence and, at the same time, a cause of "Southern decline." It is unnecessary to point out the common element in the view that the East was being enriched at the expense of the South because of the commercial vassalage of the latter and the quite prevalent belief that the operation of the Federal government had been unequal in its effects upon the material progress of the two sections. The direct trade conventions were another manifestation of the economic discontent of which evidence had been given during the nullification controversy.​
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,634
Location
Denver, CO
#23
Good series. :D It illustrates the problems. Baltimore gambled and won on a railroad connection to the Ohio River. Kentucky was drawn towards Louisville and Cincinnati. Missouri was dependent on western development, not on slavery. And New Orleans did not need any projects unrelated to its own port. Further, New Orleans and Louisiana were selling sugar mainly domestically. US growth was good for New Orleans, which is why there were pro slavery Whigs, prior to 1852.
The secessionists perceived the problems accurately, but many people considered southern in 1860 thought the solution they proposed was bad business.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#24
Economic Aspects Of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861 Russel
University of Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences, V11, No. 1-2, March-June, 1923
Economic aspects of southern sectionalism, 1840-1861Emphasis mine.
PP 33

CHAPTER II
MOVEMENT FOR THE DIVERSIFICATION
OF INDUSTRY, 1840-1852​

We get into a new chapter about industry. The South lagged the North, but compared favorably with the West.
Ref
1548826797959.png



The industrial revolution was not well underway in the South until almost a generation after the Civil War. While the antebellum South was not completely devoid of manufacturing and mining, the progress of those industries did not keep pace with the progress of agriculture. Southern industry was no more diversified in 1860 than in the earlier decades of the century. In this respect, the South presented a contrast to the North, where the industrial revolution was proceeding apace. Elsewhere in this thesis statistics are given which illustrate the comparative industrial progress of the sections.​
When agriculture is in economic stress, folks looked to industry for economic prosperity, interest waned with Agriculture picked up. Some of same actors and resentments of the direct import/export movement will be here.
During the 18405, Southern agriculture suffered a long and quite severe depression. During the same period cotton factories were being established at a more rapid rate than in the decades immediately preceding or following, and there was unusual progress in a few other lines of industry. The profits of manufacturers seem to have been large in comparison with those of planters. These conditions were chiefly responsible for the beginning of a more or less organized agitation" in favor of the establishment of manufactures. As the agitation developed, social and political arguments were adduced to support the economic. The arguments of the proponents of diversified industry did not go uncontroverted, however. The history and analysis of this discussion shed light upon the subject of economic discontent in the South before the Civil War. An essential similarity will be noted between some of the ideas at the basis of the agitation in behalf of manufactures and ideas which animated the direct trade movement described in the preceding chapter.​

During this time King Cotton has no clothes. There was an economic depression in Cotton. Industry investiment looked like a good thing.
The decade 1840-1850 brought the severest depression to agriculture, particularly to cotton culture, that the South experienced prior to the Civil War. During the preceding decade cotton prices had averaged 12.6 cents, and the industry was profitable. During the 18405, however, the average price was about 8 cents, and the cotton planters were greatly disheartened. The decade opened with cotton between 8 and 9 cents; the following year prices were slightly higher; but after 1841 prices steadily declined until middling upland sold for 5 cents in New York, January I, 1845, the lowest price ever paid for American cotton.1 A contributor to the Southern Quarterly Review wrote: "At no period of our history, from the year 1781, has a greater gloom been cast over the agricultural prospects of South Carolina, than at the present time."2 John C. Calhoun wrote his son-in-law: "Cotton still continues to fall. Its average price may be said to be about 4 cents per pound. The effect will be ruinous in the South, and will rouse the feeling of the whole section."3 For years, 1845 was remembered as the year of the great cotton crisis. The depression in agriculture was not confined to the cotton belt. Edmund Ruffin wrote from Virginia that prices were so low that agriculture could scarcely live. 4 Similar reports came from the Northwest, which still depended largely upon the cotton belt for a market for grain, pork and bacon, and livestock. The replies to Secretary of the Treasury Walker's circular (1845) requesting information upon which to base recommendations for a revision of the tariff, even after due allowance has been made for partisan bias, testify to the low state of agriculture in the South and West.5 A North Carolinian reported that for three years the profits of agriculture in his state had not been more than 3 percent, because of poor crops and low prices; horses and mules were imported from Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and western Virginia, and prices were one-third lower than they had been during the ten years preceding. Similar replies came from South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. Replies from Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri represented the profits of agriculture to be from 2 to 5 percent. Scarcely a response was optimistic about the outlook for agriculture.​


 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,634
Location
Denver, CO
#27
After 1857, they knew another over production crisis was in the offing. 1857-59 were good years, but by 1860 the cotton price was sliding downward again. Prosperity in New Orleans, and high mortality in Louisiana, AK and MS kept the demand for labor high temporarily.
The cotton economy expanded into Texas, which was good financially, though not so good in the US Senate. However expansion in Texas would begin to put downward pressure on the price of cotton.
The solution to the problem include increase in consumer demand in the paid labor states: increased productivity and wages, plus diversification, like Kentucky, in southern agriculture.
Does the paper clarify whether the debt load was already trapping the southern growers and the state bond issues into dependence on cotton?
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#28
Footnotes for #24
*C. F. M'Cay, "The Cotton Trade from 1825-1850," in Hunt's Merchants'​
Magazine, XXIII, 595-604; E. J. Donnell, History of Cotton, passim; M. B.​
Hammond, The Cotton Industry.​
VIII, 118 (July, 1845).​
'Calhoun to Thomas G. Clemson, Dec. 27, 1844, Calhoun Correspondence.​
*Ruffin to Hammond, May 17, 1845, /. H. Hammond Papers.​
'Exec. Docs., 29 Cong., I Sess., II, No. 5. A digest of the replies is in​
DeBow's Review, VI, 285-304.​
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#29
#24
Economic Aspects Of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861 Russel
University of Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences, V11, No. 1-2, March-June, 1923
Economic aspects of southern sectionalism, 1840-1861Emphasis mine.
PP 34-35

When crop failures and revolutions happen, food is imported and expensive. Demand for cotton products fall and the price of raw cotton falls. Grain growers prospered. When normalcy and peace return, then food is cheaper and the demand for cotton products increase.

The grain growing states were the first to experience a revival of prosperity. In 1846, the crop failure in Ireland and large deficiencies in Great Britain and in many parts of the Continent created an extraordinary demand for foodstuffs, which, together with the repeal of the English Corn Laws the same year, led to a remarkable increase in the exports of provisions from America in that and the following year.6 Other factors soon contributed to the revival, and Western agriculture entered upon a period of remarkable prosperity, unbroken until I85/.7 The revival of prosperity in the cotton industry was delayed for two or three years. The crop of 1846 was short, while the very conditions which caused a great increase in the prices of provisions prevented a considerable rise in the price. It was a saying in the South that dear bread in Europe meant cheap cotton. The crops of 1847 and 1848 were large, but breadstuffs continued high in Great Britain, Europe, in 1848, was in revolution, and cotton prices remained low. In the fall of 1849, however, cotton was high. Pacification of Europe, the revival of business in France, fine harvests and consequent cheap bread in England, the exhaustion of old stocks of raw cotton, and the belief that the new crop was short, caused the season to open with cotton at 9.5 to 11.5 cents at New Orleans. The average for the year was between n and 12 cents, and the price was maintained the following year. Though the price fell again in 1851-1852, it never again, before the war, fell to the level of the 18403. The average price for the decade 1850-1860 was 10.6 cents.8​

Older States like South Carolina were the first affected. Their lands were not as productive as the new lands. Diverfication was suggest to make South Carolina more independent.

As cotton prices fell the older cotton states were the first to find its culture unprofitable. Their lands could not compete on equal terms with the newer lands of the Southwest; they faced not only reduced prices and diminished returns but also loss of population through emigration. As early as 1841, J. H. Hammond, of South Carolina, in an address before the State Agricultural Society, showed a thorough grasp of the situation and proposed the remedies which were so fully discussed during the following years. 9 In the past, he said, the production of cotton could not keep pace with the demand, but now production promised to outrun consumption. Already the price had been forced down to a figure, 8 cents, at which cotton culture in South Carolina was profitable only on the richest soils. As remedies, Hammond proposed, first, improved methods of cultivation and diversification of agriculture. The planters must grow grain in sufficient quantities to supply the home demand; they must raise livestock and save the "immense sums which are annually drawn from us in exchange for mules, horses, cattle, hogs, sheep, and even poultry." Tobacco, indigo, sugar cane, and grapes might be introduced. But these remedies would not suffice; capital must be diverted from agriculture to other pursuits. The state had mineral resources which could be developed. "Already furnaces, forges, bloomeries, and rolling mills have been put in operation with every prospect of success at no distant day." He hoped coal would be found near the iron. Manufactures might be developed. The state possessed splendid resources of water-power. A beginning had already been made in cotton manufacture. Manufacturers should not be fostered by legislation at the expense of other industries; but where they grew up spontaneously they were undoubtedly a great blessing increasing population, providing a home market for agriculture, and saving large sums which otherwise would be sent out of the state. An industrial revolution was inevitable, and the change could be effected with less anxiety and loss if begun early and conducted judiciously. Hammond regretted the revolution in industry and in "manners and probably the entire structure of our social system" which the failure of the old system was likely to occasion, but saw no grounds for apprehension.​
Lots of things going on. Overproduction of cotton was discussed alone with limit production to force prices up, abandoning cotton for industry, politics rears its head, practical idea of producing something other than cotton and conspiracy theories.

In the following years the discussion increased in volume. The Charleston Patriot published, in 1842, a series of articles in which it was maintained that there was an overproduction of cotton and the people of South Carolina were urged to abandon in part the raising of that staple and turn their attention to manufacturing. 10 Georgia newspapers were recommending to their people to do the same.11 Professor M'Cay, of the University of Georgia, who for many years reviewed the cotton trade for Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, warned planters that production was outrunning consumption.12 In February, 1845, a convention of cotton planters was held in Montgomery, Alabama, to organize the planters of the cotton belt for the purpose of limiting production and forcing prices up. 13 The committee on agriculture of the Southwestern Convention, at Memphis, in 1845, complained that interest in agricultural improvement had given way to interest in internal improvements and politics, and that there was an overproduction of cotton. The committee recommended that planters grow less cotton and produce their own bread and meat; that scientific agriculture be encouraged by the establishment of agricultural societies and agricultural journals, and by state legislatures; and that capital be diverted from cotton planting to manufacturing.14 There was still talk, however, of possible competition from India if prices should rise,15 and the low prices were frequently attributed to speculation in cotton and to a combination of English factors with the Manchester buyers.16​
Footnotes
"Census of 1860, Agriculture, cxli.T
Other factors were the construction of railroads and canals connecting the
East and the Northwest and the development of the Eastern market.
*Donnell, History of Cotton, passim. Donnell's annual reviews of the cotton
trade were taken from the New Orleans Price Current. His statistics were from
the New York Shipping List. I have also used C. F. M'Cay's annual reviews of
the cotton trade, which appeared regularly for several years in the December
numbers of Hunt's Merchants' Magazine. See also DeBow's Review, XXVII, 106,
for cotton prices.
*F5Ie 20,219, / H. Hammond Papers. It is worthy of note that Hammond
had been a nullifier in 1832; as governor, in 1844, he was ready to lead his state
in separate resistance to the Tariff of 1842; and shortly after he wrote the famous
Letters on Southern Slavery, Addressed to Thomas Clarkson, Esquire.
"Nuts' Register, LXII, 71.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,634
Location
Denver, CO
#30
This series explains why the slave owners not directly involved in cotton production were not as enthusiastic about secession. Even the sugar district in Louisiana had doubts about being separated from the US market because they were selling to that market. The paper explains why there had been a pro slavery, pro business political party. It might also explain why hard core Jacksonian Democrats like Andrew Johnson had objections to secession. Sam Houston might be a similar figure in that era.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#31
Economic Aspects Of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861 Russel
University of Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences, V11, No. 1-2, March-June, 1923
Economic aspects of southern sectionalism, 1840-1861Emphasis mine.
PP 37-39

We have industrial diversification meets politics. The nullification crisis and Calhoun's political ambition.

It was in South Carolina that a serious attempt to arouse the public mind in favor of the diversification of industry was first made. The situation there was unusual. Not only was the depression in the cotton industry most severely felt, but the peculiar political bias of a large element threatened, in 1844 and 1845, to lead to another crisis similar to that of 1832 and 1833. When the tariff of 1842 was enacted, the South Carolina Legislature had been content to pass resolutions denouncing it and declaring that it would be endured as long as there was hope of repeal by the Democratic party after the next election.17 In the next Congress,1843-1845, the Democrats were in the majority in the House; but an attempt to revise the tariff, by the McKay bill, was defeated,May, 1844, by an alliance of twenty-seven Northern Democrats with the Whigs.18 This desertion by Northern Democrats and, shortly thereafter, the publication of the celebrated "Kane Letter," in which the Democratic candidate for the presidency cleverly "straddled" the tariff question,19 caused many in South Carolina to abandon hope of relief from the burdens of the tariff through the instrumentality of the Democratic party. Meanwhile,the blocking of the annexation of Texas by representatives from the non-slaveholding states had occasioned the cry of "Texas or disunion" in South Carolina and other Southern states. Under these circumstances a group of South Carolina politicians, led by R. B. Rhett, Armistead Burt, and I. E. Holmes, with the support of the Charleston Mercury and several other papers of like stripe,and the sympathy of Governor J. H. Hammond, George McDuffie,and Langdon Cheves, declared, in the summer of 1844, for state resistance to the Tariff of 1842 and attempted to lead the state to adopt that policy.20 It was with some difficulty that John C.Calhoun, F. H. Elmore, and other leaders checked the "Bluffton movement," as it was termed, and caused saner counsels to prevail.21 Governor Hammond, indeed, in his message to the Legislature, November 26, 1844, arraigned the tariff, expressed the opinion that no relief could be expected from the incoming Polk administration, and urged the Legislature to take such measures as would at an early day bring all the state's "moral, constitutional, and, if necessary, physical resources, indirect array against a policy which has never been checked but by her interposition."22 But the Legislature tabled all resolutions for resistance, and by a large majority voted confidence in the Democratic party. This action was taken just after the notorious Twenty-first Rule of the House, prohibiting the receiving of abolition petitions, had been defeated at Washington.23 The leaders of the Bluffton movement credited their defeat to the presidential aspirations of John C. Calhoun, and complained very bitterly of what they termed his desertion.24​
The issue of the tariffs was more than paying taxes, it was the idea that England could not by as much cotton because England was [aying tariffs. Something that gets forgotten in the it was Tariffs debate.
The resistance faction, as well as many anti-tariff men who still placed reliance in the Democratic party, attributed the crisis in the cotton industry to the tariff. They thought the view that there was an overproduction of cotton unworthy of consideration.25 England, they said, could not consume cotton because the Tariff of 1842 had deprived her of the American market for manfactured goods. I. E. Holmes professed to believe that the operation of the tariff would in a few years render cotton planting entirely profitless, and that no other industry could be found to which labor could profitably be turned.26 Rhett and McDuffie warned tariff men in Congress that South Carolina might be"driven" to manufacture for herself.27 Calhoun wrote: "The pressure of the Tariff begins to be felt, and understood, which will lead to its overthrow, either through Congress or the separate action of the South."28​


^Journal of the Proceedings of the Southwestern Convention began and held
at the city of Memphis on the 12th of November, 1845, pp. 41-55.
"Donnell. History of Cotton, 276.
"New Orleans Bee, Mar. 2, 1844; Niles' Register, LXVI, 38.
"Ibid., LXIII, 232-235, 344-345.
"Cong. Globe, 28 Cong., i Sess., 622.
"National Intelligencer, July 25, 1844.
""I. E. Holmes to Hammond, July 23, 1844, /. H. Hammond Papers; Ham-
mond to Capt. R. J. Colcock, Sept. 12, 1844 (asking for the plans of the Citadel);
George McDuffie to Hammond, Sept. 22, 1844; General James Hamilton to Ham-
mond, Oct. 4, 1844; R. B. Rhett to Hunter, August 30, 1844, Correspondence of
R. M. T. Hunter; Charleston Mercury, Aug. 8, 1844, an account of the dinner
given to R. B. Rhett at Bluffton, July 31, 1844, where the movement was
launched and whence it got its name; ibid., Aug. 9, editorial, "Our Position and
Our Pledges" (by A. J. Stuart, senior editor); Niles' Register, LXVI, 369, quot-
ing letter from I. E. Holmes to the Charleston Mercury; ibid., LXVII, 49, quot-
ing letter from Judge Langdon Cheves to the Charleston Mercury. Cf. Stephen-
son, Texas and the Mexican War, ch. IX.
M F. H. Elmore to Calhoun, Aug. 26, 1844, Calhoun Correspondence. "The
excitement in a portion of Carolina has gradually subsided, and will give no
further trouble. I had to act with great delicacy, but at the same time firmness
in relation to it." Calhoun to Francis Wharton, Sept. 17, 1844, Calhoun Corre-
spondence. Cf. James A. Seddon to Hunter, Aug. 19, 22, 1844, Correspondence
of R. M. T. Hunter; Niles' Register, LXVI, 434, account of the big Charleston
meeting of Aug. 19, 1844.
"NileS Register, LXVII, 227 ff.
Hammond to McDuffie, Dec. 27, 1844, /. H. Hammond Papers; F. W.
Pickens to Calhoun, Dec. 28, 1844, Calhoun Correspondence; Niles' Register,
LXVIII, 347 (Aug. 16, 1845), quoting from the Charleston Mercury a letter
from ''Bluffton Politician," dated on the anniversary of the Bluffton dinner;
Cong. Globe, 28 Cong. 2 Sess., 7.
"Hammond to McDuffie, Dec. 27, 1844, /. H. Hammond Papers.
"Letter of Judge John P. King, Charleston Mercury, Nov. 5, 1844.
"Niles' Register, LXVI, 369, quoting the Charleston Mercury; National In-
telligencer, Aug. 6, 1844.
"Cong. Globe, 28 Cong., I Sess., 612; Appx. 108, 658; Hunt's Merchants'
Magazine, X, 406.
"Calhoun to Thomas G. Clemson, Dec. 27, 1844, Calhoun Correspondence.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#34
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,746
#35
Nice, but please stick to the topic. We are not discussing 1860 exports, secession or the evil Lincoln.
Exports are absolutely germaine to the thread topic, "Economics of Southern Sectionalism..."

I've not said a word about the "Evil Lincoln."
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#36
Exports are absolutely germaine to the thread topic, "Economics of Southern Sectionalism..."

I've not said a word about the "Evil Lincoln."
We are discussing how Southern Sectionalism started and we are in the 1840s, not the 1860s. We are not discussing the value of cotton exports. You have made this argument in the thread Sixty Percent of 1860 U.S. Export Income From Cotton and I have started a new thread for you to discuss. 1860 exports and motivation for the Union desire for Union. I will appreciate your cooperation.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,746
#37
We are discussing how Southern Sectionalism started and we are in the 1840s, not the 1860s. We are not discussing the value of cotton exports. You have made this argument in the thread Sixty Percent of 1860 U.S. Export Income From Cotton and I have started a new thread for you to discuss. 1860 exports and motivation for the Union desire for Union. I will appreciate your cooperation.
Your thread title is, "Economic Aspects Of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861 Russel."

I don't mean to be disruptive of the thread, but what in the heck is a guy supposed to say? We agree with every premise you've posted, ergo, there is no debate?

I guess I give up. Have your fun.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#38
Your thread title is, "Economic Aspects Of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861 Russel."

I don't mean to be disruptive of the thread, but what in the heck is a guy supposed to say? We agree with every premise you've posted, ergo, there is no debate?

I guess I give up. Have your fun.
Perhaps this is not a debate thread, but to expand knowledge of how the South came to view itself as a nation.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#39
Economic Aspects Of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861 Russel
University of Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences, V11, No. 1-2, March-June, 1923
Economic aspects of southern sectionalism, 1840-1861Emphasis mine.

There were differences in how leaders approached the problem. Some wanted diversification some did not.
Against these convictions, the Whigs and many Democrats took issue. The Charleston Courier declared without equivocation for a moderate tariff.29 A pamphleteer, replying to a letter of Judge Langdon Cheves, declared that free trade would not save the state. The ruin of the state was due to the lack of stimulus which manufactures would give to agriculture and commerce; and it was the hostility of politicians which prevented manufacturers from being established.30 R. W. Roper, a rich planter, generally aligned in politics with the Hammond or anti-machine faction of the Democratic party, came out for the policy of encouraging domestic manufactures as an amelioration of the tariff. In an address before the State Agricultural Society, in November, 1844, he traced the depression in the cotton industry to overproduction, and declared for diversified agriculture and the encouragement of manufactures and commerce, not only as a remedy for economic ills but also as a means of becoming independent of the North. "As long," he said, "as we are tributaries, dependent on foreign labor and skill for food, clothing, and countless necessaries of life, we are in thraldom." 31 Roper's address was vigorously attacked in a series of articles in the Charleston Mercury under the caption, "Shall we continue to plant and increase the overgrowth of cotton? Or shall we become manufacturers of cotton stuffs?" In the opinion of the author of these articles, there was no overproduction of cotton; but the ills of the South came from over taxation. South Carolina, he said, could not develop diversified industry with her system of labor, and it was not desirable that she should.32
Quoted in the National Intelligencer, Aug. 6, 1844.
A Reply to the Letter of the Hon. Langdon Cheves. By a Southerner.
Roper to Hammond, Oct. 28, 1844, /. H. Hammond Papers; Niles' Register, LXVIII, 103, 120. The address was reviewed in the So. Quar. Rev., VIII, 118-148 (July, 1845).
"Niles' Register, LXVIII, 54, 103, 120.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#40
Economic Aspects Of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861 Russel
University of Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences, V11, No. 1-2, March-June, 1923
Economic aspects of southern sectionalism, 1840-1861Emphasis mine. PP 40-42

Here we see another advocate for diversification.

Late in the year 1844, there appeared a series of articles headed Essays on Domestic Industry; or an Inquiry into the Expediency of Establishing Cotton Manufactures in South Carolina, by William Gregg, of South Carolina. The articles first appeared in the Charleston Courier. Upon request they were reprinted in pamphlet form. They attracted wide attention throughout the South, being republished in nearly all the newspapers of Georgia, Alabama, and other states.33 They constituted the most elaborate argument for the diversification of Southern industry that appeared before the Civil War. Already a cotton manufacturer, Gregg later increased his interests. He was known until after the Civil War as the most successful cotton manufacturer in the Southern states and the ablest advocate of the policy of develop- ing manufactures in that section. 3*​
Gregg suggests that it was not tariffs, but lack of opportunity that depressed agriculture. Note his opinion of the source of labor and that it changed. He suggested stock companies rather than private ownership to mitigate risk. He chose his words as not to offend the status quo.
Gregg described the depressed condition of agriculture in the state and the tendency of capital and enterprise to migrate to more fertile lands. The causes lay not in the tariff but in lack of energy on the part of the people, want of diversified agriculture, and dependence upon the North for numerous articles of manufacture which might be produced at home. He called attention to the rapid progress then being made in cotton manufacturing in the neighboring states of Georgia and North Carolina and advised the people of South Carolina to emulate the example. He showed that the requisite capital was available. As for a labor supply, slaves could be used, and in many respects would be preferable to whites; but he did not overlook the possibility of employing the thousands of poor whites, who as a class were an unproductive element in society. Later he became an earnest advocate of the employment of this class both on economic and philanthropic grounds. Gregg understood the difficulties which infant industries would have to meet. He, therefore, advised the establishment of factories by joint stock companies rather than by individuals, and confinement for several years to the manufacture of only coarse goods, thus taking fullest advantage of the ability of Southern mills to command cheaper raw materials than Northern mills. It seemed politic not to antagonize unduly the anti-protectionist sentiment of South Carolina: Gregg assured his readers that no laws would be asked for the protection of the enterprises in which it was proposed to embark. He did not believe that manufacturers would ever predominate over agriculture in the state; and those who advocated diversification did not wish such a result, he said.​

"DeBow's Review, X, 349. The essays are, in a somewhat abridged form,in DeBow's Review, VIII, 134-46; also in the appendix of D. A. Tompkins, Cotton Mill, Commercial Features, A Text-Book for the Use of Textile Schools, etc. (Charlotte, N. C, 1879).
**DeBow's Review, X, 348-52, a short sketch of Gregg's career.
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top